(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. We will start with an immediate six-minute limit.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I congratulate the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this debate. I am conscious that transport is devolved, but what I have already heard in the debate tells me that there are a lot of similar themes.
My constituency of North East Fife is quite a rural one, and in recent weeks I have spent a couple of days travelling around it on the bus with those who use wheelchairs to understand better the challenges they face. One reason why they use public transport is that other options are limited. There is a distinct lack of accessible taxis in North East Fife and beyond—that is a licensing and economic issue—and we find that a lot of the taxis are used for school contracts, which means that members of the public wanting to use them cannot access them. That is a real challenge.
As the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth pointed out, getting to the bus stop in the first place is a challenge, because of the pavements, dropped kerbs and street furniture. When I was out with a constituent the other week, we actually had to move road signs from the interminable roadworks in Guardbridge for her to get to the bus stop in the first instance. There is also the fact that, in most cases, there is space on the bus for only one wheelchair, so if a wheelchair user is friends with somebody else who uses a wheelchair, they cannot go to things together. There is already a real impact on people’s lives in that regard.
There are different types of buses, and we experienced them all during our days out in North East Fife. For some services, people have to give two hours’ notice that they have a wheelchair and want to use the bus, so that the provider can ensure that it provides a bus they can use. I just find it bizarre that we are in such a situation. Also, in some cases, a wheelchair user can have people leaning across them to pay their fare, which is such an invasion of their privacy.
Another challenge in a rural constituency where we have had ongoing changes and reductions in bus services is that multiple buses are sometimes required to get between population centres. I have a constituent who lives in Guardbridge and works in Cupar, but now has to go to St Andrews and then to Cupar to get to her place of employment. That does not feel like a real choice for wheelchair users.
Finally—I am sure we are all aware of this through our casework—for wheelchair users, in particular, to use public transport, the access allowing them to get on to the bus needs to work. I was with a constituent last week when the ramp did not work. The bus was therefore put out of order, everybody on the bus had to get off, and nobody who was looking to get on the bus after my constituent could get on. That was highly embarrassing for that individual, because she felt responsible for inconveniencing the other passengers, and it is simply not good enough.
I want to talk about Access for All, which is reserved—the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth also highlighted it. Leuchars is the nearest railway station to St Andrews, which is hopefully known to all Members, because I have mentioned it here in the Chamber a lot; if they like golf, they will know St Andrews well. There is no lift at the station, and we have been trying to get funding for a new bridge for six years—my Scottish Liberal Democrat colleagues on Fife council have been trying for even longer. The gradient of the ramp up to the bridge is 1:12, or just over 8%. For a ramp of over 10 metres, the British Standards Institution recommends a gradient of no more than 1:20, or 5%.
That is simply not the case at Leuchars, where the ramp is not short; it is many metres. It is a real challenge for those using wheelchairs and prams, and the first thing that visitors to St Andrews have to do, rather than being able to access a lift, is humph their cases up the ramp and down again. It is completely unfair on local people, because they are often excluded from using public transport, and they tell me that they do not use the train as a result. Last year, ScotRail hosted a roundtable on the future of train services in Fife, and it listed Leuchars as being lower priority. I cannot get my head around that classification and, accordingly, I am waiting for a meeting.
Access for All is an example of where devolved and reserved do not work together very well. Much like the infamous Spiderman meme, the answers to my queries five years ago involved the UK Government pointing to the Scottish Government, who pointed right back at them. I know I am not the only Member of this House to be extremely frustrated by the scheme effectively slowing to a halt.
In a written statement in January, the Government downgraded, and indeed halted, some proposed work on projects under Access for All. I would be interested in the Minister’s explanation of how that squares with reporting by Disability Rights UK in 2024 that Access for All had actually been underspending prior to that. The statement went on to say that there might be some funding available in the next spending review, but that means we are not expecting any announcements for another three years, at which point we will be heading into a general election. Are we seriously saying that there will be no Access for All spending rounds in the whole remainder of this Parliament?
Finally—this is less about funding, but directly relevant to what our constituents can expect—I would like to hear whether the Government will be publishing any outcomes from the review of design standards for accessible railway stations. Using public transport should not be a luxury; it is something we should be trying to encourage our constituents to do at every opportunity. Putting disability considerations to one side, if we are talking about economic inactivity and how we enable access for people to get to work, and indeed for those with disabilities into work, this should be an absolute priority for our public services.
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?
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.
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—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. After the next speaker, there will be a five-minute time limit.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate, which is linked, of course, to the Transport Committee’s report on disabled people’s access to public transport.
I am a passionate advocate for public transport. Over my years of campaigning, I have pushed for more buses and trains, in order to make people’s lives easier and more affordable; and I have pushed to get more people riding them, so that we can take action on climate change and boost our local economy. Increasing ridership, though, has to mean increasing it among all groups. Our Committee found that too many people face accessibility barriers, meaning that they either have a far worse experience when using public transport or simply cannot use it at all.
Disabled people use public transport 28% less than people without disabilities; public transport is a more affordable mode of travel than private car or taxi, so poor accessibility is another financial burden placed on a group who already have significant premiums due to their disabilities. In many rural areas like North Norfolk and North East Fife, the taxi service can be patchy at best, due to the nature of rurality. If a disabled person cannot or does not drive and cannot access a taxi, they will be isolated from employment opportunities, and cannot visit family and friends as easily as others. A two-tier system in rural North Norfolk is unacceptable; that is why it is so important for the Government and local councils to take steps to deliver greater accessibility in the transport system.
For many dealing with accessibility barriers in their area, the fight to get them removed can be long and drawn out. I ask Members to cast their mind back to the 2019 general election. I was a candidate in Mid Norfolk, and visited Wymondham station with a group of local campaigners to see the issue that they face with the station having no southbound step-free access. Since then, the campaigners have seen four Prime Ministers come and go, as well as five Transport Secretaries, ten junior Transport Ministers and seven Norwich City managers, and there is still no step-free access. I am very glad that. following years of campaigning from local Liberal Democrat councillors like Suzanne Nuri-Nixon—now well supported, I am assured by Suzanne and others, by my constituency colleague, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough)—the Government have recently announced that they will be bringing forward plans for these improvements by the autumn. It will, however, have been a long seven years since I got involved, and even longer for many local residents, who have been without equitable access to their town’s railway station. In a country that demands equality for our citizens, making disabled people feel like they are second-class, and forcing them to wait so long for improvements, really is shameful.
I am glad that much of North Norfolk’s rail infrastructure is step-free and accessible, but the same cannot be said of our rural bus network. In rural areas, many bus stops are little more than a sign placed on a verge; in other cases, there is simply a local understanding that the bus might stop in a certain place. That might be good enough for some, but for those with access needs, it is far from a usable service. People need higher-quality, accessible bus infrastructure to allow them to utilise public transport. With that in mind, I hope that the Government might learn lessons from the “Buses connecting communities” report about new models for rural public. Transport hubs that create quality bus infrastructure that is linked into a strong network across rural areas can benefit all of us in many ways. For disabled people and those with access needs, it can give them the reassurance that they can be picked up and dropped off from an accessible stop.
When it comes to many of the reforms to public transport that we need, a more holistic view, in which we assess the issues that we face in the round, can deliver for groups across society. After all, better transport accessibility does not just benefit the people for whom it is essential; it makes choosing public transport easier and more convenient for everyone. The assessment that needs to be made of the experiences of disabled transport users, for instance, could flush out opportunities to improve the user experience for all current and would-be public transport patrons.
Whether it is clearer signage or better bus shelters, ramps or real-time information, it is in all our interests for the barriers to accessibility in public transport to be reduced and removed. I remain hopeful that the Government will take up what our Committee has found, and I know that Members from across the House look forward to working with them to make the recommendations a reality.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. With a five-minute time limit, I call Elsie Blundell.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I thank the chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for her leadership on this crucial issue, and for securing this debate on the important matter of transport accessibility for disabled people. Since being elected to this place, I have reiterated that transport is one of the most crucial drivers of opportunity. Reliable, suitable and adaptable public transport for all should be a right, not a privilege.
I will begin by touching on the precarious landscape facing disabled users of public transport. In a report published by Transport for All, 56% of disabled people reported being
“unhappy or extremely unhappy making journeys”.
The Transport Committee’s report reinforced this; more than a third of disabled respondents asserted that they avoided making journeys more than once a week because they believed it would be too complicated. When things go wrong on journeys, it can feel as though disabled passengers and transport users stand entirely alone, without recourse or representation, and they are left with the burden of taking action against operators and transport authorities that fail in their duties.
Looking at the rail network, we have all been on a train where it is apparent that there is no available space for wheelchair users in any of the carriages, and some operators are doing absolutely nothing to make the necessary improvements. We have also seen the appalling media reports of disabled passengers being left to alight from carriages with no support whatsoever. We need to seize every legislative opportunity to improve this dire landscape.
Indeed, one of the crucial elements of the Railways Bill is the introduction of a passengers’ council. However, as the Bill stands after Committee, clause 36, on the general duties of the council, stipulates only that the council
“must have particular regard to the interests and needs”
of disabled passengers. The Bill needs to go further by enshrining the voices of disabled passengers on the council, and by giving the council a role as an enforcer, not just an adviser. This passenger watchdog will have a tangible impact on the experiences of disabled passengers only if we codify in legislation what we need to achieve. The Railways Bill represents a significant moment of reform for the rail system, and we must not miss the opportunity to embed strong, enforceable, long-term protections for disabled passengers. To achieve this, duties should be explicit and binding. I hope that the Minister can speak to this issue specifically when concluding the debate.
As the Committee’s report highlights, and as my hon. Friend the Transport Committee Chair mentioned, pavement parking is another widespread problem, especially for people with mobility or visual restrictions. Constituents rightly tell me that this is an issue of safety. When people park their car in a way that leaves no space on the pavement, there is no way that the wellbeing of those who use wheelchairs, walking frames, guide dogs or canes can be assured. This selfish behaviour makes things difficult for disabled individuals and people pushing buggies alike.
I understand that the Government, rather than imposing a blanket ban on pavement parking, as there is in London, first intend to introduce secondary legislation to ensure that local authorities can act against serious cases of obstruction caused by pavement parking. How does the Minister envisage this legislation being meaningfully enforced by local authorities? Will additional funding be provided to enable local authorities to act? I would welcome answers to those points from the Minister.
I reiterate my thanks to the Chair of the Transport Committee, our Clerks and my colleagues for their work in producing this crucial report, and for their advocacy on this important issue. I wholly welcome the steps that are being taken to advance the rights and protections of disabled passengers, which include the Law Commission’s review of transport accessibility law—a direct result of one of our Committee’s recommendations —the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s publication of guiding principles for accessible transport, and an equalities impact assessment for the Railways Bill, which is something else the Committee has called for.
That being said, I conclude by saying that however significant these reviews, principles and assessments are, we must ultimately ensure that they lead to effective enforcement, accountability and the empowerment of regulators to challenge the operational orthodoxy that has left disabled passengers denied the access that they deserve. With landmark changes coming to national and regional transport policy in the coming years, we must finally ensure that everyone is part of the journey, and that, in legislation and in practice, no one is left behind.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this important debate. Many of my constituents have raised the challenges faced by disabled people in accessing tube services. Last May, I conducted a survey on the Metropolitan line, and only 6% of respondents thought that Transport for London was doing enough to improve reliability and accessibility. It is evident that people who rely on that essential service feel let down, which is simply not good enough.
I have written to TfL and the Mayor of London regarding this issue. While I have been informed of the mayor’s target of making 50% of tube stations step-free by 2030, none of the stations for which works are proposed are in my constituency, so understandably residents of South West Hertfordshire feel left behind. TfL has stated that, through the step-free access programme, it aims to promote a more accessible and inclusive transport network, but that will not happen if the benefits are not extended to all service users. Take the case of one of my constituents in Rickmansworth, who uses a wheelchair due to a spinal cord injury that he sustained just over a year ago. Despite having used Rickmansworth station for the last 17 years as a local resident, he is now unable to do so, as stairs offer the only route out of the station. Consequently, he can no longer travel into London as frequently as he did. That places significant limitations on his independence—an issue that could be fixed with the simple installation of an exit ramp.
The 2021 census shows that 30% of Rickmansworth residents are retired, compared to the national average of 21.7%. Areas with an ageing population, like Rickmansworth, would particularly benefit from step-free access. Many other constituencies are also impacted by this especially problematic issue. Over two thirds of the London underground network is still without step-free access, which prevents thousands of disabled people from accessing a vital transport network.
Another hurdle restricting accessibility to transport services in my constituency, which I have repeatedly highlighted in the Chamber, is the lack of concessions available to residents of South West Hertfordshire. TfL also stated that through concessions, it aims to promote a more accessible and inclusive transport network. Again, that is not possible if concessions are not extended to people who frequently use those services. Those concessions include Oyster cards for students under 18, the 60-plus Oyster card, and discounts available for veterans and disabled users of TfL services. Disabled people who live inside the Greater London boundary are eligible for a freedom pass, which enables use of TfL services free of charge, but that is not extended to my constituents.
An overwhelming 96% of respondents to my Met line survey agreed that residents in my constituency should have the same concession fares as Londoners. That highlights a failure to create an inclusive and accessible transport system for everyone. How is it fair that, despite relying on these essential services to commute every day, my constituents are not eligible for the same concessionary fares as some who live only hundreds of metres away?
Inaccessibility of transport services is not simply about not being able to get to the tube; hon. Members have spoken about the bus system, the state of pavements, pavement parking and street furniture. Inaccessibility of transport services means that disabled people are restricted in their independence and ability to participate in life. That is important. The Department for Transport must equip transport authorities to increase accessibility for everyone.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing the debate. I place on record that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, and the parent of a child who has a Motability vehicle, which I drive on her behalf, with a blue badge. I will refer to those issues.
I welcome the Transport Committee’s report and the Government’s response. There are some access issues that I will talk about from first-hand experience. I was the cabinet member for transport in my borough of Bexley 20 years ago, and was latterly on the board of London Travelwatch, so I have had a long interest in these issues, but it was only when I became the parent of somebody who has a complex set of disabilities—a wheelchair user who needs constant care and support—that I understood some of the complexities of travel.
I turn first to toilets. The Select Committee report and the Government’s response look at changing places. There has been a sea change in the availability of changing places toilets, both in motorway service stations and at railway stations, in the last 10 years or so, which is warmly welcomed. If I am driving on the motorway, we have to plan for that. I also hope to see one more at Charing Cross in the very near future. I accept that this is a cross-departmental responsibility, but there is a great deal more to do. We need to push for more funding for changing places.
We have seen the outcome of the report by the aviation accessibility task and finish group—my private Member’s Bill on this is sitting in a long queue—whose first anniversary will be this summer. On that first anniversary, I would welcome the Government bringing forward findings on how we may move forward, and setting out whether issues remain that will require legislation. At the moment, the Civil Aviation Authority probably does not have enough powers, in particular with regard to the compensation level, which I think is around £1,500. Many people’s wheelchairs are worth far more than that, and if they are damaged, they cannot receive the compensation required to replace them.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, I welcome the consideration of the inclusive transport strategy; I would like to see the Government develop that. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) said about floating bus stops and experiences on the bus. In my constituency, a passenger banged their shopping trolley against my leg for an entire journey because she was so angry that my daughter’s wheelchair had taken up the space she wanted to use for her shopping trolley. There remains a great deal to do on education.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman speaks with a great deal of experience. Marilyn is a blind lady in my constituency who has faced the issues of floating bus stops. During the design and implementation processes, her voice really was not listened to, and the views of blind people were not incorporated into the process. What more could be done to educate, and to ensure that those people are at the table when these processes are happening?
Daniel Francis
I welcome the hon. Member’s comments. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, I will continue to press the Government. I could take hon. Members to bus stops close to here that I think are a risk for blind passengers as well as for wheelchair passengers. We need to do more on this.
I will not object to the measures on Motability in the Finance Bill, but there is ignorance in this place from some Members—many are not here today—on Motability, the issues around the scheme and how it continues to need to be supported, particularly for wheelchair users. On regulation and enforcement, there is training and a lot of great practice; I see some great practice of support for disabled people on my own Southeastern passenger service, but that needs to be expanded.
I have two horror stories involving toilets at central London stations, where staff refused access to the changing places toilet, telling me my daughter could not use it—she needs a changing bench—and needed to go into the standard disabled toilet. That is the level of training still required.
I completely support Great British Railways, but there will be issues in areas where it shares services with TfL. For example, Abbey Wood is very close to my constituency—TfL will manage that station even though both services operate from it. Denmark Hill will be a GBR station. We will have to see how those two services integrate.
I welcome the consultation on micromobility. The issue remains whereby, if someone’s wheelchair is over 200 kg, they have to ride it in the road, as they are not allowed on the pavement. That is hugely discriminatory. It means that a child cannot use their wheelchair if it is over 200kg. It means that if someone who has lost their driving licence for medical reasons, such as epilepsy, cannot use their wheelchair. I hope that we can resolve such issues following the consultation. I have also been involved in complaints processes through TravelWatch, and I hope the watchdog has the necessary powers to deal with the problems. We need to look again, as I have said, at the Civil Aviation Authority.
In my mind, TfL leads the way on accessibility information. The TfL Go app shows the availability of level access, station accessibility, and where a lift may be out of order. GBR needs to follow that lead. We need a national transport accessibility app shows that information, as well as showing the locations of disabled toilets and changing places toilets. Of all the places that I have travelled to with my daughter across Europe, TfL leads the way in supplying that information, and I hope that can be considered as we go forward.
My final point is on ticketing. Clearly, more needs to be done in this area. Problems remain with the level of information that is available for blind passengers and wheelchair users. It is a great scheme, but more needs to be done to highlight those issues.
I welcome this debate and look forward to the Minister’s comments later.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I thank the Select Committtee Chair sincerely for the “Access denied” report, which painted a bleak picture of legislative loopholes and lacklustre political will from consecutive Governments when it comes to addressing the huge list of barriers faced by disabled people when accessing public transport.
When it comes to step-free access on the railways—on which my speech will focus—it is not just the barriers faced by disabled people that we need to talk about; these barriers also apply to older people, people travelling with children, people with luggage and work equipment, and many other travellers too. We must never ever forget that improving and enabling access for disabled people—or fixing the environment, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) called it—actually fixes access for all in an inclusive, socially just way.
Sixteen years on from the Equality Act 2010 coming into force, one issue repeatedly coming up in my Brighton Pavilion constituency remains the long-term problem of step-free station access. Multiple community train stations in Brighton, including Moulsecoomb and London Road, have compromised access. The problem is most keenly felt at Preston Park station, which is used by a very large number of passengers. It is a station rooted in the heart of the community, which sees thousands of people use it to access direct trains to London, Gatwick, Bedford and Cambridge, as well as west along the coast towards Littlehampton.
For visitors travelling to fabulous events hosted at the nearby park—like the Foodies festival in May and the concert due to be held in July by adopted local rock god Nick Cave, and the Bad Seeds—Preston Park station should be the obvious get-off point, yet for decades it has been overlooked when it comes to funding bids to address accessibility issues. It is a category C station with no step-free access and is simply inaccessible currently. There is no lift, with stairs to every platform, and, as the railway is a barrier for travel across the constituency, this lack also impedes active travel more generally.
Without step-free access, my local residents are required to travel 2 miles to Brighton mainline station to board trains there, and this can be in addition to calling ahead to pre-book the use of a ramp at that station. This is all an unreasonable adjustment. Yet, despite all these problems and the potential benefits of fixing them, in May 2024, in the dying days of the last Government, Preston Park station did not make the 50-station shortlist for Access for All funding.
In January, when making an announcement to cull the Conservatives’ 50 station list to eight definites and 19 maybes, Lord Hendy in the other place accused the previous Government of “raising significant stakeholder expectations” about the station accessibility funding, and said:
“This Government is committed to a rigorous approach and only making commitments we believe are affordable and would represent value for money to passengers and taxpayers.”
This example, which is so frustrating for my constituents, shows that positive aspirations for the railways are not enough on their own; they need to be backed up with concrete funding and real commitment.
Step-free access is not a convenient thing to have in an ideal world. Step-free access to platforms is a necessity and an equalities issues. It enables participation in work, education, healthcare and social life. I am not filled with confidence that the Government are committed to the funding needed, or the urgency with which it is needed, but there are huge opportunities for the Government to reform their approach through Great British Railways—I really hope to hear something from the Minister on this later.
What has been communicated to date by Ministers does fall short. They must take steps to commit to the funding and resource needed to rapidly remove barriers, and end the discrimination that disabled people face when trying to navigate public transport networks.
Finally, I invite the Minister to visit Preston Park station to meet my dedicated local campaigners, and to see the multiple issues faced not just by disabled passengers and those with access needs, but by the general public as well. I invite him to see these problems at first hand.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing this debate and for her fantastic leadership of the Transport Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) is no longer in her seat, but I commend her on her campaign on pavement parking, which is the bane of many of my constituents’ lives. I am pleased that the Government are giving powers to Bradford council and other councils across the country to look at introducing selective pavement parking bans.
I have dedicated much of my career to campaigning to improve things for disabled people and older people in particular. Part of my work at the Centre for Ageing Better was on age-friendly communities, and we saw accessible transport as a key part of an age-friendly community. Transport is an essential part of everyday life; it allows us to get to vital appointments and to work, and to see friends and family. It is a bridge that connects us to different aspects of our lives and keeps us from feeling isolated. Yet as we have heard in this debate, and as we know from our own experiences and those of our constituents, for many with disabilities public transport is not a bridge but a barrier.
In my constituency, the lack of accessibility as Menston station has been a persistent issue. However, thanks to the combined efforts of a very doughty councillor—Chris Steele—West Yorkshire combined authority, Network Rail and funding from the Department for Transport, we have just completed a £7.8 million modernisation programme. I was delighted to cut the ribbon and ride in the new lifts just last month. I pay tribute to Chris Steele in particular for his ongoing campaign, because it is all very well having an accessible station, but at the moment the actual train is not accessible and he is campaigning to get what is called a Harrington hump. If colleagues have not heard of a Harrington hump, I suggest they look it up, but it basically makes a section of the platform raised so that disabled people can access the train without the need for a ramp. The progress at Menston station is just one example. I would be keen to hear from the Minister about plans to ensure that councils and combined authorities have the support they need further to increase accessibility at stations.
It is vital that the Government take steps to ensure that buses, too, are accessible. I am really proud of what the Government are doing to make it easier for local authorities and mayors to bring buses back into public ownership, and I was delighted to hear—as I am sure you were, Madam Deputy Speaker—that Bradford has just been awarded over £14 million to help with the roll-out of electric buses across our district. Special thanks go to council leader Susan Hinchcliffe, who has lobbied hard on this particular issue. These buses must be designed with accessibility in mind. That means visual and audio displays, a step that drops to the kerb and, as we have heard about in the debate, drivers receiving the necessary training and awareness so that they know how to accommodate disabled passengers. I would like reassurance from the Minister that any new transport infrastructure, including buses, will meet high design standards for accessibility.
Finally, I want to touch on affordability. Not only must disabled people be able to physically access transport; they must be able to afford it. Tracy Brabin, our fantastic Mayor of West Yorkshire, only a couple of weeks ago announced that once the Weaver Network—the franchised bus network—rolls out across West Yorkshire, disabled people will be entitled to use their bus pass before 9.30 am. This will help disabled workers get to work. I urge other places to look at what we are doing in West Yorkshire, and I encourage the Minister to work with colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions to support people who are not in education, employment or training, and others who may face additional barriers to getting into work. We need to make sure that public transport is accessible to all citizens.
The Government are doing lots of really positive things, but I am keen to make sure that they take further action to improve the lives of disabled people. I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is more to be done if we are to guarantee access to public transport, which most of us take for granted, as a right for all.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I am always pleased to speak in debates about transport. I want to paint a picture for the Minister of Leighton Buzzard station—he is, of course, welcome to visit too. There are two lifts, which is fantastic, and I do not knock those lifts at all, because I know that many people want them. At the moment, a person can walk in from the ticket entrance side, get into one of the lifts, go up, go across and go down again, but then they hit a slight problem. They then have to walk all the way along the platform, passed the locked gate, whereupon there are a few steps to go up and a few steps to go down to get out of the station on to the other side, where many people want to go—it is a place called Linslade. As I said, there is a locked gate on that route. Were that gate to be opened, they would have entirely step-free access to get to the outside world.
I know that it is not that simple, because I have had a lot of conversations with people about it—there is some greenery in the way, some cables and there are issues with public rights of way—but it really does not seem impossible. My last discussions were with Network Rail and it said that it was talking to London Northwestern. Given that they are both now in public hands, it does not seem that there are many people to pass the buck between. Will the Minister suggest how we can make best progress on that local issue?
Moving on, I will talk briefly about a couple of points in the Transport Committee’s “Access denied” report. The first is the recommendation in paragraph 105 on a unified complaints system. I am in favour of unification and standardisation, and I think that Great British Railways offers a real chance to do that in many ways, not least on lost property, which I spoke about on Second Reading of the Railways Bill. I also think that as we establish more and more regional transport brands—the example of the Weaver brand has been discussed—that will be what customers think of as the portal gateway to many different types of transport. Indeed, that may well be the place where people ought to be pointed towards if they want to make a complaint—or, actually, if they are going to give somebody a compliment, because it is not always bad news.
I also highlight paragraph 25 of the report, which focuses on neurodiversity. It mentions various issues, including ambiguous signage, which nobody wants. I personally find the Thameslink boards at Blackfriars to be particularly confusing, and I never know which side the train is coming in on. Great British Railways offers us perhaps a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create familiarity and consistency right across the network. There are reports from Tokyo that on its metro, the Ginza line, colour-zoned boarding areas have been introduced and that has been cited as an example of neurodiverse-friendly design. It is also a design that has improved passenger circulation overall and meant far fewer last-minute dashes by everybody to the platform. Because this is, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) mentioned, the good thing about accessible design: improved signage can help tourists or commuters rushing to make a connection and banishing steps also helps anybody with a suitcase or a pram.
For society to thrive, we need to make use of the talents of everybody. If we do this right, we do not just remove barriers; we raise the standard of travel for everyone.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for her efforts in securing this debate, and indeed the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
At Long Eaton train station in my constituency, the two platforms are well above ground level. They are both accessed by narrow ramps and on both sides of the train line there is a steep upward incline. The ramps are guarded at each end by rails that prevent people from cycling up and down them, but the sharpness of that gradient means that if a traveller has any kind of mobility issues, their journey up to the platform might be rather difficult. The barriers make it effectively impossible for anybody who requires a wheelchair to make it up, and some old tarmac on the ramp often sees people with no mobility issues at all hit the deck every time there is a freeze. From personal experience on my parliamentary commute, I can confirm: not fun.
Thankfully, two lifts were installed at Long Eaton train station in 2012, as part of Network Rail’s Access for All programme, which was launched by the last Labour Government in 2006 and continues to this day. The installation was great progress towards improving disabled access to the platforms, but the operation of the lifts leaves quite a lot to be desired. Travellers can use the lifts only when somebody is on duty at the ticket office, which is during normal hours of nine-to-five. Thankfully, despite the previous Conservative Government’s best efforts in 2023, the ticket office remains open, but travellers are still severely limited. The office is not staffed all the time, meaning that of an evening or weekend, the lifts cannot be used and disabled members of my community cannot access the platforms.
I pay tribute to my local councillor, Dave Doyle—a very good friend of mine—and to Sawley parish council chair, Alan Chewings. Dave and Alan have done great work for many years in raising the alarm on accessibility failures at Long Eaton train station. Indeed, when Dave, Alan and I campaigned against the proposed ticket office closure a few years ago, disabled people’s access was very much what we focused on. Great thanks are therefore due to Dave and Alan for their efforts over the years.
I have previously met Midlands Connect and Network Rail and spoken about persistent issues at Long Eaton station. Struggles with accessibility result from its relative lack of modernisation, but the problems do not stop there. The platform is also unusually short—there is a special announcement every time I get on my train back home. It means that long inter-city trains cannot open all their doors because they cannot be accessed from the whole platform. It leads to missed connections and confusion for travellers across the board.
Additionally, the railway bridge right next to the station across Tamworth Road is 200 years old. It is so low and narrow that it chokes all traffic going under what is an important thoroughfare between Long Eaton and the M1. The road under the bridge also regularly floods, which means that people have to take a 15-minute diversion. The infrastructure we need is just not there.
In summary, we need proper investment to ensure that the station is accessible every day at all times. Long Eaton is a commuter town, ultimately. It is at the heart of the east midlands, with regular trains running to Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, and it is less than two hours door to door to the House of Commons—which is convenient. But it needs to be modernised, and any project that does that needs to recognise disabled people’s rights to accessibility, so that everyone can use the station to get where they need to go.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is appropriate to take part in this debate on what is National Epilepsy Day. I am grateful to the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for securing the debate and for her expertise in this area, and I congratulate her on doing so. I thank all colleagues across the House who have spoken, including my hon. Friends the Members for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who are admirably increasing the pressure for accessibility improvements in their constituencies.
The debate has shown what disabled people have known for a long time: accessibility is still too often treated as a box to tick late in the process, rather than being built in from the start, with the result that people are left trying to navigate a system that may function on paper but too often breaks down in practice. That is why the issue cannot be approached piecemeal—with one part of the system considered in isolation, each body concerned only with its own narrow responsibilities —because what matters in real life is whether the whole journey works from beginning to end. The proper test for the Government is therefore a practical one: can someone get from home to work, to college, to hospital or to the high street, or to see their friends or family, safely and reliably with the same basic confidence as anyone else? For too many disabled people, the answer is still no.
The wider picture makes that clear. Only 31% of British stations had full step-free access as of November 2025, 57% of the working-age population in England live in areas with low public transport access to jobs, and bus journeys have fallen by more than a billion since 2015. Those are not separate problems; they are a sign of a transport system in which accessibility has not been given the place it should have in decisions about infrastructure, service levels, procurement and oversight.
Access to healthcare is also harder where public transport is lacking. Some 66% of elderly people are unable to reach hospital by public transport within 30 minutes. Waits for driving tests remain stubbornly high, which of course is particularly concerning for people who are disabled and rely on driving as their only means of getting around.
The issue is not simply whether there are accessibility duties in law; it is whether accessibility is shaping decisions early enough to prevent exclusion from being built in from the beginning. Failure to get the design right at the outset puts more costs and inconvenience on people and means they have less independence later down the line.
Constituents of mine have raised the situation at the bus stop by the former Three Cups pub in Wellington, where parked cars prevent buses from pulling in so disabled passengers and others cannot board safely and ramps cannot be put out. Street design, parking enforcement, vehicle operation and passenger assistance all need to work together to solve those problems.
I have also heard from residents of Creech Heathfield, who have spent months trying to get a response from bus companies about wheelchair accessibility, but have received no meaningful reply. That, too, is part of accessibility. A system that does not respond when disabled people raise barriers is a system that is failing them. The same pattern can apply to taxi provision: with a shortage or scarcity of accessible cabs, bookings often fall through or unsuitable vehicles arrive instead. If policymakers treat accessibility as a marginal issue, or something that can be covered by special arrangements later on, what develops instead is a patchwork of uncertainty in which disabled people are expected to plan around failure—that is not good enough.
For disabled people, rail matters, buses matter, taxis matter and driving support matters, as do the links between them all. The Liberal Democrats have played their part. I am pleased to have played my part in the campaign to ensure that ticket offices in my constituency were retained, which the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) mentioned. We have also proposed amendments to Bills on accessible information and representation for passengers with access requirements, on bus accessibility and reporting, on extending support for disabled people, and on the rail passenger’s charter. How will the Government embed transport planning from the outset in future projects so that key decisions are made at the right stage, and how will they bring rail, buses, taxis and driving support together into a more coherent strategy for disabled people.
If I may, I will end on a positive note, which I know is unusual in this place. In looking back on my experience, I have a confession: I was a pusher from my childhood to later in life, as my mum was a wheelchair user before the days of electric wheelchairs. I identify with the experience of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) of accompanying people on public transport. In those days, we relied on my mum being an indomitable character who would pressgang any available member of the public—family, porters, taxi drivers—to get her across the country. Before public transport accessibility, that involved planks of wood to ramp across the steps from our house into the taxi, or lifting her into the goods van, where she would rattle around with the mailbags from one end of the railway line to the other. On some of those journeys, it was less like being a helper and more like being an extra in “Around the World in 80 Days”.
Those days have passed, however. Things have improved, and as the voices of disabled people have been heard more, there have been improvements in public transport accessibility. That accessibility should not depend on luck, persistence or whether somebody remembered accessibility late in the process; it must be part of the plan from the start.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Over the past few decades there has been a consensus in politics that disability should not prevent people from living fulfilling and successful lives. However, I recognise that, despite strong standards and the implementation of new measures by Governments of all stripes over previous decades, the aims set out by Governments of both main parties in order to improve accessibility for disabled people have not always met the standards that disabled people understandably expect. Governments should always strive to ensure that our transport system works for disabled people. As the Transport Committee report on accessibility recognised last year, this is not a simple issue. Disabled people use very different methods of transport. The report rightly points out that:
“The support that people need to make journeys successfully and confidently varies greatly”.
It has been great to hear from Members from across the House, particularly those with personal experience. In recent years I lived with one of my grandmothers for quite a long time, and I remember taking her around when she was much less mobile in later years. Hearing from hon. Members about the variety of challenges is important, because those experiences can inform our debate. It was particularly great to hear from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) about changing places facilities. I have been campaigning for some in Basildon, and they have just been put in. They are important because they give people the confidence to get out and about and access our town centres, which benefits high streets as well as disabled people themselves.
It was fantastic to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) about how looking at design issues from the start can make an important difference. It was also good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) about floating bus stops—an issue that I shall return to.
The variation in types of transport used by disabled people shows that we need to view the issue of accessibility in the wider sense. Accessibility for disabled people is not as simple as ensuring that technical specifications are up to standard and that there are enough staff. Although those things are obviously critical to the experience of disabled people travelling, we must consider the broader question of how Government policies can impact them as well.
That is why I want to focus on one thing that is critical to travel for disabled people but is often overlooked in discussions on accessibility: the importance of cars. We know that cars are integral to the lives of disabled people. In 2024, the national travel survey showed that 78% of the miles travelled by disabled people were travelled in private cars, either as a passenger or as the driver. That is higher than the figure for non-disabled people. As the Select Committee noted, people with disabilities also travel in taxis far more often than non-disabled people.
It is also important to recognise that, among disabled people, a far greater proportion of journeys are made for shopping, personal business and visiting friends. Those journeys are a clear indicator that accessible transport is not some abstract quality, but integral to people’s lives. Without them, people would be cut off, yes, from work, but importantly also from the essential activities and social engagements that are the indicators of a fulfilling life for anyone.
Anna Dixon
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many disabled people simply do not have a choice, because public transport is either not available, if they live in a rural area, or not accessible? Much of the reason why they have to resort to relying on cars and taxis is the failure to invest in an accessible public transport system.
Mr Holden
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I will add, though, that disabled people often choose to use a car, if one is available, because it is the most convenient means of getting around; it means that they can travel at times that suit them. I totally agree that we want to ensure that all our public transport is as accessible as possible, but I do not want a system that restricts the ability of disabled people to move around by car.
As such, I implore the Minister and his colleagues to speak to the Treasury about the fuel duty issue. With 78% of the miles travelled by disabled people travelled by car, increases in the price at the pump will inevitably deter people from making journeys and harm both the personal and professional lives of those who rely on cars more than anybody else. We all know that it is a tax on transport at a time when people across the country are worried about the cost of getting around. It is a further tax imposed by this Government, who I feel often treat drivers and passengers as a cash cow to fund their other decisions.
I hope that this debate sharpens the Minister’s focus and reminds Treasury Ministers, who rather shamefully dismissed our concerns on this issue last week, that vehicles are not merely a means to extract money and taxation from the public, but a lifeline for everyone—particularly those with mobility issues, given that they are so much more dependent on vehicles than the population as a whole.
Daniel Francis
I thank the right hon. Member for his remarks about what I said. However, all the statistics show that the people who need Motability vehicles the most are the poorest and those who live in rural areas. The Conversative party policy on this matter will damage those people the most, quite frankly, by taking away those vehicles. Will he commit to go away to his colleagues and look at that policy, which will damage disabled people who live in rural communities more than anybody else?
Mr Holden
I think the hon. Member should reflect on the fact that he voted last week for a policy that hammers those rural transport users more than anyone else, not at some theoretical time in the future but from September this year, increasing in December and again in March next year. These are not policies that may or may not happen in the future, but policies he has voted for that are hurting disabled people from this year. He should reflect on the impacts that policy will have and speak to Ministers about how those impacts will play out right across the system.
Unfortunately, the ability of disabled people to travel is constrained not only by the cost of driving but by prohibitive motoring policies. We acknowledge that the Government have made some progress—for example, by creating a more accessible railway network, including through the railway road map—and I welcome some of the announcements made by Ministers in recent months, which have rightly focused on policies that Members across the House support. It is also great to see that some Access for All projects are being progressed. However, it is disappointing that many disabled people will remain worried about their ability to access stations, given that some of the projects set out by the last Government have been paused and have a question mark over them, or are not being pursued.
I do not doubt that the Minister believes strongly in improving access for disabled people. My concern is that the Government are comfortable using the language of accessibility but, when faced with decisions that directly impact disabled people—whether that is making stations more accessible or making driving a car more expensive—they are not on the right side.
Time and again, Ministers have been made aware of the physical impediments to disabled people in our towns and cities, in particular floating bus stops. During the passage of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Government said that they intended that the guidance for floating bus stops
“will support authorities to provide infrastructure that people are genuinely enabled and encouraged to use.”––[Official Report, Bus Services Public Bill Committee, 3 July 2025; c. 183.]
The acceptance of Lord Blunkett’s amendments in the House of peers gave the impression that we might see real improvements to floating bus stops that would allow blind people to access bus stops without fear of being struck by bikes while crossing bike paths. It has been great to see floating bus stops removed from scheme designs in some parts of the country; I had an exchange recently with my county council in Essex, which is removing floating bus stops from a large new property development.
However, despite the promises to this House and to those representing blind and partially sighted people, the Government’s proposals in January were pitiful. You do not need to take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker: a spokesperson for the Royal National Institute of Blind People said that the new guidance simply does not address the problem. Meanwhile, the street access campaign co-ordinator at the National Federation of the Blind of the UK said:
“It does not address the concerns that blind and visually impaired people have and it’s totally insulting to think that we’ll accept this.”
Those concerns are clearly reflected in the data. According to the RNIB, nearly 40% of blind and partially sighted people avoid using these bus stop bypasses and instead go to other bus stops, increasing their journey time, or do not make the journey at all. The Mayor of London has supported the floating bus stop policy using all sorts of strange figures, which he has had to row back on. I was recently down on Chiswick High Road in Hounslow with Councillors Joanna Biddolph and Gabriella Giles, looking at some of the most egregious examples of floating bus stops.
The next decade will offer opportunities for advances in accessibility. New technologies such as autonomous vehicles could transform opportunities for disabled people. Demand-responsive transport could also provide additional services that are not currently available. If the Government use the powers available to them, such as those in the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 passed by the last Government, we could see really significant improvements in accessibility options for disabled people.
As I noted at the start of my speech, there are no simple solutions to the challenges faced by the disabled. This is a multimodal problem crossing both public and private forms of transport, with disabled people facing specific challenges in addition to those faced by everyone else. Where people are unable to travel by train or plane, they understandably feel ostracised from the travelling experience of non-disabled people. This cannot be solved overnight. As Members have suggested, it requires an approach that is applied to all forms of transport. To achieve that, we need to listen to the experiences of disabled people, and when we do promise change, as the Government have done on floating bus stops, we have to deliver it. Excluding disabled people by increasing their costs is also not acceptable. Transport should be there to improve people’s lives, not to raise revenue or increase the cost of living.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I begin by thanking the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for securing this incredibly important debate on transport accessibility. I thank everyone who has spoken for their thoughtful and powerful contributions, often informed by personal lived experience. Although it does not fall to me to sum up the debate, a couple of specific questions were raised that I would like to address.
The Chair of the Transport Committee asked how the accessible travel charter will be enforced, as well as about the benchmark principles contained in the charter to target improvement. I believe that it would be beneficial for my hon. Friend to see this piece of work happening and informing the Law Commission’s view to see where enforcement gaps exist. She also asked how disabled people have taken part in development of the integrated national transport strategy and the accessible travel charter. I am pleased to confirm that disabled people and organisations have been at the heart of that process. They have participated in our regional roadshows and people’s panels events, and we have worked closely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which has been fundamental to the development of the strategies.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) asked when design standards for accessible rail stations will be published. I can confirm that that will be done ahead of the stand-up of Great British Railways, so that the organisation can begin to rationalise stations under the same core principles of accessibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) asked about rail services and how the Railways Bill will ensure that the rights of disabled people are enshrined. Not only will the public sector equality duty apply to GBR across its public-facing functions, but the Bill will set out an explicit passenger and accessibility duty in legislation. The passenger watchdog will have the power to set consumer standards relating to accessibility that all passenger service operators must follow as part of their licence conditions. The watchdog will ensure operators’ compliance through regular monitoring, requesting improvement plans where necessary and, importantly, escalating serious and persistent issues to the ORR for enforcement when necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), who made many powerful points on this matter in the Railways Bill Committee, once again shared his testimony. He also spoke about the importance of the aviation accessibility implementation group and its recommendations. I am pleased to say that I met the group on Tuesday to reaffirm that air passenger rights remain a priority for the Department. We will continue to consider opportunities to ensure that air passengers have the highest levels of protection possible. The group reaffirmed to me that it believes there are many industry-led proposals that could lead to tangible improvements for passengers with disabilities, and I will stand by it and offer support as that work continues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) raised the case of the locked gate at the train station—it sounds like a Sherlock Holmes novel, but it is in fact very serious. I am afraid I do not know the exact details of the case she raised, but I will be sure to take the pertinent details away and raise them with the Rail Minister.
Transport accessibility determines whether people can get to work, education, healthcare and family, and, importantly, whether they can access community life. Access to transport determines whether people can participate fully and equally in our society. That is why it is important that we reflect on progress, acknowledge the challenges that remain and consider what more we must do to create a transport system that works for everyone.
I do not believe that accessibility is a destination that can simply be reached or completed; it is an ongoing journey that requires constant focus, particularly in a world where transport technology and patterns of travel are evolving rapidly. But let me be clear from the outset that it is unacceptable for anyone to be prevented from travelling, or to find it difficult to do so, because of accessibility barriers across our transport system.
Too often, disabled people have been expected to plan, negotiate, explain and adapt, rather than the system doing that work for them, as any other passenger would expect. Too often, accessibility has been an afterthought, rather than being designed into transport strategy from the start. This Government are taking action to correct that, with a firm commitment to improving transport so that disabled people can travel safely, confidently and with dignity.
The Government welcomed the findings in the Transport Committee report, and accepted its conclusion that more must be done to ensure that transport is truly accessible to all. That is why the Government are delivering a comprehensive programme of reform to improve the accessibility of our transport system. In the time that I have, I will set out how that work is progressing, and how it will deliver lasting change.
I will begin with rail, where we know that change has been urgently needed and is firmly under way. Our Railways Bill, and the creation of Great British Railways, is our opportunity to fix what is not working for passengers on our railways. That will ensure that the interests of all passengers, particularly those facing barriers to access, will be at the heart of decision making. The Bill will also establish a passenger watchdog, which will protect the rights of disabled passengers by monitoring service delivery, investigating issues, setting minimum consumer standards, including on accessibility, and advocating for improvements.
However, we are not sitting back and waiting for the passage of the Bill; we are acting. In November, we published alongside the Bill the Department’s road map to an accessible railway, setting out what we are doing to improve the day-to-day travelling experience for disabled passengers ahead of the creation of GBR. We also continue to implement the Access for All programme, which has already transformed access at many stations and will continue to do so. Step-free access, intuitive layouts and accessible facilities must all be part of the everyday experience of the railway.
Let me move on to local transport, which is at the heart of an inclusive and accessible transport system. Journeys by bus, taxi and private hire vehicle are central to disabled people’s daily travel. Our Bus Services Act 2025 marks a major step forward, and introduces a package of measures to improve the accessibility and inclusivity of local transport. Through the Act, we are helping local authorities to design safer, more accessible bus stations and stops. That measure complements existing requirements relating to the physical accessibility of vehicles, the conduct of drivers and passengers, and the information provided on board, which ensure that people can board the bus, receive the support they need, and travel to their destination with dignity. We are also mandating streamlined disability awareness and assistance training requirements for bus drivers and frontline staff. For the first time, every local transport authority will be required to regularly review the accessibility of its bus networks and publish a bus network accessibility plan.
The accessible information regulations are being implemented, improving buses’ audible and visible information, and the Department has recently published statutory guidance on floating bus stops. These bus stops were often introduced with good intentions, particularly the intention of improving safety for cyclists in congested urban environments. However, as has been highlighted many times, they have in some cases created new barriers, and we know that more needs to be done to make them accessible to all. Our guidance will enable designers to provide safer cycling facilities that meet the needs of bus passengers as well as people walking, wheeling or using mobility aids.
On taxis and private hire vehicles, we are seeking a new power to set national standards in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. That will allow us to set standards, including robust standards that prioritise and focus on passenger safety, and accessibility standards. We intend to use the standards to mandate disability equality training for drivers. As we consider wider reform of the overall sector, increasing the provision of wheelchair-accessible vehicles will be a key priority and an area of focus for our planned engagement this spring. We are also ensuring that local transport planning considers accessibility holistically by developing new guidance on the production of local transport plans, which will set clear expectations that accessible and inclusive transport should be at their core.
I turn to integration, a matter that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), spoke about very powerfully. Accessibility depends on integration and planning. Too often, decisions on transport infrastructure have been made in silos, with accessibility considered too late or not at all. Journeys must be joined up, and people should be able to leave their front door and reach their destination without facing barriers along the way.
Our forthcoming integrated national transport strategy will set out this Government’s people-focused vision for domestic transport across England. It sets out how we will create a transport network that works well for people, and is safe, affordable and accessible, so that everyone can get on in life and make the journeys that they need to easily. Accessibility will be a core priority in the strategy, and I look forward to talking more about our ambitions and the policy covered in the strategy once it has been published.
I have heard the concerns from across the Chamber about enforcement and the burden of responsibility. I am clear that the burden of securing accessibility should not rest disproportionately on disabled people themselves. For too long, disabled passengers have been expected to research, plan, explain and challenge, simply to exercise rights that already exist. That is why we are developing a new accessible travel charter, which will set out clear commitments for transport operators and local authorities.
I hope that I have demonstrated that this Government are taking clear, concrete and co-ordinated steps to realise our shared ambition for a truly accessible and inclusive transport system. I am grateful to Members across the House for their continued engagement and challenge, and I look forward to working with them, disabled people and the transport sector to ensure that this progress continues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Ruth Cadbury to wind up very quickly.
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.