Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to say that it is a pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State for Transport. I think most people here will want to address yesterday’s incident, its implications for passengers and the aviation sector, and more importantly—the reason we are here—the Bill. Most of my remarks, unlike those of the previous speaker, will focus primarily on that.

It is an unfortunate coincidence that this debate on the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill takes place the day after hundreds of thousands of passengers travelling to and from the UK had their journeys seriously disrupted by another outage at the National Air Traffic Services. So many passengers will be frustrated and angry about what has happened. Their plans are in tatters. What happened affected not only passengers, but their friends, families and, if they were on work journeys, colleagues and business associates. I must put in a word of praise and thanks to all those working in aviation, who are having to support and advise frustrated passengers and make alternative arrangements for them. Many staff, especially aircrew, could not get home last night. Our thanks and gratitude to them.

This is the third major outage of our air traffic control system in the last three years, and there is clearly widespread frustration in the sector with the system’s lack of resilience. The Civil Aviation Authority’s report on the 2023 outage eventually reported the following year. It had 34 recommendations, but as of last year’s interim update by the CAA, only 18 had been completed. I thank the Secretary of State for saying that she will report to the House on this, and will ask NATS to carry out a rapid review of the incident and bring forward preliminary findings by next week.

Although NATS says that the two incidents are unrelated, I hope that the Secretary of State updates the House on progress on learning the right lessons from 2023 and the recent outage. We can then start addressing the issues that many Members, as well as the aviation sector, have with the lack of resilience of this key part of our national infrastructure. I hope that the Secretary of State will also come before the Committee in due course.

Let me link yesterday’s incident to the Bill. Passengers, freight handlers and airlines have many questions about their rights when flights are delayed or cancelled, whatever the reason. Tens of thousands of people slept on airport floors once again last night, so I ask: are passenger rights fit for purpose, and will the Bill and the regulations that follow look at that—and hopefully address and improve the situation? We know that airlines are responsible for providing refunds or re-routing passengers after cancelled flights, and for providing care and assistance, such as refreshments and hotel accommodation while passengers are waiting for their flight.

[Vikki Slade]

Would the hon. Member like to reflect on what happened to me over the summer when I was flying back from a family holiday? Our flight was continually delayed, and we kept getting told that there were “extraordinary circumstances”, which we know is code for, “You won’t get compensation.” That was the message throughout the wait, but when we got on the plane, the pilot told us the truth. He listed all the things that had happened, and I believe he did that so that we knew that it was not extraordinary circumstances. Does she agree that removal of that phrase is key to changing passenger rights?

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member describes a holiday experience that so many of our constituents have had. There are two issues here. The first is getting information and updates regularly. Yesterday, one pilot had the decency to say, “Look, I don’t know what’s happening,” every 20 minutes; at least that gave some assurance to the passengers waiting on that plane. Secondly, whatever the cause of the problem, and whoever ultimately pays the cost of what needs doing, passengers have needs. They need toilets, refreshments, and a bed for the night—or at least somewhere comfortable to sleep. Should airports, for instance, be ready for these incidents, and have supplies of camp beds, emergency drinks, snacks, and baby food, and allocated trained staff who can come in at short notice to support passengers? Our local authorities have contingency plans and stores in case of incidents causing homes to be evacuated, and many of us have had to deal with such experiences. Maybe airports could learn something from our local authorities. Local authorities do not start by asking who will pay, or tell one resident that they are eligible and another that they are not. Instead, there is a set contingency plan. They open up community centres and so on. It is not rocket science.

Turning back to the Bill, I will cover first what is in it, and then—in an ideal world—what I would like to see in it. On passenger rights and protections for disabled passengers, I particularly welcome the fact that passengers with wheelchairs and other expensive mobility aids will now benefit from the removal of the limit on compensation. I regret the fact that, at this point, that can apply only to domestic UK flights, but I hope that this is an example of the UK leading the way, and that this basic right can be extended to travellers to and from other countries. Isb particularly want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, who sadly could not be present this afternoon, and the work that he has been doing, both as the parent of a wheelchair user, and on behalf of all wheelchair users trying to have a normal family holiday while being treated with respect, as we all expect to be when we travel through airports.

I would like to say that that is all great, and that the problem is solved, but it is not. Disabled people still face a patchy experience when they travel through our airports. Our report, “Access denied”, published earlier last year, came across a number of issues for disabled passengers at our airports, one of which was the variable quality of contractors at airports. There is a huge gulf between the best and worst experiences that disabled passengers face—there is no single standard. I ask the Government whether some kind of single standard of treatment could be hardwired in, and whether airports and airlines could be made accountable. Too often, airports and airlines pass the buck when a disabled passenger is stuck on a plane or trying to get on a plane. Some airports, such as Gatwick, have put disabled passengers on their forums to ensure that their passenger experience is fed in. That is an example of good practice that should be the norm.

Also on accessibility, airports also need to consider how accessible their public transport links are. In my experience, airports too often feel that their responsibility stops at the perimeter fence, and that public transport issues are someone else’s problem.

On wider passenger issues, I welcome the strengthened powers for the CAA on consumer rights and safety in the Bill, and look forward to the Transport Secretary’s drafting of the secondary legislation on these matters. It will cover issues that all our constituents raise: flight disruption; lost or damaged luggage; accessibility, which I have mentioned; price transparency; and airline liability for passenger injury or death.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I commend the Government on bringing forward this Bill. My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech. I have been reflecting on what she has said, and on the Government’s focus on taking away barriers to consumers—our constituents—asserting their rights, especially given the cost of living challenges we face. Does she agree that there may be a lesson for the Secretary of State from the automated delay repay system that we have for rail? If there are delays of a certain length, there is an automated system of compensation for passengers. Like the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), I have been reflecting on my experience. My husband and I travelled with Iberia, and are to this day owed hundreds and hundreds of pounds, which was not automatically transferred to us; we had to put a long time into making compensation claims. Why are these rights, which extend to all our constituents, not automatically fulfilled by the airline companies? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State could reflect on that when she is drafting the secondary legislation?

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The delay repay system, which we now take for granted on our rail system, except on the Eurostar, is a good model. I agree that the airlines could look at that, and I hope that the Minister will consider it as well.

On airport drop-off charges, I welcome the review but I would like it to be wider. Why do so many of our constituents feel that the only way to get to most of our airports reliably is to get a lift? How useful, reliable and accessible is public transport to many airports? In theory, Heathrow airport has lots of public transport access—far more than any other airport in this country—but it only goes between Heathrow and London, not to the south-west or the north, unless people get a coach from Reading.

[Alison Taylor]

On the issue of connectivity to airports, my hon. Friend and I have discussed in the past the fact that there is no rail link to Glasgow International airport. In fact, it is possible to get a train from Glasgow Central station to Manchester airport but not from Glasgow Central station to Glasgow airport. Does she have any comment to make on that matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I think I am right in saying that people also have to walk quite some way to get the bus to the airport. Talk about a lack of joined-up thinking in our public transport—and in this instance I include flying.

I fear that in this respect the UK is an embarrassment. When we travel on holiday or for other reasons, we can compare our airports with those that we travel to, and often the comparison is not very complimentary to the UK.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent and thorough speech based on her and her Committee’s work. I agree with everything she has said, with one caveat, which is that even for those living a stone’s throw from the airport there often are not public transport links. In my constituency and my neighbour’s, many people who work at the airport cannot get there directly on one bus, so they are forced to drive and pay drop-off charges or park in questionable places, causing disruption to communities. Does my hon. Friend agree airports need to do much more on public transport?

[Ruth Cadbury]

Absolutely. For almost 40 years, I have dealt with Heathrow’s lack of interest in transport. My hon. Friend is to the north of Heathrow, and I know full well what he is saying. In fact, one of the section 106 conditions in the terminal 5 planning decision was that there be a direct bus between Feltham station and the central terminal area, without stopping. That would then create a fast link from Waterloo to Heathrow—this was long before the Elizabeth line. However, nobody marketed it or told anybody about it, so funnily enough when the funding gave out, there had not been enough passengers to make it viable, so it did not survive. I can think of many more examples.

Sometimes I come in to work on the Piccadilly and District lines, so I know that many people use those lines to travel to and from Heathrow, but they might go to, say, South Kensington to stay in a hotel. I have had to help an elderly couple who have come from Heathrow up and down the stairs that passengers have to take at South Kensington station. It is not a welcoming environment for visitors to this country. Obviously, the Elizabeth line has transformed that; it was long overdue.

[Deirdre Costigan]

My hon. Friend and neighbour mentions the Elizabeth line—we cannot miss that out when talking about connectivity to Heathrow—which has transformed my constituents’ lives. However, in line with another neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales)—his constituents appear to be throwing stones at the airport; mine are not—may I raise overcrowding on the Elizabeth line? I know that that is being looked at and there is the potential to run further trains, but in the rush hour in particular, and when lots of people have cases, it can be a nightmare for my constituents.

[Ruth Cadbury]

If anything, the Elizabeth line has been a victim of its own success—that is why it was right to fight for Crossrail all those years ago. I will come back to the link between what airports should provide and the actuality.

Compared to our international competitors, our public transport to and from airports is woeful: it is non-existent at night or in the early morning, and too often what there is proves impossible for those with heavy luggage. I find it frustrating that the current airport expansion proposals—Gatwick has got all its approvals; Heathrow is in front of our Committee with its national policy statement—can proceed without the rail access that everyone agrees is needed. Those desperately needed train services are just not there. I also find that, compared with most other countries, access to taxis, private hire vehicles, buses and coaches is generally an afterthought or an inconvenience. Unless we address those wider issues, reviewing drop-off charges is just scratching the surface and passengers—rather, the person who is giving them the lift—will continue to feel that they are being fleeced.

Airspace modernisation is long overdue. It will cut carbon emissions and time in the air, which will be good for passengers and good for the climate. I was concerned about the potential for the creation of so-called noise sewers—corridors of noise across parts of the country. However, if the paths are sufficiently wide—NATS told me that they are 10 miles wide—the noise implications will be much less than was feared. The Transport Committee has not yet had a chance to look at that issue.

I want to cover what is not in the Bill but should be. One thing is staff safety. Unite, GMB and the other unions across our civil airports are calling for a clear, national, worker-led approach and response to the increase in abusive and disruptive passenger behaviour that staff face. A recent survey by Unite the union found that 90% of workers in one airport had faced abuse at work.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

A member of GMB, the union that operates at East Midlands airport, told me that it was unusual if she had not received her first abusive customer by 5 am. There is real merit in seeing how we can ensure that the workers in our airports are treated appropriately.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We have railway behaviour notices, so I wonder whether the Government could work with airlines, airports and the trade unions to consider a similar standard and process for the aviation sector.

On EU and UK standards, the UK risks being left behind by the failure to reach an agreement with the EU on a number of issues. For instance, a faulty emergency services helicopter that needed a spare part was unable to use the one stored at a local airport as it was from the EU; there are probably other examples.

On recruitment and retention, the UK has long been an attractive place for pilots and engineers to come and work. We want to continue that growth, but the industry is in need of a mutual recognition agreement with the EU, the lack of which is having an impact on training, the mobility of the workforce and recruitment.

I will move on to the question of noise. Those of my constituents who have lived locally around Heathrow for some time know the noise patterns. Two thirds of my constituents are under one or other of the approach paths used 70% of the time when the airport is operating on westerly operation and the flightpaths are from central London towards Heathrow. Planes are overhead every 60 to 90 seconds for half the day, because we have daily alternation, so to some extent residents can plan when to be in the garden or have friends around and so on, but newcomers to the area can struggle to find the information they need about where and when there will be aircraft noise. Of course, tens of thousands more residents in parts of Hillingdon, Ealing and Hounslow will be underneath the new approach path if the expansion goes ahead, and they do not even know it at the moment.

There is a noise insulation scheme at most airports, but as a constituency MP I find it difficult to know which of my constituents are eligible, how much spend on works they can get and by when. Due to the timing of schemes being approved for different airports as a condition of their planning permission, there is a lack of uniformity across the country in what these schemes include in terms of sound insulation, ventilation and so on. Constituents—and MPs, too—are very unsure about who or what is the appropriate body to regulate noise.

Noise insulation is only one example of the various mitigation measures that airports are required to implement, but for us MPs and our councils and councillors, there is not a body with teeth that can ensure that any mitigation measures are enforced, let alone determine whether or not they are adequate, particularly when it comes to expansion. Mitigation measures can include public transport, which I have touched on, various community benefit schemes, and environmental recovery and enhancement. This lack of teeth—this lack of ability to be clear on the delivery of the mitigation—has come up again and again in evidence to the Transport Committee in our current inquiry on Heathrow expansion. I ask the Transport Secretary and the Minister with responsibility for aviation, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather), to examine whether the UK Civil Aviation Authority or another body can be given the powers and the teeth that I know are not there at the moment.

In conclusion, I hope that the Bill can be further improved beyond its safety and passenger rights measures.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you and all Members of this House are hoping to get a holiday in at some point during this recess, so I wish you a hassle-free journey out and back home.

My Committee is today launching an inquiry on safer journeys for women and girls. The Minister for local transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), has set out the Department’s actions contributing to the Government’s goal of halving violence against women and girls within 10 years. What will the Transport Secretary be doing to monitor and measure the effectiveness of those actions?

[Heidi Alexander]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and her Committee for their interest in personal safety on the transport network, especially that of women and girls. We have an ambitious, evidence-based programme to tackle VAWG on the transport network, and we are delivering nine commitments under the “Freedom from violence and abuse” strategy, including funding to improve CCTV connectivity between stations and the British Transport police. We are also launching mandatory crime and antisocial behaviour training for bus industry staff.

East Midland Railway Collision

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

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

I endorse, as I know does everyone in this House, the comments by the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden). He asked all the questions that I had lined up to ask. In particular, I thank those who responded so quickly after this terrible incident in support of those who were injured. Our thoughts are with all those who are so severely impacted. In addition to those other questions, will support be put in place for those who drive trains and work in other roles on that route when it reopens, because that could be fairly traumatic?

[Heidi Alexander]

I spoke yesterday to the managing director of East Midlands Railway, Will Rogers, and the Chair of the Transport Committee is completely right to say that support must also be provided to the staff who were caught up in this incident. One of the things that Will Rogers explained to me is that he is receiving support from other train operating companies. The whole of the railway family has come together to ensure that support is put in place for individuals who could have experienced significant trauma. That will obviously apply to passengers who were caught up in this terrible incident, but it will apply to the staff of EMR, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

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

Yesterday, the Transport Committee published the report on our inquiry into taxis and private hire licensing. Out-of-area working was a significant issue of concern in much of the evidence we received and for many of our witnesses, and the issue was also highlighted in Baroness Casey’s report on group-based sexual exploitation released last year. What are the Government doing to restrict out-of-area working for taxis and private hire vehicles?

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. She will be aware that we have already legislated to establish national standards and to reform the way that enforcement action can be taken against private hire drivers and vehicles, no matter where they are licensed. Those standards will provide a robust framework to make sure that people are safe wherever they live, work or travel. I believe that drivers and operators should be licensed where they intend to provide services. We are bringing forward a draft taxi and private hire vehicle Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in this Session, and I would be grateful for the expertise of my hon. Friend’s Committee in looking at that. We want to look at the issue of out-of-area working holistically to make sure that we do not reduce the availability of private hire services for everyone, while also making sure that we have very high standards in place.

Railways Bill

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

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

I rise to speak to five amendments tabled in my name and those of other members of the Transport Committee, and other Members of the House. They focus on two issues—the long-term rail strategy, and the important issue of accessibility—and they stem from specific recommendations in the report of our inquiry into the Bill. The Committee recognises the need for structural change on the railways, and it supports the main purpose of the Bill, which is to establish Great British Railways as a single organisation overseeing both track and train, and capable of acting as a directing mind for the railway.

I thank the Government for their thorough and thoughtful response to our report, and for publishing yesterday, as promised, the list of documents and target publication timetables for the key policy documents and public consultations that will be required for GBR to be operational in 2027. I also thank them for the policy document on the draft GBR licence that was published a week or so ago.

Amendments 37 and 38 to clause 15 would require the long-term rail strategy to be placed before Parliament, as well as any revisions to it. I welcome that the Government have committed to publish a discussion document with more detail on what the LTRS will include during the Bill’s passage through the House. The Government told us that a requirement to lay the LTRS before the House is not necessary because the documents will be published, thus guaranteeing transparency, and they have committed to place that document in the Libraries and make a written ministerial statement. However, transparency was not the Committee’s only concern, as we also wanted a disincentive to change the long-term rail strategy too frequently or trivially. The commitment to make a written ministerial statement is welcome, but will that also apply to updates? It will not bind future Governments.

I now move to other amendments tabled in my name and those of members of the Committee, and by other Members of the House, including a number who are, and have always been, strong advocates for the needs of people with disabilities. The number of amendments tabled shows the strength of concern from Members across the House about the importance of accessibility, of getting it right in the Bill, and of making railways accessible to all. Whether for a long-term wheelchair user, someone who will always need support to buy tickets or navigate a large station, or anyone travelling with small children or luggage, accessible trains, stations, ticketing systems, and staff culture must benefit us all. When that is hardwired into the culture of the organisation, more people—all people—can feel confident in their ability to travel by train.

[Helen Maguire]

Research from the Royal National Institute of Blind People found that 58% of those with visual impairments reported that it was impossible to use ticket vending machines, and I have tabled new clause 38 to ensure a minimum number of accessible ticket machines. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is incredibly important to ensure that railways are accessible for everyone?

[Ruth Cadbury]

Yes, of course I do, and much of what I am saying stems from the work with did for our report published in February 2025. It is entitled, “Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport”, and it is about so much more than ramps and lifts, although those things are essential for many, and it must be embedded in the culture of the organisation.

Our amendments seek to embed that aspiration in the Bill, and they follow the work we did on the Bill and the report I just mentioned. Amendment 70 would place duties on Ministers and GBR, and amendment 71 would place duties on the passengers’ council to seek to secure “improvements” to accessibility, rather than just to “promote the…interests” of disabled people, as currently stated in the Bill. Amendment 71 would also require the passengers’ council

“to exercise its functions in a way that promotes improvements in the accessibility of the rail network rather than only having regard to the interests and needs of disabled passengers.”

The Minister may well say that the Bill will already drive improvements, and that the details will be in the GBR’s business plan and the LTRS, but disabled people would like to see enforceable, statutory responsibilities that require progress, not just vague “having regard to” language, or non-statutory policy documents.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech on this subject. Earlier I referred to Katrina, my constituent with thalidomide syndrome who struggles to reserve a seat and feel safe, and to use the railway as she wants to. Does the hon. Lady agree that those are the tests we need to see changed, so that people like Katrina can use the railway safely and see their needs recognised?

[Ruth Cadbury]

The right hon. Member’s description of Katrina’s needs speak not only for her needs but for those of so many people. He described Katrina’s specific physical needs and need to have a seat, but it is important to recognise that every disabled person’s needs are different. The rail system—indeed, the whole transport system—must be able to adapt and ensure that those needs are met.

I welcome the sheer number of amendments tabled today that cover accessibility. New clause 39 makes a specific request:

“The Secretary of State must appoint a board of the Passengers’ Council.”

and it requires that board to include at least two disabled people. The Government told us that legislating for that recommendation is not needed because the Transport Focus board already has such representation, and general duties under clause 18 will apply when the board is appointed. While I welcome the offer to confirm that intention, why is there resistance to putting such a measure into legislation so that it is secured in the future? To say that Transport Focus currently has such representation, and that therefore the passengers’ council board will too, relies on custom. Clause 18(2)(a) refers to

“promoting…the needs of disabled passengers”

but it relies on a specific interpretation of a general clause, so neither of those measures are secure. In conclusion, I commend the amendments to the House, but I will not push them to a vote as I anticipate that they will attract a fair bit of attention in the other place when the Bill arrives there.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

High Speed 2 Reset

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for being honest with the House and for grasping the nub of the problem. We should not need the publication of the Lovegrove report or today’s statement to know that the cost and timetable overruns on HS2 started long before, because the previous Government wanted spades in the ground before the designs, costs and permits were ready. They then cancelled half the project, so we have the Aston to Old Oak Common project. I am glad that the Government picked that up and are moving ahead on the Euston element as well. We also had the Stewart review and the Oakervee report to tell us what went wrong.

My question is not actually on HS2, because the Rail Minister and the HS2 chief exec are coming to the Committee tomorrow, but on elements that are picked up in the Lovegrove report. What is the Secretary of State doing now to ensure that essential transport projects, starting with the lower Thames crossing and the Northern Powerhouse Rail project, do not go the same way? Will she assure me that she will not put on the high-vis and the hard hat for the photo opportunities until all the detail, permits and cost budgets are in place first?

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee is right that the problems of HS2 were born many years ago. The fact that the civil engineering was delayed for four years is not the product of decisions by this Government or the current management of HS2, but is, as she says, about overly optimistic cost estimates, construction starting before designs were mature, insufficiently controlled delivery, poor contractual arrangements, gold-plating, and constant changes in policy and scope. She is entirely right on that.

My hon. Friend asked me what lessons we are learning about the delivery of future transport infrastructure. On Northern Powerhouse Rail, we have worked closely with local leaders to agree scope, priorities and sequencing in advance, so that we know what elements of the overall programme will be delivered first. We have set an overall budget cap for that, and are securing local contributions to ensure that we maximise the economic and regeneration potential of the new transport infrastructure in those places. We are learning the lessons.

Transport Accessibility for Disabled People

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

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

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. She is a passionate advocate—not just in transport, but across the piece—on the needs and rights of disabled people. To a large extent, this issue in transport is a subset of the societal challenge that she rightly raises.

The barriers that I have described prevent access to employment, education and services, and prevent people from having social lives. Following long delays, eight Access for All station upgrades have been confirmed, with 23 more moving to detailed design, and another round may be funded in the next spending review. These upgrades are welcome, but they feel like a drop in the ocean. At current investment rates, the rail network will not be fully step-free for a century, according to the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee’s estimate in 2022. As Emma Vogelmann, formerly of Transport for All, has said:

“Accessibility must be delivered as standard across the whole network, not rationed station by station over generations.”

Judging by Transport questions this morning, as well as every previous one I have sat through, Members who have been waiting for station improvements in their constituencies clearly feel the same way.

We also await the Government’s new rolling stock strategy, which must set out a clear approach to level boarding. On holiday in France and Italy last summer, I saw clear ambition for that, as demonstrated by the lift access being built, if not already installed, across a number of rural stations. I hope GBR will inject that missing ambition into the UK rail system.

On electric vehicles, Transport Focus recently found that not a single charger on the strategic road network met voluntary accessibility standards, so we risk building new barriers into our future infrastructure, and those barriers will be expensive to fix later.

This is not just about hardware; we must embed accessibility into decision making. Witnesses to our recent inquiry into the Railways Bill expressed concern that, under the Bill, GBR must balance the interests of disabled people with cost. Of course, cost is always relevant, but we have repeatedly seen accessibility lose out. So we have recommended that GBR be required not just to consider but to deliver tangible improvements to accessibility.

On enforcement, we must ensure that rights are real. One of the most striking findings of our inquiry was that disabled people often have rights on paper that do not translate into real experiences. The reason is simple: enforcement is too weak.

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

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

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

[Ruth Cadbury]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and that is a good example of a systemic policy issue that could well be addressed.

Enforcement currently relies on individual passengers pursuing complaints or court cases, which is unrealistic, expensive and often ineffective. Many people do not know who to complain to, court processes are costly and unpredictable, and even successful judgments do not always lead to improved practice. As a result, many people just give up travelling, because what is the point? For example, earlier this month the Office of Rail and Road secured commitments from Northern Trains to improve disability training and passenger assistance, which is welcome, but the ORR’s concerns dated back to 2019, with formal action emerging only years later. Such delays mean that disabled passengers continue to be failed daily, and a system that relies on individuals is unfair.

On the enforcement gap, we concluded that regulators need more powers, more resources, a clearer mandate to intervene earlier and a cross-modal approach. The Government did not, unfortunately, accept these recommendations, and there is still no clear plan to close the enforcement gap. We appreciate the Department’s commitment to explore collective action on accountability, but we would ask the Minister for an update. When we raised enforcement with the Secretary of State in correspondence—it is listed on the Order Paper—and when she last appeared before us in November, she told us that she wanted operators simply to comply with the law rather than relying on enforcement. We agree that compliance is ideal, but robust enforcement is a necessary part of achieving that compliance, and disabled people should not be expected to force the system to uphold their own rights.

We very much welcome one aspect of the Government response to our report, which is a commitment to review the overly complex and fragmented legal framework governing transport accessibility. The Department has agreed to take forward this work with the Law Commission, and I was delighted to see that the Law Commission has launched its review this week. That is long overdue, but it could bring long-term benefits.

We appreciate the Minister’s engagement on the planned accessibility charter, but it must be more than a restatement of existing duties. The areas it must tackle include the street environment, enforcement of the public sector equality duty and clearer expectation on transport operators, and it must be genuinely co-produced with disabled people. My question is: how will the charter be enforced? As new statutory duties are created under the Railways Bill, enforcement routes need to follow. The new passenger watchdog is intended to be powerful, but it currently lacks the enforcement powers that we believe are needed.

In conclusion, accessibility is not a “nice to have”; it is a fundamental right and a precondition for equality. From taxis to railways and from aviation to the street environment, enforcement should be at the heart of the strategy for accessibility. Do the Government agree that there is an enforcement gap, and if so, what steps will they take to deliver stronger, earlier and more effective enforcement across all modes of transport? How are disabled people directly shaping the integrated national transport strategy and the accessibility charter, and what measures will give the charter real teeth so that operators and local authorities are held accountable?

Finally, I thank all the disabled people and disabled people’s organisations that contributed to our inquiry, those who have shared their experience since and those who continue to advise us. We will keep drawing on their expertise as we scrutinise the Government’s progress on all modes of transport.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

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

[Lilian Greenwood]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

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

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

[Heidi Alexander]

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

Northern Powerhouse Rail

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

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

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

[Heidi Alexander]

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