Railways Bill
Ruth Cadbury Excerpts(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read 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—
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(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
This is another hugely welcome transport statement from the Secretary of State for Transport and her team. Today’s announcement promises levels of rail connectivity for communities from Merseyside to Tyneside that will compare to those of the London travel to work area. The question that I and many others have is: when will we see more details about the timescales and potential funding sources for phases 1 and 2 and, most importantly, phase 3—linking Birmingham with the Northern Powerhouse Rail network, which is so desperately needed and was so cruelly and ridiculously cancelled by the Conservative party in government—so that we can relieve the pressure on the west coast main line and link up London and Birmingham with the cities of the north?
Heidi Alexander
The Chair of the Transport Committee is completely right that the proposals we are announcing today will deliver rail services for the north that are comparable to those in London and the south-east—a “turn up and go” railway where people do not have to check the timetable before they go to the station, because they know that a train will be there within a reasonable timeframe and that if they miss their train, they will not have to wait an hour for the next one. She is right to press me on when more information about the different phases will become available. The first phase of improvement relates to the corridors into Leeds from Sheffield, Bradford and York; we will be progressing with urgency on those, as well as the plans for the new line between Manchester and Liverpool. Phase 3 of NPR relates to further trans-Pennine improvements beyond the trans-Pennine route upgrade, and we will say more in due course about our plans for Birmingham to Manchester, noting that the delivery of those plans will come after NPR has been completed.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ruth Cadbury Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Government have given mayoral authorities greater devolved powers to develop local transport infrastructure projects. Will the Secretary of State ensure that such powers provide the opportunity to speed up joint planning and decision making so that much-needed transport infrastructure, such as the West Yorkshire mass transit scheme, can be accelerated to meet the needs of communities and local economies?
Keir Mather
The Government fully support the Mayor of West Yorkshire’s ambition to deliver mass transit in the region. People in West Yorkshire have waited too long for better transport infrastructure and too many promises from the previous Government have been broken. We are determined to put that right.
Railways Bill
Ruth Cadbury ExcerptsTuesday 9th December 2025
(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). I am still trying to work out what a Lib Dem Bill would include that this one does not.
I welcome the Bill, which is universally agreed to be long needed. It is the essential next step in ensuring that rail in Britain is more unified and that we deliver a rail system that is reliable and safe and provides value for money for passengers and the taxpayer.
The Railways Act 1993 led to 30 years of a poor deal for passengers, other customers and taxpayers, with 17 different organisations providing track and trains, multiple fare options and prices, hundreds of staff employed to attribute the cost of delays, staff shortages and no single voice to address individual systemic failures of service. Yet the railways have a workforce who are universally committed to delivering a high-quality service to passengers and customers.
I particularly welcome the proposal that the Secretary of State will issue a long-term rail strategy setting out objectives and the direction of travel for railways for the next 30 years. That will please so many stakeholders, including, in particular, investors in rail as well as mayoral authorities—in fact, all those who work in and use rail. I welcome that clause 18 includes duties on GBR to promote the interests of users and potential users of the railway, which specifically includes disabled passengers, and to run the railway in the public interest—in other words, to meet social, economic and environmental objectives.
Clause 18 sets out a series of significant duties for GBR, including the promotion the use of rail freight. But while clause 17 requires the Secretary of State for Transport to set out a target for growth in rail freight, there is no such target in the Bill for growth in passenger demand.
My Committee launched an inquiry on the Bill on 5 November—the day that the Bill was published—focusing in particular on three core aims of the reform: improving rail travel for passengers, network access, and devolution. We have published the evidence we have received so far, and the oral evidence taken on 26 November is tagged as a relevant document for this debate.
First, passenger experience is central to all our constituents who travel by rail—or who would do if it was more accessible, more reliable or cheaper. The passenger watchdog is a new voice providing advocacy and advice, sharing best practice and providing alternative dispute resolution. Clause 36 says that it will have a duty to have “particular regard” to the interests and needs of disabled passengers. It will set standards on how travel information is provided, including when there is a disruption. It will handle complaints and delay compensation, and it will require operators to make services accessible. Those powers in London and on Eurostar will be covered by an expanded London TravelWatch.
On the detail of enforcement powers, clauses 42 to 47 give the passenger watchdog powers to receive complaints. That is helpful, but I have a couple of questions for the Secretary of State. Will the Passengers’ Council be sufficiently independent, powerful and resourced to challenge GBR to deliver meaningful change if needed? What will the governance relationship be between the watchdog, the ORR and the rail ombudsman? What remedy will passengers have if the passenger watchdog’s recommendations are not adopted? Who will appoint the members of the council and the chair? Will passenger groups and disabled people be represented on the board?
Accessibility is a particular interest of the Transport Committee, following the publication of our report “Access denied” in February. I welcome the fact that clause 18 explicitly includes the needs of disabled passengers as a general duty, but that is only one of six duties that will have to be balanced. What guidance will be provided to GBR on balancing those needs, to ensure that disabled people do not lose out yet again? The wording in clause 18 on accessibility could also be said to be slightly objective. What safeguards are there against a future Secretary of State cutting costs and altering, diluting or even removing accessibility requirements?
On fairs and ticketing, we welcome a unified system. On network access, there is slightly less clarity on the future role of passenger open access. If the Government want to end open access for passengers, do they have a plan for retaining its benefits, such as filling gaps, opening up new routes and promoting price competition? On freight, how will the targets be aligned?
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that there is also a danger of a conflict of interest? At present, the ORR, an independent body, holds the power to grant track access rights. Under the Bill, those powers will transfer to GBR, while the ORR’s role is watered down. If GBR is able to block applications, it becomes judge and jury. Open access operators such as Go-op may struggle to get the access rights that they need to run new services, including through Melksham.
Ruth Cadbury
There are questions about the relationship between the Secretary of State, GBR, the ORR and the passenger watchdog, which we will certainly pursue—and so, I am sure, will others.
Devolution is central to the Government’s vision, so I welcome the fact that the Scottish and Welsh Governments and elected mayors will have greater control of their areas. Will there be an oversight role, so that local decisions do not conflict with national priorities, such as providing access to rail freight?
In conclusion, I really welcome the Bill, although the two Opposition amendments do not. The Bill will work if it relieves the Secretary of State of day-to-day operational decision making, and lets those who understand the rail system get on with delivering for the benefit of passengers, the economy and the environment.
Heathrow: National Airports Review
Ruth Cadbury Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I look forward to the work she does on this ANPS coming to our Committee in due course. A third runway at Heathrow, combined with all the other agreed—or likely to be agreed—expansions of capacity in London and south-east airports would involve an increase of 177 million passengers, which would be 70% more than the number of passengers in London and the south-east from 2024. I look forward to the Climate Change Committee’s response to the proposal, because it has said that a 35% increase in capacity would be the maximum that would keep the UK compliant with our international legal commitments.
To return to the specifics of the statement, the Secretary of State said that she seeks to minimise costs for passengers and customers, but given that the cost of a third runway will be between £25 billion and £49 billion, how exactly will that cost not be passed on to the airlines and therefore the passengers if the Treasury is not going to fund those costs, which we know it is not? On surface access, ever since the building of the fifth terminal, the local authorities all around Heathrow have been pushing for southern rail access to Heathrow. Heathrow Airport has long said—and has clarified recently—that it will not pay the cost of southern rail access, so how does she expect that to be funded? If the M25 and M4 are not to grind to a halt, and if passengers and workers from the west and south of the airport are to be able to get in and out of the airport, how is that to be achieved?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise these issues. We will give very careful and thorough consideration to them in the airports national policy statement review, which will take place in the coming months. She referred to the Climate Change Committee’s opinion on capacity expansion. We are making rapid progress in cleaning up the fuel that is used in planes, and we are making huge efforts to reform our airspace, so that we can have cleaner and more direct flights. The carbon intensity of flying has to come down if we are to have more planes in the air. She was also right to highlight the importance of the regulatory model. That is why we have asked the Civil Aviation Authority to do this piece of work over the coming months; it is aligned with the review in the airports national policy statement. We will say more on that in due course.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ruth Cadbury Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I, too, look forward to working with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather), in his new role. Last week, the Transport Committee heard that car clubs, peer-to-peer ride-sharing and car-sharing schemes align with Government objectives on transport integration, reducing congestion, increasing electric vehicle use and supporting residents in rural areas where public transport is poor. Unlike France and other countries, the sector in the UK operates in a policy vacuum, particularly since the Government withdrew the car clubs toolkit guidance in May. Is the Minister planning to address that policy vacuum?
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend is completely right, and I thank the Transport Committee for raising that important point. I have commissioned officials to consider how we can support and promote the use of car club and car-sharing schemes, starting with a roundtable of industry stakeholders. I would be delighted if she could attend. I will ensure that that guidance is reinstated.