Ruth Cadbury
MP for Brentford and Isleworth · Labour · United Kingdom
“I supported this legislation first in 2015 and will do so again as it goes through its processes. I am truly grateful for all the work that so many hon. Members here and in the other House have done on the detail of the Bill.”
“His brother was diagnosed with cancer, and after an operation that proved unsuccessful, he was admitted to a hospice for end-of-life care. About his brother, he said: “He was very philosophical about what was going to happen. His one request and hope was that his death was not going to be prolonged and painful.”
“If he could only have received a life-ending intervention 5 days before he died, as he wanted, he would not have had to suffer the indignity and agony of a painful and long, drawn-out, horrific death.” The second experience is that described on several occasions in the House by Paul Blomfield, the former MP for Sheffield Central, about hi…”
“In Paul’s words, “He had had his share of health problems, but he faced them all positively, until a terminal diagnosis of inoperable lung cancer clearly led to his decision to take his life. He could not talk to me or his partner about it, because he would have made us complicit.”
“I will not. The many people who have shared their experiences of facing death soon have told us that they want to die on their own terms. We also know, through various credible polls, that the majority of people in this country want that choice for themselves. I do not want to deny them the right to be able to make that choice.”
“231WH.] Those potentially facing unimaginable pain or suffering after their terminal diagnosis, despite the best palliative care, currently have options that are unbearably lonely—like for Paul’s father—or involve an arduous and costly journey by going to Switzerland; or they have no choice, like my constituent’s brother.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Ruth Cadbury, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“My hon. Friend is an amazing ambassador for Shrewsbury—I have learned so much about Shrewsbury since getting to know her. Although it is possibly beyond the scope of today’s debate, she is absolutely right about the need to align transport policies and networks with our wider growth and development aspirations. I know that the Government are listening, and are working hard on that very issue. The point about new towns is also a very good one, and it has been welcome to see a Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), sitting alongside the Housing and Planning Minister for quite a lot of this debate—it is a good sign that the important need to break down the silos that built up in Government over the past 15 years is being recognised. We on the Committee corridor really appreciate that.”
“I thank the Government and the police services for their work to ensure additional police presence at rail stations, as I saw at Waterloo on my way here earlier. As the Home Secretary said, British Transport police has said that its operational assessment of the risk posed on our trains has not changed, given that this was an isolated attack, so will she assure me that any long-term changes to security on our rail services will be considered very carefully once the full facts of this incident are known and that there will not be a rush into changes without considering potential downsides that may impact on the ease of travel by train?”
“I thank the Home Secretary for all her remarks and the Secretary of State for Transport, who is also in her place, for her comments in the media this morning. I share, as all hon. Members of the House do, their concern for the victims and their families and the recognition of the heroism of so many in the tragedy on Saturday. On behalf of my colleagues on the Transport Committee, I pay particular tribute to all the staff of Avanti West Coast and Network Rail, who responded so quickly, and in particular to the train driver who reacted so promptly to get the train to Huntingdon in order that the emergency services could meet it and the on-board staff member who is in hospital after protecting passengers. [ Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 652.] (Correction) I know that people may be nervous of travelling by train now.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask that the record be corrected? I inadvertently mentioned Avanti West Coast. I must have been thinking of the derailment, and not the tragic incident, which of course was on LNER. [ Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 640.]”
“T8. I have heard from small businesses locally, including a butcher’s and a lighting supplier, about how Brexit has imposed extra barriers on small businesses such as theirs. Will the Minister outline how the UK-EU common understanding will improve conditions for small businesses, particularly those that import from and export to the EU?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“New clause 46 comes from the Transport Committee’s recommendation 117, which says that the Department should “require local transport authorities to consider using grant or fare box funding to enhance existing local bus services.” The need to improve local bus services while growing ridership was a focal point of the evidence received by our Committee.”
“Having more people on more buses addresses the policy objectives that they and we in Labour seek to achieve, such as addressing congestion, air pollution, carbon emissions, social and economic isolation, and growth. However, I fear that there are—and that there could be more—local authorities that care little for those important objectives, which are central to this Government’s values. New clause 46 would therefore bake in a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate funds to improve bus services where it would “grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network”. It sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions. It would also enable bus user groups and others to measure the intentions of their local transport authorities against those basic objectives.”
“It is about “whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.” The local transport authority must have regard to six principles. These are the potential for increased ridership; the overall sustainability of the network; the service improvements, particularly the frequency of existing services; extending operating hours; improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; and extending the routes of local services. We know that progressive local authorities are committed to enhancing and expanding the public transport in their areas, and they do that; we have great examples under Labour mayors in Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and the west midlands.”
“If the Government seek the reversal of bus decline in England, I hope the Minister will support our two amendments. They add to the Bill, because they specifically seek to improve bus services in a way that relying on future guidance may not. They provide the context in which local transport authorities can determine their specific bus provision. Merely devolving greater control to local authorities without any kind of overarching values-based vision will not help in areas that have no interest whatsoever in enhancing and extending their services, and could risk simply entrenching inequality and decline. New clause 46 seeks to ensure that local transport authorities have a duty to consider funding for service enhancements.”
“You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading, except to say it is no surprise that our first stand-alone inquiry in the Transport Committee was on buses in England outside of London. That issue affects Members in England from across the House and from all sorts of constituencies. I speak in support of two amendments that stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), myself and others: amendment 66 and new clause 46. Since Second Reading of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, the Transport Committee has published its “Buses connecting communities” report, which focuses on potential solutions to the long-term decline in bus ridership in England outside London.”
“As a result of such evidence, the Committee’s report recommended that the Department should mandate local transport authorities to publish their own transparent methodology for how they determine which bus services qualify as socially necessary to ensure public accountability—hence the reason for this amendment.”
“It seeks to insert in line 5 of page 10 after the word “services”: “along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”. It would be for the local transport authority to define that, but in a publicly visible way. The amendment asks that local authorities be required to produce a transparent methodology for how they determine these socially necessary services. The North West Surrey Bus Users Group made the argument to the Committee that a clear and consistently applied definition was essential for holding local authorities accountable for maintaining basic service levels on loss-making routes. It warned that in the absence of sufficient guidance to date, some authorities had, to a greater or lesser extent, abdicated their responsibilities.”
“Transport for the North told the Committee that in 2024 some 11.4 million people across England faced transport-related social exclusion, and there was evidence that the problem was worse in towns than in cities. The Minister told us that the Government intended the Bill to deliver services that were more affordable and reliable, faster and better integrated. However, when pressed on whether people in England would see more buses to more places by the end of this Parliament, he said that that is certainly their intention and they are doing everything possible to make it happen. My contention is that without that being baked into the body of the Bill, there is a risk that in many places there could be a continued decline in bus services over time. Amendment 66 to clause 14 relates to socially necessary services.”
“I speak in the context of devolution within an overarching set of values. I will not go into the specifics of what level a bus fare should be, but the overall ridership and the sustainability of the bus system are a key objective. I know the Minister will say that with devolution, how that happens is up to the local transport authorities. Returning to the evidence we heard in Committee, as everybody here knows, buses remain the most used form of public transport, yet the number of bus journeys in England outside London has dropped from 4.6 billion in 2009 to 3.6 billion in 2024. Alongside the declining number of journeys, the need to improve services and increase ridership speaks to the evidence received by the Committee about the impact on social isolation of a lack of access to buses.”
“I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, which goes to the heart of what I am saying: it is not for this Bill and this Government to define whether or not colleges, schools and so forth should be included—one would hope they would be—but it is for the local authority to define their socially necessary services according to the needs in their area. They should publish it, and a requirement to do so should be in the Bill. I am pretty sure that the Minister will say, “Don’t worry, Chair of the Select Committee, it’ll be in the guidance.” My concern is that guidance is to some extent discretionary and can be changed over time. I, Alex Mayer and others would like to see the need to have a definition and methodology for socially necessary services stated in the Bill.”
“I have only been here 10 and a bit years; I will get used to it. I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard. I apologise to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill as currently drafted suggests that local transport authorities merely define their socially necessary services. That could mean services as they are now; it does not take into account changes in need. New housing developments might mean that a loss-making route becomes commercially viable. The closure of a major employer might mean that nearby housing loses a viable bus service. The Bill allows for change, but it should require local authorities to have a publicly available methodology, on which user groups, communities and residents can hold their local transport authority to account.”
“The hon. Member is entirely correct. Our amendments would support local transport authorities to grow their local bus networks actively in response to demographic and economic changes, not just to manage the decline. Without the amendments, particularly amendment 66, the only requirement is for authorities to list their current services. While acknowledging the Government’s rightful drive on devolution, our Committee would not want any local transport authority to walk away from the Bill’s important objectives to promote growth, particularly in towns across England; to promote reliability and integration; and to address social isolation, inequality, traffic congestion and pollution.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for his speech, and I thank those who secured the debate. Many of my constituents are highly skilled. They often work in IT. Some do not intend to stay and may well go home, but those who have written to me have told me what it means for them. It is not just about their current job; they see themselves contributing in the long term through their skilled jobs and perhaps making a career, climbing up the career ladder and becoming managers and leaders in their field. This decision appears to make that possibility very uncertain. How do HR managers feel about this decision when they are recruiting skilled people from overseas?”
“It is still being impacted significantly and having to fundraise to bridge the gap in funding and ensure that therapy sessions do not stop. Let us remember that it is not just the children and families who lose out because of the uncertainty and the cuts resulting from these decisions, but the therapists themselves, who have a living to make. Most of them are freelancers. They want to work with these damaged children and do not want their whole practice to be paid for privately by families who can afford it. There must be equality here. Purple Elephant has told me that families are anxious, stressed and disillusioned about the loss of support and worried about how they will cope if these services—”
“The children it has supported have all had a traumatic start to their life through neglect or abuse, and they have great difficulty building relationships and coping with school, siblings and any social situation. Due to the close correlation between neglect, abuse and adoption, Purple Elephant and other organisations are heavily dependent on the grant for their sustainability. When I met our kinship care group, I heard that many of them, and the children for whom they are now guardians, gain from the services that the fund supports. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) cares deeply about this issue and is personally committed, but I ask her to address the problems. Purple Elephant told me recently that it is not out of the woods yet.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this debate. I have seen the difference that the adoption and support grant has made locally. I visited the Purple Elephant Project, based in Whitton in my constituency, which supports over 100 children and families in Hounslow and Richmond, including many who have been adopted, are in kinship care or are currently looked-after children in foster care. It provides intense professional therapeutic support. The Purple Elephant team gave examples of the difference it has made, sometimes after a long period of therapeutic support, to benefit those children and families. I saw the safe and welcoming space it provides and understood the difference it makes.”
“Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that we are hearing that some adopters, or potential adopters, are being put off going even through the process because of concerns about a lack of post-adoption support, which of course has to be long term, as he just mentioned?”
“I was an active member of the Select Committee inquiry, along with the Minister, who was then the Committee Chair; the rural affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner); and the then Conservative Member for Bexhill and Battle, who took us to his constituency to show us the problems there. We recommended Government legislation for a nationwide ban on pavement parking across England outside London to give the Secretary of State for Transport the power to bring in secondary legislation. We also recommended a ban enforced by local authorities, not the police; a nationwide awareness campaign showing the problems of pavement parking for those affected; and revisions of the traffic regulation order process. The Secretary of State has shown that she and the Minister are passionate—”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate. She and many other hon. Members have described the reasons for this debate and for a change in the law. As Chair of the Transport Committee, it gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate, but I am not sure how many times in the 10 years since I have been in Parliament I have spoken on the issue of bringing in a default ban on pavement parking. As a London MP, and before that a London councillor and a London resident for 40 years, I know that a default ban—with specific exemptions where needed—would work. I have never understood the apparent reluctance among some to allow that nationwide.”
“My constituency, like Britain as a whole, has long been home to people of all faiths and cultures who came here or whose forebears came here from all around the world. Over the summer, we have seen the growth of ugly rhetoric, including the term “indigenous Britons”, which risks a culture of fear in many of our communities. What are the Government doing to address this insidious trend?”
“Does the Foreign Secretary accept that Israel’s plans to transfer control of the Ibrahimi mosque from the Palestinian municipality of Hebron is highly inflammatory and a violation of international law? Will the Government condemn any transfer of authority away from Palestinians and consider sanctions against the Kiryat Arba settlement municipality if it assumes such a role?”
“I very much welcome the Energy Secretary’s statement. Adequate electric vehicle charging infrastructure, depot charging and onshore power for shipping are all critical to the Government’s net zero challenge, and businesses and providers across the transport sector who are making investment decisions need a route map. What steps is he taking to prioritise grid connections? Will he commit to reforming the grid queuing system, so that projects that are essential to decarbonising our transport sector are brought forward more quickly?”
“I welcome the statement, and I am sure that the Roads Minister will ensure that the various road projects deliver for local residents walking along and across the new junctions, and benefit them as much as they benefit drivers. The strategic road network projects are clearly important to dealing with congestion, but can I assume that each one has been subject to robust appraisal and business case development, and may I ask when we will see the equivalent work being done to address the chronic capacity crisis on the west coast main line?”
“I note that the Minister confirmed the airport’s responsibility for its own power resilience, but does the Government have a role in ensuring that end-to-end power supply to critical national infrastructure is robust and that risks like power outages are managed adequately?”
“I, too, thank the Minister for making this statement, and NESO for this damning report. Heathrow Airport Ltd’s power set-up internally virtually guarantees hours of disruption in a scenario like this. On 21 March, that meant over a quarter of a million passengers were affected; airlines lost significant revenue, for which they will not be compensated; and countless time-critical freight loads were also affected. Yet in Spain and Portugal, airports did not close when those countries had full power outages. By any definition, surely Heathrow airport counts as critical national infrastructure as it undeniably requires operational continuity.”
“A new report from the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking warns of the growing public safety risk posed by the widespread use of unsafe, illegally modified bikes, and the fire risk caused by their cheap but powerful batteries bought from online marketplaces. What assessment has the Minister—along with his colleagues in other Departments—made of the risks posed by those fake e-bikes?”
“I accept that the Minister may want to write to me after the debate to answer some of my questions. Will the Department for Transport follow the Cabinet Office in planning to publish its outcome delivery plan for 2025-26? To move on to devolution and accountability, there have been increases in funding in the main estimates, with £100 million allocated to the mayoral combined authorities. Subsequently, at the spending review, there were increases to devolved institutions in England, with just over £15 billion for city region sustainable transport settlements and local transport grants.”
“The memorandum later states that the “DfT’s ODP includes delivery strategies, delivery plans and a suite of core metrics to articulate progress against each Priority Outcome.” But the outcome delivery plan for 2025-26 has not been published, and the estimates memorandum does not explain how spending in the estimates relates to core metrics and so on. The Cabinet Secretary recently promised to share the next set of ODPs with the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, subject to ministerial approval. Without the ODPs, how can our Committee, and therefore the House, be assured that the Department’s policy objectives are clear, and that its spending aligns with those objectives and with the Government’s really important and very welcome missions?”
“Under the previous Government, outcome delivery plans were produced that listed the outcomes that Departments hoped to achieve through their spending, alongside specific metrics by which progress could be measured. The Department for Transport’s most recent outcome delivery plan was published in 2021. In the 2025-26 main estimates memorandum, the Department said: “DfT’s Outcome Delivery Plan for 2025-26 outlines the ambition to build a modern, efficient, and sustainable transport network that raises living standards for communities. It details how resources are allocated between DfT’s three Priority Outcomes”, which are given as growth; greener, safer and healthier transport, and improving transport for people.”
“The Transport Secretary replied saying that officials would “work with the House of Commons Scrutiny Unit and HM Treasury to consider any changes to the presentation of the Department’s Estimates.” I have not received more detail directly, and the Department’s main estimate memorandum provides no additional information to explain how spending is aligned with the Department’s strategic objectives. That memorandum and correspondence is linked to on the Order Paper. Furthermore, the Department’s main estimate memorandum was not received on time, making it harder for my Committee and others to undertake effective and timely scrutiny. The Department for Transport was one of only three Departments, along with the Cabinet Office and the Home Office, whose memorandums were not provided alongside the publication of the main estimate.”
“The Transport Committee is tasked with holding the Department to account on its programme, in respect of both delivery and the use of resources, so I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and to discuss the estimated departmental spend for the coming financial year. It is inevitable that Members will also want to consider the wider transport issues that affect their constituencies, but I will try to keep my remarks mainly to the estimates. As our scrutiny role means seeking assurance that the departmental estimates link to the Department’s strategic objectives, this debate is important. Following the publication of the supplementary estimates for 2024-25, I wrote to the Department in March seeking clarity on how the spending aligned with the Department’s strategic objectives.”
“Whether they are walking or cycling, riding on buses, trams or trains, or planes, transport plays a huge role in the daily lives of our constituents, and for the businesses and public services on which we all depend. I welcome the fact that the Government are investing properly in transport, particularly local transport. I also welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of £15.6 billion to connect our cities and towns, as well as the fourfold increase in local transport grants by the end of this Parliament. This Government’s ambition on transport is way ahead of the last Government’s.”
“I welcome the intervention from my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. As a London MP, I know that stability in transport provision in London will be of huge benefit to my constituents, Londoners, visitors and commuters to London. We did not get everything we wanted in the spending review—in our case, the west London orbital—but we certainly got a lot more than we got from the previous Government, and for that we are very grateful.”
“My hon. Friend anticipates what I will say about road safety later, but I agree about listening to communities on the devolution of funding. There are also the adjustments to the Green Book, which may have cost us a little bit in London compared with the funding we have had in recent years, but communities across the country will benefit from the overall national perspective on devolution and considering the country as a whole.”
“My hon. Friend and fellow Transport Committee member is absolutely right. The changes that this Government are making will be felt across the country and in all types of cities and regions. To return to the specifics of the £15 billion for city region sustainable transport settlements and local transport grants, which I mentioned, they are deliberately not ringfenced, which is good for local democracy, but does create challenges for the Department in achieving national priorities. I heard from one colleague who is concerned that the politics of their authority is very based on cars, and although we want to encourage people to use public transport and active travel, what can the national Government do if the local authority uses that funding for cars?”
“Efficiently and correctly, but also transparently, and I hope all local authorities do fully, properly and accessibly account for their spending to their residents.”
“Will the Minister set out what happens if a devolved institution diverges from departmental priorities, for example by opting not to fund active travel despite the Department’s objective to increase active travel? The future introduction of place-based business cases, as set out in the spending review, has the potential to transform how Government think about the value and benefit of transport interventions and outcomes. When business cases are reformed along those lines, we look forward to seeing a difference in how the Government draw and think about those connections.”
“The hon. Member asks a good question and the answer is that it is a mixture. It is the philosophy of devolution that is important because mayoral combined authorities in particular can deliver in ways that will be different according to their specific priorities and needs. There has been a potential challenge to the Department in achieving national priorities. It is also worth noting that the main estimate for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provides additional funding for the West Midlands and Great Manchester combined authorities, so there are other pots of money from other Departments that mayors can pool together to put to best use for their authorities.”
“Evidence to our Committee inquiry on buses connecting communities emphasised the value of bus services, and the need for measures to promote their use, especially in rural and suburban areas.”
“My hon. Friend makes a good point. One reason that the initial emphasis has been on mayoral combined authorities and urban areas is because work is already being done on such transport strategies, so they are often further ahead. Our buses inquiry deliberately focused on buses connecting communities away from the large urban areas. My hon. Friend is right that as local authorities have been stripped out over the past 15 years, much of that expertise among members and particularly among officers, just is not there, so there are often not the people needed to do that strategic work. I hope that will change and that when our buses inquiry report is published that element of the debate will be included. I will move on to specific transport modes, starting with buses.”
“I am now going to move on to roads. We are still waiting for the list of road investment projects in the third road investment strategy—RIS3. No scheme was published at the spending review. The more recent UK infrastructure 10-year strategy stated: “A full list of projects will be set out as part of the development of the third Road Investment Strategy.” When will that strategy and that list be published?”