Britain’s Railways

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

Yes, we are charging Great British Railways with looking at the way that all ticketing operates. One of the things that is so crazy at the moment is the extent to which we are still walking around with paper tickets, which are about half of all tickets sold, and the additional cost that a not-very-streamlined system to use our trains brings to bear. One example that I hope to be able to deliver for my right hon. Friend’s constituents—it has actually recently been delivered to mine, although before I was Transport Secretary—is the ability to touch in and touch out. That then works with the Oyster system—although it is not Oyster outside of London—and caps the fares, so that if her constituents make more than X number of journeys a week, it automatically prevents them from being charged more. Those are the sorts of much more advanced ticketing plans that will be much easier to do with Great British Railways because it will all be under one roof.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]]

I welcome much in this statement, but it is meaningless if we cannot get more than one train a week through Reddish South and Denton stations. At the convention of the north in 2019, the Prime Minister promised northern mayors that they would be able to run their own trains. Greater Manchester has ambitious plans for both GM Rail and tram-train integration with the bus and Metrolink networks, with full London-style integration. I accept that today’s announcement is a big step in the right direction, but it falls a little bit short of that 2019 promise. How do we make Greater Manchester’s vision a reality?

[Grant Shapps]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s tacit support for this; he is right about what we want to do and where we want to go with it. As I mentioned earlier, I spoke to the Manchester Mayor yesterday about the way that GM Rail can help to integrate all these services. Needless to say, since that 2019 speech we have all been tackling covid, and I think it is fair to say that GM Rail would not necessarily be immediately in a position where it would want to take over these routes, all of which are under enormous financial stress and are being rescued by the Chancellor’s £12 billion. It is our intention to press on with the agenda of making sure that people can take one form of transport to another—in the case of Manchester, on trams, buses and trains.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking to help ensure the recovery of the UK aviation sector following the rollout of the covid-19 vaccine.

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for the aviation industry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)]

The Government have provided significant financial support to aviation workers and businesses. The global travel taskforce will report in April on a return to safe and sustainable international travel.

[Andrew Gwynne [V]]

Last week, the Chancellor set out the support he is providing to businesses until they can reopen their doors, but although the Office for National Statistics showed that aviation was the worst-affected sector, it was not given a single mention. Does the Minister agree that the support already provided to airports will not be enough to cover them losing many times that amount each month? Is he not missing a trick here both to help the sector to survive and help it to modernise to meet our climate change obligations?

[Robert Courts]

The Government have given the aviation sector approximately £7 billion of support over the course of the pandemic. The Budget we heard last week from the Chancellor extended both the furlough scheme and the airport and ground operations support scheme for another six months. What we are doing to support and help the sector is the global travel taskforce. It is through getting people travelling sustainably and robustly that we will see brighter days ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

What support his Department is providing to local authorities to increase levels of cycling and walking.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

What steps his Department is taking to support walking and cycling schemes.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

What support his Department is providing to local authorities to increase levels of cycling and walking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Cycling and walking policy is a devolved matter for the Welsh Government, but I am happy to congratulate those councils and the Canal and River Trust on their work in and around this globally significant site and the canal world heritage site. We will follow in the steps of Thomas Telford, who designed the beautiful aqueduct there, to deliver high-quality cycling and walking infrastructure for future generations with the £2 billion that I just mentioned.

[Andrew Gwynne [V]]

Active travel funding is one side of the equation, and a lot is starting to be achieved from that, but authorities in Greater Manchester also need to obtain powers to ensure that this new infrastructure and the roads generally can function well. One example is around moving traffic offences, giving Greater Manchester London-style enforcement powers to keep roads moving efficiently for all users. When will the Government commence the remaining elements of part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, as set out in the Department’s “Gear change” publication in July?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is passionate about all things active travel. He will doubtless be pleased that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority has been allocated over £18 million in the two tranches of the active travel fund this year, and 143 “Fix Your Bike” vouchers have been given to his constituents, but the answer to his question is: shortly.

Disability Equality Training (Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Drivers) Bill

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 18th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I rise to delay the hon. Gentleman for a few seconds in order that the rowdy Members celebrating a victory can leave with discretion and politeness to their colleague.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I want to place on the record my thanks to Guide Dogs UK for its assistance to me in putting this Bill together and those Members across the House who have indicated their support for its measures.

As a Member with, like all Members, disabled constituents specifically affected by discrimination from a minority of taxi hire vehicles, it gives me immense pride to present to the House a Bill designed to settle this issue and ensure all our constituents receive the service the law demands. For too long, this issue has flown under the radar and continues to specifically discriminate against the visually impaired, those with mobility and physical impairments and the more vulnerable in our society.

A minority of taxi and private hire vehicle licence holders frequently discriminate against assistance dog owners and other disabled people by refusing to pick them up. As I am sure Members present are aware, disabled people, including those with assistance dogs, are legally protected under section 29 of the Equality Act 2010. It is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of a protected characteristic or victimise someone when providing a service. This applies to taxis and private hire vehicles as much as any other service. Added to this, numerous disability groups, including Disability Rights UK and Muscular Dystrophy UK, report that their members are being charged higher rates, at times double the standard fare, to accommodate their wheelchairs. This is unethical and cruel.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

I interrupt the hon. Gentleman simply because we are short of time and a number of Members may want to contribute and I want to get this on the record. He has done a service to the House in introducing this Bill; there is no doubt about that. He is right about the legality, and he is also right about the ethics, and I want to assure him that I share his view. We should do more and we will do more.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance from the Government Front Bench and I am sure the people we all represent will be comforted to hear that, because it is perfectly right that disabled people want to live independent lives and do not want to be a nuisance to anyone, but often constant refusals and abuse are leaving many of them with little hope.

Catherine, a guide dog owner from Birmingham, reported:

“It makes me think if it’s worth getting a taxi at all. I rather struggle to go somewhere because I don’t want grief about my guide dog.”

Although these provisions are in place, it is undeniable that disabled people continue to suffer from severe restrictions in the use of taxis and private hire vehicles. The Law Commission confirmed this in its 2013 review of taxis and private hire vehicles. The reality, however, is worse: in-depth research from Guide Dogs UK shows that three in four assistance dog owners reported that they have been refused entry to private hire vehicles and taxis because of their guide dogs.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I previously contacted my local authority on this matter to establish whether it was aware of the issues the hon. Gentleman will be highlighting here today. It advised that, owing to my letter, it had contacted Guide Dogs UK for further information so it could incorporate that into its training for drivers. Will he join me in calling for other Members to do likewise and encourage the voluntary uptake of training measures from the relevant bodies?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Absolutely, and I commend the hon. Lady for the work that she has done on this in her own constituency. I encourage other Members to do precisely the same in theirs.

We need this law change in England and Wales—the situation is different in Scotland—to introduce training, so that every taxi licence holder is aware of their legal obligations under the Equalities Act 2010. There can be no excuse for refusing someone with disabilities access to a taxi. That is the law, and if taxi drivers currently do not know that it is the law, that is a training issue. That is why I think that my Bill has very many merits.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for each and every one of us in the House to raise this issue with our local authority and through columns in our local newspapers, to ensure that no one can use ignorance as a defence for refusing services to blind and disabled people?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for sponsoring my Bill; his support is greatly appreciated. He is absolutely right to suggest that there is a lot more on the enforcement side that local authorities could and should be doing. At the moment, taxi licence holders who are brought before the licensing panel can plead ignorance and say that they did not appreciate that this was the law. However, if they have to have training as part of their licence requirements in the first place, or as part of their renewal requirements, they will no longer have that excuse.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, welcome though it is that local authorities are taking more seriously their responsibilities for training and enforcement, the only way to guarantee that people get the respect they deserve and that taxi drivers abide by the law is to put this requirement on to a statutory footing?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I absolutely agree. Best practice is in place in many areas across the country, but unless there is a statutory requirement for training as part of the licensing regime, we will never be able to weed out any bad practice that still exists.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing his private Member’s Bill and leading the debate today. He mentioned that the law would apply in England and Wales. We already have guidance on this in Wales, and Guide Dogs Campaigns is working with the Welsh Government on it. Will he work with the Welsh Government to ensure that a similar Bill can be enacted in Wales?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Absolutely. I discovered as a result of the discussions I had when preparing my Bill that not all the relevant functions have yet been devolved to Ministers in the Welsh Government and that some of the duties therefore still rest with the Secretary of State for Transport here in Whitehall. That is why some of the provisions in the Bill relate to Wales. But my hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to get these provisions in place across the whole United Kingdom. There are parts of the UK that have advanced further down this track than England and Wales have done, and my Bill is trying to put that right.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What response has my hon. Friend had from taxi drivers’ associations?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention them.

Returning to the measures in the Bill, the Local Government Association is fully on board with my proposals, but we must ensure that local councils have the necessary tools at their disposal, so that they can properly administer the training scheme and ensure that the measures are being adhered to. Out of 297 visually impaired respondents to a Guide Dogs survey, 68% reported that they had not informed the authorities when an individual had refused them service. The most common reason they gave was that they did not believe anything would come of it. A freedom of information request and parliamentary questions that I have asked have made it clear that, since the practice of refusal became illegal in 2010, there were no convictions in 2011, there was one in 2012, one in 2013 and one in 2014. Yet we know that 42% of assistance dog users in any one year are refused a taxi service. There is a big problem here, and ignorance of the law is no justification. That is why training is absolutely crucial.

Let me be clear: those taxi and minicab drivers who are refusing to serve visually impaired and wheelchair passengers are breaking the law. The only exception for refusing someone with an assistance dog is on medical grounds, and for that they have to have a certified medical certificate permanently on display in the taxi. They cannot just turn up at a kerbside and decide that they will not take a dog because of some spurious allergy that they have just decided they have.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I had not intended to speak on the Bill given the time, but I heard the Minister and I want to give my hon. Friend’s Bill good wind. Does he agree that training, which is covered by his Bill, is absolutely essential? Even when people want to assist and they know what their duties are under the law, they can still fall foul of it. For instance, there was a report of a dog that had to travel in the sealed boot of a car. That cannot be right; training is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely why training is necessary. My Bill would put that right on a national setting, rather than basing it on the good will of local authorities in different parts of the country. That is why the Local Government Association and other organisations are calling for precisely this law.

I want to end with a quote from Keri Doyle.

[Mr Hayes]

Before the hon. Gentleman ends, may I say something that might surprise him and the House? I hope that it is a welcome surprise. I do not rule out mandatory training as part of some future package. We need to put a package of measures together to support disabled people’s access to these vehicles. He is absolutely right to highlight the state of the application of existing law. Clearly, more needs to be done. I assure him that the debate matters to me and my Department. As I said earlier, it will be done.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to the Minister. My only concern is that we have been waiting for the Government’s response to the Law Commission for some time. Notwithstanding the desire of officials and Ministers in the Department for Transport to want to do something, Government legislation and programming time is a matter for others in government. There are some incredibly pressing measures coming before this House in due course, not least on how we renegotiate our terms and conditions and our relationships with our European colleagues as we leave the European Union.

Notwithstanding the Minister’s desire to do something, I am certain that there may not be appropriate time in the near future to change the law. Disabled people need the law to change today. I say to the Minister: let us get the Bill through to the next stages, so that we can discuss how we make that help happen. Disabled people need it today. This matter cannot be something that sits in the long grass of good intentions for the future.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

Having attended the event earlier this week with Guide Dogs in Parliament, does my hon. Friend share my surprise at learning that two thirds of guide dog owners have experienced problems taking their guide dogs somewhere, whether in a taxi or into a shop?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

The best thing about being promoted to the shadow Cabinet—I thank the Whips for allowing me to speak from the Back Benches on this one occasion—is that I will not for the foreseeable future have to enter the private Members’ Bills ballot. Some Members come to this House and put in every year and never get drawn. I have been here for 11 years and this is my third. When an MP gets drawn in the ballot, they get inundated with every good cause and by every charity under the sun, urging them to take on their case. I was already receptive to Guide Dogs UK and had already promised to do this piece of legislation for them if I was drawn. However, it was not until the Bill’s First Reading that I appreciated just how widespread the issue is. I was inundated with correspondence from guide dog and assistance dog owners who have been refused access. It is only when we listen to their stories that we realise just how widespread the problem is.

[Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I have had some dealings with visually impaired people—friends and constituents—and can only reiterate everything that my hon. Friend has said. They tell me that taxis are essential to disabled people’s independence because many are unable to drive or use public transport. The emotional impact of facing discrimination and confrontation when trying to carry out everyday activities takes a significant toll on disabled people, leading to a loss of confidence and independence anyway.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I absolutely agree. That is precisely why I am so pleased that Members stayed on after the previous private Member’s Bill to support this one. It is a worthy cause.

I want to give the last word to my constituent Keri Doyle, who lives in Reddish. She told me:

“I’ve been refused access to taxis because of my guide dog. It’s not my choice to have sight loss and my guide dog is essential for me being able to get around. It’s inconvenient, I’ve been late for appointments and it makes me angry that it’s still happening.”

Out there today, a minority of people in our society are looking to this place to support their rights and enforce the law. It is time to make them proud.

Transport and Local Infrastructure

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I certainly want to see more use of smart ticketing, and I think the bus companies are now addressing the issue. There will be criteria on whether local authorities can apply for the franchising. We will need to see whether my hon. Friend’s area lives up to those priorities.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Is it about a train that runs only once a week?

[Andrew Gwynne]

In one direction only! I would also quite like to have a train service that goes into Manchester, but my question is about smart ticketing. Will the right hon. Gentleman knock some common sense into the transport planners who are trying to reinvent the wheel? We have had a bit of a farce in Greater Manchester, where many millions of pounds have been spent on trying to develop the technology of the “get me there” card, when we all already have some technology for that in our own pockets. It is called a contactless card. Why do we have to reinvent the wheel? Why can we not just use the technology that exists?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the contactless card, and I agree with him that there are such new technologies. That is a fairly new technology, and people in London see it used regularly nowadays. These are the areas on which we should be moving further forward, and I hope we will be able to make that happen.

This is all about delivering for customers and empowering local communities. New powers to franchise services will be available to combined authorities with directly elected mayors, just as they are in London, and private operators will be able to compete through the franchising system. Together, these measures demonstrate the Government’s ambition to deliver transport that helps the public to get around and get about.

The coalition Government and this one nation Conservative Government have a record to be proud of: investment up; projects under way; journeys getting easier; backing growth, jobs and new technology; helping local people get the homes and the infrastructure they need; striking a fairer deal for local government; giving devolution to local regions; and making Britain a leader. A stronger economy is at the heart of the Gracious Speech, and transport infrastructure is playing its part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I was very pleased that there was record investment in our railways under the last Labour Government. There are so many things that the Transport Secretary forgets to talk about. Every week I travel up to the midlands on the midland main line via St Pancras railway station; it has been transformed, and was transformed under a Labour Government, but he never mentions that.

I welcome the Transport Secretary’s damascene conversion to the cause of bus regulation, which might be described as a screeching U-turn. However, as always with this Government, the devil will be in the detail. We have yet to see the text of the bus services Bill, and it is a shame that it was not published in time for today’s debate. I remind Conservative Members that last year’s Queen’s Speech also promised a buses Bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, you wait five years for a Conservative Queen’s Speech that mentions buses, and then two come along at once—even if they are running late. We will subject the Bill to close scrutiny. It is vital for it to provide a legal framework that protects local authorities from eye-watering compensation claims, and to safeguard working conditions.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend has mentioned local authorities. If she listened carefully to the Queen’s Speech, she will know that Her Majesty said that the powers in the buses Bill would be extended only to parts of England with directly elected mayors. Does she think that the powers in the Bill, which we expect to be published soon, should extend to all parts of England, whether or not they have mayoral models?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Bill must address the decline in rural bus services, which have suffered some of the worst cuts and highest fare rises in the country, but, as my hon. Friend says, we also need to ensure that those powers are available to any area that wants them. I welcome the concession the Transport Secretary has made. According to the Queen’s Speech briefing, which was published yesterday, the Bill will allow communities without directly elected mayors to apply for contracting powers. It is, however, unclear why those powers should remain in the gift of the Department. Both the Transport Secretary and I represent areas that have, so far, not agreed a devolution deal. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Mr McLoughlin) can explain why those powers are good enough for Manchester, but might not be good enough for Matlock.

The Queen’s Speech also contained the announcement of what the Government call their modern transport Bill, although, given that the Minister of State—who, sadly, is not present today—drives a 126-year-old car and is a noted steam engine enthusiast, perhaps we should check their definition of “modern transport”.

As ever, the Government’s announcement is long on statements of intent, but short on details. The Queen’s Speech briefing said that the law on drones would be reformed, but, in answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), the Government have consistently said that the EU is leading in the area. It is unacceptable that Ministers seem to be waiting for a serious drone strike to occur before taking action: it is vital that we do not wait for an accident to happen.

Electric cars will play a crucial role in driving down emissions, but we are playing catch-up, because the Government failed to deliver their promise in the coalition agreement to establish a national charging network. We welcome the development of personal autonomous vehicles. They could prove to be a boon for our car manufacturing industry, and I know that they are eagerly anticipated by many disabled people. However, given that insurance premiums have risen by 20% over the last year, the Government’s proposal to insure driverless cars on the same basis as existing policies may not offer much reassurance to prospective buyers. That said, the focus on driverless cars is, perhaps, understandable, given the Government’s tendency to run on autopilot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

As I have said, I believe that the proposal offers a great opportunity to our excellent automotive industry. However, we need to be aware of potential technological difficulties, and of the safety implications.

The Transport Secretary referred to supporting the growing space industry by constructing the UK’s first space port. I should say, in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, that it is impressive that he can put a rocket into space, although he cannot fix our pothole-ridden roads.

We also need to consider the Bills that were not announced yesterday. The Department has had two years in which to respond to the Law Commission’s report on taxis and private hire vehicles. The rise of Uber and other app-based services makes the need for reform all the more urgent. During yesterday’s debate, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) said that personal safety on transport services was women’s highest priority, and there can be no excuse for the delay in reforming licensing and regulation in that regard.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend will know that, on 4 May, I led an Adjournment debate on precisely that issue. Is she as concerned as I am that some taxi licensing authorities are effectively handing out licences to taxi drivers throughout the country who have been legitimately refused licences by their own local authorities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The Gracious Speech has already been described as “thin” and “short on detail”, and although I understand the sensitivity of the timing in relation to the EU referendum that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) mentioned, that could have been avoided if the state opening had been delayed, as Labour Members suggested.

The Government’s programme falls short in a number of areas, including the provision of support to carers. There is nothing in the Gracious Speech to improve support for carers or to ensure that local authorities have the resources necessary to implement the duties that the Government placed on them in the Care Act 2014. The 2011 census shows that the number of carers increased by 11% over the previous 10 years, and the steepest rise was in those caring for 50 hours or more each week. The number of older carers is also increasing. Age UK has found that one in seven people over 80 now provides unpaid care to family and friends. In the last seven years, that number has increased by 40%, and now includes 417,00 people in their 80s.

Failure to address the needs of older carers will mean that many will find it difficult to cope with their caring responsibilities. Caroline Abrahams of Age UK stated that

“as public funding falls further and further behind the growing demand for care we worry that very old people are being expected to fill the gap. They can’t do it all on their own and we shouldn’t take advantage of their determination to do right by those they love.”

It is wrong to presume that when budgets for adult social care are cut unpaid carers will fill the gaps, and current pressures are bringing carers closer to breaking point.

Earlier this month, Carers UK released the findings of its annual “State of Caring” report, which highlights the difficulties of providing quality services for carers against a backdrop of continued local authority cuts. It states that

“the spirit of the Care Act 2014 and the Children and Families Act 2014 have not become a reality for all – and carers are struggling to get the support from health and care services that they need to care, work and have a life outside caring. The survey shows evidence of public services creaking under pressure – charging is up, the right services are harder to find and vital support is cut or under threat, leaving many carers anxious about the future and their ability to continue to care.”

I have raised the impact of funding cuts on the care sector in a number of debates, because social care is too easy a target for cuts. Ministers have been prepared to slash local authority budgets, leading to cuts of £4.6 billion in adult social care since 2010. The Local Government Association has estimated that the implementation of the national living wage—as the Government call it—will this year cost an additional £330 million for home care and residential care providers. In Salford, for example, the 2% social care precept—that is all the provision that the Government are making this year—will raise £1.6 million, but the cost of implementing the national minimum wage will be £2.7 million. It is easy to imagine that gap multiplied up and down the country.

Despite what Ministers say during debates and questions, there is no extra funding from the better care fund for social care this year, and only £105 million next year. Pleas were rightly made by the directors of adult social services and the Local Government Association for the Chancellor to bring forward £700 million from later years of the better care fund, to address those immediate financial pressures. Failure to do that could lead to care providers failing or walking away from publicly funded care, and that could have serious consequences for vulnerable people who rely on care services. It is unfair to think—as seems to be the view—that unpaid family carers will be able to pick up the pieces if care providers fail because of cost pressures.

Unpaid carers are already under increasing pressure because of the impact of Government policies, and one third of carers told Carers UK that they have experienced a change in the amount of care and support that they receive. Almost 60% of those reporting a change say that the amount of care and support they receive has been reduced because of cost or availability, and in some cases those cuts have been significant. One carer reported:

“The social worker who assessed my wife said all direct payments in the borough were being reduced. We discussed the needs and were advised we would be informed of any change. Without warning or notification the budget was cut by 30% immediately.”

Given those facts, it is not surprising that 54% of carers surveyed felt that their quality of life will get worse over this year, despite the Care Act 2014.

The 2014 Act was supposed to entitle all carers to a timely assessment of their needs, yet one in three carers who have had an assessment in the past year had to wait six months or longer. Worryingly, nearly 40% of carers caring for someone at the end of life also had to wait six months or more for an assessment. There is no time at the end of life to be considering what a carer needs “in six months’ time”, and I urge the Minister to press Health Ministers to respond to the independent review of “Choice in end of life care”, which was published more than a year ago, and to consider a new review that would extend choice at the end of life to children and young people.

Almost a quarter of carers had to request an assessment for themselves over the last year, instead of having one offered to them as the law requires. Even when carers receive an assessment, many feel that it does not address their needs. Almost 70% of carers felt that their need to have regular breaks from caring was not considered, and 74% of working-age carers did not feel that the support needed to juggle care with work was considered sufficiently. It appears to some carers that assessment is just a listening exercise that provides no real help. As one carer reported:

“All assessment areas were considered by my assessor but due to cuts there was no support they could practically offer me. I was listened to but there was no positive outcome.”

Along with the emotional stress and physical exhaustion that can occur from providing care without enough support, many carers are finding that it has a real impact on their finances. Of the carers struggling to make ends meet, nearly half surveyed are cutting back on essentials such as food and heating. Others are borrowing money, and more than a third are using up their savings. That is clearly not sustainable in the long term.

I urge Ministers to ensure that carers have the financial support they need. Carers also need access to services to help them in their caring role, and the health and social care system should have a duty to identify carers and take meaningful action to promote their health and wellbeing. Assessments should be accessible to carers, and they should be more than a tick-box or listening exercise. They should lead to carers being provided with tangible support.

The Gracious Speech did not provide any assurance that the Government will address the funding problems that local authorities face in providing social care, which I have outlined. The move to full business rate retention by local authorities will not address the chronic underfunding of social care. As with the social care precept, the proposed financial arrangement for local government fails to consider need, and could create further inequalities in funding for social care. I am concerned that those areas where most funding is needed will be those that gain the least from business rate retention. Unless the Government outline significant changes for carers in their upcoming carers strategy, it is likely that we will continue to see higher costs for carers, and lower levels of support for them or the person they care for.

It was disappointing that the Gracious Speech failed to mention addressing the injustice experienced by women born in the 1950s who are now bearing the brunt of the changes to the state pension age. They face additional financial hardship because of the Government’s failure to provide fair transitional arrangements—an issue we have debated a number of times. The pensions Bill will do nothing to address that injustice, and I would like to outline some of the options that have been suggested.

The new Work and Pensions Secretary keeps saying that there are no viable options, but he does not appear to consider those that have been put forward. In an Opposition day debate on this issue, six options were put forward by the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, who suggested changing the timetable to delay the pension age increase until 2020, so that it would not reach 66 until 2021, and capping the maximum state pension age increase from the Pensions Act 2011 at 12 months. He suggested keeping the qualifying age for pension credit on the previous timetable, which would help some of the women who are facing the greatest financial hardship. [Interruption.] Ministers on the Treasury Bench do not seem interested in the 2.6 million women who are suffering hardship thanks to policies that they have introduced, and it is a pity that they bother to sit here but not to listen.

The fourth option, which the Work and Pensions Committee has put forward, is for people to take a reduced state pension at an earlier age or pay a lower state pension for longer. I do not support that option but it is one that is being put around. The other option is to extend the timetable for increasing the state pension age by 18 months so that it reaches 66 by 2022. I have suggested that the Government consider a bridge pension such as that which I understand is paid in the Netherlands to women affected by the increase in the state pension age.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the 1950s women, and I congratulate her on becoming chair of the all-party parliamentary group on WASPI last week. She will no doubt be aware that Labour colleagues in the Welsh Assembly have tabled a motion calling on the British Government to introduce fair transitional arrangements for these very women.

[Barbara Keeley]

Absolutely. I fear that we will keep coming back to this until the Government realise it is unreasonable to expect these women, who were expecting a pension at 60 but had it taken away from them, to live on nothing. I have constituents trying to live on their savings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Yesterday we had a day of tradition, pomp, ceremony and fancy costumes, but the reality behind the Gracious Speech is that we have another year of Conservative Government.

I start by commending the Government, which is not something I often do, for the opening paragraph of Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech, because it is something that all Members ought to be able to sign up to:

“My Government will use the opportunity of a strengthening economy to deliver security for working people, to increase life chances for the most disadvantaged”.

I welcome that statement of intent. It is one of the things that brought me into the Labour party. I believe in social justice and fighting against inequality in whatever form it manifests itself, but I say to the Government that they will be scrutinised on the measures they bring before the House. Intentions are all fine and well, but it is on their actions that they will be judged.

I remind the Government, who speak about helping the most disadvantaged, of their actions over the past six years: the reliance of many of my constituents on food banks; the increase in tuition fees, trebled under the last coalition Government; the abolition of the education maintenance allowance, which helped so many disadvantaged young people into further education; the pernicious and evil bedroom tax, which has hurt so many families in this county; and the reduction in social security support, including for the disabled and those in low-paid work. Yes, let us try to increase the life chances of the most disadvantaged, but it is on actions not words that Ministers will be judged.

I want to talk briefly about some of the measures in the Gracious Speech. The buses Bill is long overdue, particularly in my city region of Greater Manchester, which, being one of those areas with an elected mayor, will be able to take advantage of the measures, but I ask Ministers why the powers will be available only to areas with an elected mayor and why they should not also be available to other areas and local authorities that have problems with their bus services and want to introduce an element of control into planning a strategic transport network.

It is good news for Greater Manchester, however, because 80% of public transport use is by bus. The effects of deregulation are clear: at its peak, there were 500 million bus journeys in Greater Manchester; last year, that figure was 220 million. That shows the decline in bus usage. On car ownership, still 31% of households in Greater Manchester do not have access to a car, so bus, tram and local train travel is really important. As I say, 80% of those public transport journeys in Greater Manchester are made by bus.

Greater Manchester saw the worst of the bus wars at the height of the deregulation madness. Rather than sensible competition, with a tendering regime that allowed network areas to be planned, standards set and timetables regulated and which ensured a fair competitive process, we had the opposite—an unplanned system with competition not in a council committee room, as part of a fair and transparent planned network system, but on the roads. It was chaos and it destroyed the bus industry in Greater Manchester. I really hope, therefore, that the buses Bill will be a success and that areas that want to take on those new powers can do so.

On the subject of devolution, I also want to talk about the proposals for business rates retention. Again, this could be a success, but the Government need to tread carefully. In Greater Manchester, we have come to an understanding of what is needed in the conurbation and agreed, through the combined authority, that business rates will be pooled and shared. That is really important. If we are to make sense of the devolved settlement in Greater Manchester, we must acknowledge that not all parts of the city region are drivers of growth. We must make sure that people from across Greater Manchester have the skills, education and transport links necessary to access the jobs being created in the growth areas and that the wealth and benefits generated by those jobs are spread across the whole conurbation. That is why pooling and sharing are so necessary.

I acknowledge that my constituency is probably not one of the major areas of growth in the conurbation. That would be the city centre, around Manchester airport and airport city, Trafford park and around the Trafford centre and at Salford Quays around the media city UK. We have to make sure that the wealth generated in those areas is spread across the entire conurbation. That is why I hope the Government will ensure fair arrangements for the retention of business rates.

One of the two boroughs I represent, Tameside, is a net gainer of the current system of business rates because it is a predominantly residential borough. Most of the big industries have disappeared and not been replaced with anything like the number of companies that could generate substantial business rates. That is not to say that the borough council is not trying, but to put it in context, if we did not pool and share with the rest of Greater Manchester, Tameside would require another 17 IKEAs to be built, just to break even under the new system. That is why we have to be careful, and it is why we need a sensible approach with pooling and sharing across Greater Manchester that recognises the challenges I have mentioned.

I want to draw Members’ attention to the part of the Gracious Speech where the Government talk about tackling

“some of the deepest social problems in society”

in order to “improve life chances”. Her Majesty went on to say that

“my Government will introduce new indicators for measuring life chances.”

I have to tell the Government that I am a little cynical about that. It does not matter how we look at the causes of deprivation if the measures are changed in order to give the answers that are wanted. We need to tackle poverty in a holistic way.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the idea of improving life chances is just another way of saying that the Government are scrapping poverty targets?

[Andrew Gwynne]

That is very much my worry, and I hope that the Government can reassure us on that. If they are not scrapping the targets, they are changing the goalposts, which is my other worry. What we really need to do is to look at the causes of poverty, deprivation and inequality and then tackle them.

That is broadly where I want to finish, but there is one missed opportunity—one that I hope the Government will come to consider in due course. If we are serious about tackling the endemic health inequalities that are prevalent, to a lesser or greater extent, in every single constituency, we must have better joined-up government. We need to break out of the silo mentality and get away from the notion that public health is solely a matter for the Department of Health. We need a national health and wellbeing strategy that every single Government Department and every single devolved institution is fully signed up to.

Let me give one example. When a Bill is introduced here or in the other place, Ministers have to certify to Members that it is compliant with two pieces of legislation: the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act 2010. But I would go further, because I believe that every piece of legislation should also be health and wellbeing compliant. In that way, Ministers will have to ask very simple questions: does this piece of legislation that I am proposing improve the health and wellbeing of the citizens of the UK? Does it reduce health inequalities for our citizens? If the answer is no, why the heck should we be legislating for it? I believe that that is the best way to pull all Ministers and all Government Departments towards the aim of tackling health inequalities in our country.

Whether we are talking about housing, planning, health, education, skills and training, leisure opportunities, open spaces, clean air and the general environment, jobs or transport, all those things, dealt with by myriad different Departments and agencies, impact on the health and wellbeing of our citizens. I would like to see much more joined-up thinking about that. I hope Ministers will take that on board, break out of the silo mentality and, once and for all, really tackle the health inequalities that are so endemic in too many parts of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I want briefly to comment on the words of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I echo the sentiments he expressed about the visit of the President of Colombia. I pay tribute to Members from all parts of the Northern Ireland Assembly who have played a role in the Colombian peace process based on their own experience. Hon. Members in this House can be proud of the role that our colleagues from Northern Ireland have played in making the peace process as successful as it has been so far.

I welcome those parts of the Gracious Speech that we are able to support, particularly those that have been purloined so successfully from the manifesto on which I stood for election just one year ago. I am really pleased that the Government will be proceeding with the infrastructure commission. I am also pleased to welcome the measures in the buses Bill, although I was concerned to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) about the restrictions that the Government seem to be imposing.

The ability to regulate bus services will be extended only to those areas where the Government have decided that there will be an elected Mayor. Perhaps the Minister for Housing and Planning might convey my concerns to the Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government about the fact that the Government say that they do not have a one-size-fits-all policy but proceed with one anyway. It would seem that they will require Cheshire West and Chester, Cheshire East and Warrington to adopt a mayoral structure in an area that, frankly, is not suitable for it. The requirement comes with a carrot and a stick, and there will be no carrot unless we take on an elected Mayor. That is wrong for the area I represent, and I ask the Minister to bear that point in mind and take it back to his colleagues.

I welcome the moves to improve the infrastructure for electric vehicles. Following a question asked by the hon. Member for Strangford a couple of weeks ago, I made the point that infrastructure includes knowledge infrastructure. Electric vehicles are entirely different from those that use petrol or diesel. I urge Transport Ministers to consider very carefully the proposals of the Institute of the Motor Industry about providing a training and certification programme for automotive engineers so that they are aware of the dangers that electric vehicles pose to those who work in the industry and are properly trained to deal with electric engines.

On transport infrastructure, Her Majesty said that the Government would continue to support the development of the so-called northern powerhouse. I suspect that the northern powerhouse is little more than a sham—a slogan to distract from the fact that the substance is entirely lacking. I congratulate the Government on their sloganising because it has got us all talking about the northern powerhouse, rather than examining its substance. The northern powerhouse has almost become an accepted reality, which displays their mastery of distraction.

London is getting Crossrail and will now get Crossrail 2, as well as another runway. I confess that I do not have a dog in the fight when it comes to where the new runway in the south-east should be, except that I suspect it should be at Heathrow, if only because that option is least far away from the rest of the country. However, I am concerned that infrastructure development is seen merely an as extension of London infrastructure. I have always supported HS2 and I would support HS3, HS4 and HS5, because I believe infrastructure investment should be just that: investment that brings a return in the shape of jobs and prosperity. I have to say that before I became a Member I always wanted HS2 to be built from the north to the south. I fear all we will get is a London to Birmingham fast railway line, which will do little to encourage growth north of Birmingham. If so, we in the north-west of England in particular will become part of a client region of London, feeding off the scraps of London’s economic growth, rather than developing our own.

I was very concerned to hear the Secretary of State for Transport talk about HSBC transferring jobs to Birmingham as though that was something to be proud of. That will not be good for the people in London, but, more importantly, it will detract from the whole point, which is that infrastructure development should generate economic growth of its own, not simply shift growth around or across the country.

As other hon. Members have said, the danger is that the Treasury is threatening to take over the HS2 project and to trim it back so that none of the benefits originally promised will be delivered for the north-west.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Christian Matheson]

I would always give way to my good friend from Denton and Reddish.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. There is some suggestion that, in the trimming back process, the HS2 station at Manchester airport might be dropped. Does he agree that that would be incredibly short-sighted? This is about having a high-speed rail link to the airport running not just from north to south, but—with HS3—from east to west. The airport station ought to be a hub, which would provide new links not just from the north-east right through to Manchester airport, but to Chester and beyond in the other direction.

[Christian Matheson]

What an excellent point. We used to talk about an integrated transport policy with a few local buses and a couple of local railway services. My hon. Friend has identified an integrated transport policy that includes international transport as well, and he made that case very eloquently.

The Secretary of State talks about HS2 having an impact, as I am sure it is, but the danger is that, because of the uncertainty, it will be a negative impact. To some extent, we are seeing that in the north-west, where investment decisions have been delayed until we find out exactly what will be proposed. If the Government are really serious about the northern powerhouse, they should put a stop to the anonymous briefings and the newspaper speculation, and commit to HS2 in a way that benefits the whole of the north, along the lines described by my hon. Friend. I do not want to see HS2 simply as a new line painted on Harry Beck’s London underground map, making the midlands an extension of London. That means making a reality of Sir David Higgins’s vision of a true northern rail hub at Crewe, with at least seven HS2 trains an hour stopping there to provide the great connections to the rest of Cheshire, Warrington and beyond, and a commitment to run some trains direct from HS2 to Chester—of course—and north Wales, some of which could make up those seven trains. We need to make sure that it is not just people living close to the stations who benefit from the £40 billion that the Government will invest in HS2. Local roads and railways must be built that allow my constituents and those of all other right hon. and hon. Members in Cheshire and Warrington—including, of course, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne)—to take advantage of the new services quickly and easily.

I understand that capacity is a fundamental driver of HS2, but so are reliability and speed. If HS2 above Birmingham is simply designed to link the centres of the major cities —London, Birmingham and Manchester, and perhaps not even Liverpool or Glasgow—it will do more damage than it saves, by sucking investment and economic growth out of areas, such as mine, seen as being on the periphery and preventing them from taking full advantage. They will lose out to the big cities. I warn Ministers that the Government risk snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by making the false and incorrect predictions of the doomsayers who opposed HS2 come true through their own myopia and the catastrophic mistake of allowing the Treasury to take over the project—not to achieve the careful cost management that we all know has to take place, but to slash and burn on investment in services to Chester and north Wales, such as cutting out the hub at Crewe and the Manchester airport option, as mentioned by my hon. Friend. All those options would generate the returns demanded by that investment. The Chester, west Cheshire and north Wales cross-border economic area is one of the fastest growing in the UK. If the Government want to pull the plug on that, it is easy: just cancel the northern HS2 hub at Crewe.

If I return briefly to the matter of road transport, the Minister will know exactly where I am going. The M56 in my area is desperately in need of an upgrade to deal with the impossible congestion that drivers experience on a daily basis, but the need for investment goes far beyond this. I remain desperately disappointed that no action is planned by the Government before 2020. I remind the Minister that this is a cross-party campaign. My next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), is leading the campaign and has support from across the parties because of the importance of the motorway for my area and as a principal artery into north Wales and parts of Merseyside. Unless the Government commit to that work now, they will stifle further economic growth in that area. If I were being cynical, I might predict that the Government will make a promise to upgrade the motorway just before the 2020 election, but such a promise will be taken with the same scepticism as befits any of their promises after the collapse of their £38 billion pledge to upgrade the railways immediately after the 2015 election.

The local authorities and the local enterprise partnership in my area are clear about where investment is needed if their ambitious plans to double the size of our economy are to be delivered, and the Government need to commit to supporting those. Transport infrastructure does not come cheap, and in calling for the electrification of the Crewe to Chester to north Wales line, to link up with a new HS2 hub at Crewe, and an upgrade of the M56, I am calling for cash spending which requires prioritisation. But investment must be considered as just that: investment to generate economic growth. It is not like sticking a pin in a bet on the grand national. My area has proved its ability to grow. The local enterprise partnership has proved its ability to work with local authorities across the political spectrum to deliver that growth and bring in businesses from across the sectors to work together to achieve that growth potential. If the Government are willing to waste £70 million on an unnecessary vanity garden bridge across the Thames in London, surely they can recognise that HS2, as a national project, must benefit the whole of the nation and allow the whole of the nation to grow under its own enterprise. They should not just consider London to be the sole driver of economic growth in the UK. For all the sloganising about a so-called northern powerhouse, without the correct infrastructure in place, it seems that crumbs from London’s table will be all that we can get.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

We need to work across the piece not only on building new homes but on the better care fund, social services, the No Second Night Out campaign and our extra investment in homelessness. So ultimately, yes, we will have done our job to the best of our ability when we give everybody in the country the chance to own their own home. Labour seems to want to stop people having that chance. The hon. Lady might want to think about the fact that 86% of our population want to own their own home. She might want to support their ambitions rather than doing them down.

In addition to the 1 million more homes and the 1 million first-time buyers, we want enduring, sustainable improvement to the delivery of new housing in this country. The chronic under-supply of new British homes is a failure that was decades in the making. Halfway through this turnaround decade, our changes are bearing fruit. In this Parliament and the last, we have devoted the effort required first to rescue and then to reform housing delivery. Time spent building carefully on each round of reform, learning from experience and forming the local relationships required for delivery, is time well spent.

As we saw in the previous decade, the quick and dirty debt-fuelled approach to building more houses is no solution at all. Rather, it led directly to a disaster that set Britain back by years. The purpose of the neighbourhood planning and infrastructure Bill is to empower local communities to plan and deliver the development they need where they need it. It will simplify and streamline the neighbourhood planning process and give communities confidence and certainty that their voices will be heard as soon as possible. The creation of a fully fledged neighbourhood planning system stands as one of the great reforms of this Government. The neighbourhood planning process is now under way in thousands of communities.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The Minister knows that I have an interest in neighbourhood planning because he responded to my Adjournment debate earlier this year about problems in the Haughton Green area of my constituency. What assurances can he give to the people of Haughton Green that the things they want to see happen in their community could be delivered through the Bill? For example, will there be a neighbourhood right of appeal—something the Government blocked when Labour tabled amendments on such a measure?

[Brandon Lewis]

Actually, the Labour party did not vote or even call a vote on the neighbourhood planning third-party right of appeal. The hon. Gentleman might like to check back and see how that issue played out. What we want to ensure, through the Bill, is that there is no need for a third-party right of appeal, because the community’s voice will have been heard at the beginning of the process. I think prevention is much better than cure. Having talked to organisations such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England, and to colleagues and people who have drawn up neighbourhood plans around the country, that certainly seems to be the more popular way to get things done.

Taxi Licensing Regulations

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that I was able to have this debate today, not least because I raised the matter at business questions last Thursday before I had seen the email that had already arrived from your office informing me that this date had been allocated. I do not know whether it is the curse of Andrew Gwynne, but the last time I applied for and was successful in securing an Adjournment debate, it was on the last day before a recess. This time, it is on the day before the local elections. Nevertheless, it is a great opportunity to raise a matter of importance on the Floor of the House.

I should start by declaring an interest in that my wife, Councillor Allison Gwynne, is the cabinet member for environmental services, which includes taxi licensing, at Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council. It was on a visit with her to the excellent taxi licensing department at Tameside during the February recess that people at the office raised with me some concerns about the operation of the current legislation.

The licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles, drivers and operators has been a function of local authorities in England and Wales for over 350 years. Local authorities are expected to run a licensing regime that ensures that fare-paying members of the public are carried comfortably and safely in vehicles that are suitable and roadworthy by drivers who are trustworthy and responsible. The legislation governing taxi and private hire licensing is quite old, but each local authority can determine its own policies and licence conditions to ensure that the taxi and private hire trade suits its area and its residents.

Long before the invention of the motor vehicle, it was recognised that drivers of public hire, horse-drawn carriages held a uniquely trusted position. Members of the public, who were often vulnerable and alone, got into their vehicles and were effectively at the mercy of the driver for the duration of the journey. The first hackney carriage licences were issued in London in 1662 in response to a rapid increase in the numbers of for-hire coaches and coachmen plying the streets for work. They were causing congestion, and fights over fares were a regular occurrence, and it was recognised that a number of the coachmen were undesirable characters who were likely to pose a risk to their passengers.

Further legislation was introduced over time, and local authorities now issue licences under two key pieces of legislation. The first is the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. It governs the licensing of hackney carriages, which are public hire vehicles that can ply for trade by driving around until they are flagged down by a member of the public or can wait for passengers at taxi ranks. The second piece of legislation is the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which governs the licensing of private hire vehicles, drivers and operators. Private hire vehicles cannot ply for hire or wait at ranks; they can only pick up passengers who have pre-booked the journey via a licensed private hire operator.

The two-tier system brings many complications. Members of the public, and even some members of the taxi trade, often become confused by the differences between the two regimes and how the legislation is applied. In addition to the two separate, distinct pieces of legislation and the two types of vehicles, local authorities are also able to impose their own separate, additional policies and conditions that apply to the vehicles, drivers and operators licensed in their area. That is why in some authorities, such as Tameside and Stockport, which cover my constituency, we will see only London-style black cabs being used as hackney carriages. In other boroughs and council areas, we will see all manner of saloons, hatchbacks and other standard vehicles being used as hackney carriages as well as private hire vehicles. Some areas require drivers to pass a driving test, an English language test, a local knowledge test and courses on how to behave appropriately, whereas other areas simply require a driving licence and a Disclosure and Barring Service check. In addition, the Transport Act 1985 allows local authorities the option of retaining or removing a limit on the number of—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Kris Hopkins.)

[Andrew Gwynne]

As I was saying, in addition the Transport Act 1985 allows local authorities the option of retaining or removing a limit on the number of hackney carriage licences they issue. Prior to 1985, local authorities could simply set a limit on the number of hackney carriage licences they issued. That meant the licences became an asset, with a monetary value; nobody could simply apply for a hackney carriage licence if the limit had been reached, so the only way to obtain one was by purchasing the rights to a licence from an existing licence holder. Values of hackney carriage licences reached £30,000 or more—for the rights to the licence only; that did not include the vehicle.

The 1985 Act required local authorities either to remove their limit on hackney vehicle licences, de-restricting numbers, or to justify keeping a limit by holding an “unmet demand survey” every three years. The survey would assess the demand for hackneys in the council area and adjust—or increase—the set limit by the required number. In councils that retained a limit on hackney numbers, hackney licences—the plates—retained their value, and to this day taxi owners in these areas still view the value of their plates as an asset that they can cash in at some stage in the future by selling the plates on. In councils that removed their limit, the hackney trade was simply allowed to find its own level. There is only a certain amount of demand for hackney carriages, and, theoretically, hackney vehicle numbers will self-limit, because of the demand, or otherwise, for hackney carriages in each local authority area.

Since the existing hackney legislation was introduced in 1847, hackney carriages have always been able to carry out pre-booked work in the same way as private hire vehicles. Hackney carriage drivers can supplement their income by hiring a radio or PDA—personal digital assistant—from a private hire operator and carrying out private hire work alongside all the other private hire vehicles and drivers. The legislation also currently allows vehicles licensed as hackney carriages in one area to carry out pre-booked private hire work anywhere else in England and Wales, apart from in London and, bizarrely, Plymouth, which are covered by separate pieces of legislation. This is not a loophole or a fiddle, but something that has always been permitted; it is not expressly prohibited by the existing legislation.

The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 introduced legislation that, for the first time, governed private hire vehicles, drivers and operators, and set the legal parameters within which these vehicles were allowed to operate. This legislation did not affect the ability of hackney carriages to carry out pre-booked work anywhere in the country, because in 1976 all authorities had limits on the number of hackney licences, so there was no huge problem with hackney carriages working “cross-border”. There was always sufficient work for hackneys within their own boroughs and counties, and they were therefore not tempted to move to another authority to pick up additional work.

The introduction of the 1985 Act did not have a massive effect at first; a few local authorities removed their restriction on hackney numbers, but most kept the limit. Over time this has changed, and many more authorities have removed the limit, but matters only started coming to a head in the mid-2000s. The problems started in the north-east of England. In 2006, Newcastle City Council noticed that a number of their private hire drivers and owners left the authority and obtained hackney vehicle licences from the neighbouring borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, as it did not impose a limit on hackney numbers and its procedures for obtaining licences were much easier than those set out in Newcastle. In two years, the number of hackney licences issued by Berwick rose from 42 to 672. The vast majority of those vehicles were owned by people who lived in Newcastle and used their vehicles for private hire work in Newcastle. For Newcastle City Council, there were a number of problems. First, officers from Newcastle had no powers to deal with complaints or issues involving Berwick vehicles and drivers. Only the licensing borough’s offices can deal with matters relating to their vehicles and their drivers.

Secondly, Newcastle had lost the ability to regulate numbers and, thirdly, there were more serious concerns that the much stricter policies and conditions imposed by Newcastle on its hackney and private hire fleet were being undermined by the influx of Berwick-licensed vehicles and drivers who were regulated by much less strict policies and conditions.

The matter went to court via a judicial review, which was heard in the High Court. The judge in that case, although sympathetic to the issues raised by Newcastle City Council, stated that Berwick-licensed vehicles and drivers were operating entirely within the relevant legislation and were doing nothing illegal.

That is now pertinent to Greater Manchester, because, although all 10 of the Greater Manchester metropolitan boroughs have fairly stringent rules and regulations in place governing who can and cannot apply for hackney licences, there is a problem in that a neighbouring authority across the county boundary in Lancashire is issuing quite a large number of hackney licences. We are now seeing those licence holders operating within Greater Manchester. I am referring to Rossendale, which is a small Lancashire district council. About a decade or so ago, following the Berwick judgment, the number of applications for hackney carriage and vehicle and driver licences started to increase in that particular authority.

At that time—I appreciate that things have changed—Rossendale’s standards were less restrictive than those of the 10 Greater Manchester metropolitan boroughs. It did not, for example, require applicants to pass an English language test or a local knowledge test. It also had much less restrictive conditions for hackney vehicles. It would, in effect, license almost all types of vehicles—saloons, estates and hatchbacks and so on—as hackney vehicles. Its age limits for vehicles were more relaxed and vehicles were tested to a lower standard than that of the Greater Manchester boroughs.

Previously, those policies and conditions had been fine for a small borough such as Rossendale, but it started to become apparent that the owners and drivers of these cabs were not in fact using the vehicles in that particular local authority. They were using them as private hire vehicles in other local authorities—indeed, lots of other local authorities. They started appearing in other Lancashire boroughs first: Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley and Hyndburn. They then started popping up in Greater Manchester boroughs: Oldham, Rochdale, Bury, Central Manchester, Tameside and Stockport. By 2015, Rossendale was issuing approximately 2,500 hackney vehicle licences a year and more than 3,000 hackney driver licences. By comparison, Tameside council currently has 150 hackney carriages and 450 private hire vehicles. To put that into context, the population of Tameside is around 221,000, and Rossendale has a population of fewer than 70,000 residents. It is clear what is going on.

As I have already said, no law is being broken. Rossendale-licensed vehicles are allowed to operate across almost the whole of England, and indeed that is what they do. They are working in Leeds, Bradford, Birmingham, Bristol and even Cornwall. There are large numbers of these vehicles operating in Greater Manchester, and licensing offices within Greater Manchester’s 10 boroughs are virtually powerless to deal with these vehicles and drivers. Some are known to have been refused licences for perfectly good reasons by the Greater Manchester local authorities.

In areas where policies and conditions are strict and high standards are required, the influx of out-of-county vehicles has been a particular problem. Members of the public regularly complain about poor standards of English and drivers who do not know the local area. Licensing officers and managers are concerned that their high standards are being seriously undermined, and there is particular concern in the light of what happened in Rochdale and Rotherham that child safeguarding could also be undermined.

To be fair, Rossendale has moved on that. For instance, the council has now adopted the Greater Manchester-approved convictions policy, which should ensure that its drivers are in future vetted to the same standards as drivers across Greater Manchester. In addition, Rossendale council has just introduced an intended use policy whereby, following the judgment in the Berwick case, it will now ask applicants whether they intend to use their vehicle within the borough of Rossendale and will refuse to grant a licence if the answer is no, but the policy will be slow to take effect as the council has given it a soft landing and it will not apply until 2017. Plus, if we do not change or tighten up the law, another council, if not this council or Berwick, will spot an income-generating opportunity in much the same way.

I want to turn briefly to the Law Commission report. The Minister will know that between 2013 and 2014, the Law Commission conducted a consultation on potential new taxi legislation in England and Wales. At the start of the consultation, it stated that it was looking to take a “clean sheet of paper” approach and potentially redesign the whole licensing regime from the ground up. Some early suggestions included removing the two-tier taxi licensing structure entirely and introducing a single national standard for vehicles and drivers.

The Law Commission was overwhelmed by the number of responses to the consultation, and the final report was far from the clean sheet approach that it promised. The final recommendations were, in fact, extremely watered down and seemed simply to be a re-write of the existing legislation with a few problems ironed out. Since publication of the report, it seems to have been shelved and no further proposals for changes to legislation have emerged, apart from two small ones that were introduced in October 2015 via the Deregulation Act 2015. The first was that drivers’ licences should last for three years and operators’ licences for five years, and the second was that operators should now be allowed to sub-contract bookings to operators in other councils.

I want to be positive in the last few minutes of my speech and give examples of how we might be able to deal with the issue. I have a number of ideas. First, I suggest that there could be a requirement that operators could operate only with vehicles and drivers licensed within their own council area. This would prevent out-of-council vehicles and drivers from working outside their licensed areas on other operating systems. Secondly, I suggest national standards for vehicles and drivers. If standards were consistent across the country, there would be no need for applicants to travel out of their council area looking for a more relaxed licensing regime. Thirdly, licensing officers could be given powers to deal with any licensed vehicle and driver, not just those vehicles and drivers licensed within their own council area. Fourthly, could the Minister consider making changes through the buses Bill? That might seem an odd piece of legislation to choose, so let me explain to the Minister why I think that it is pertinent.

Over the past few years in Greater Manchester we have seen a number of evening and bank holiday bus services removed because the subsidy from Transport for Greater Manchester has been removed, but rather than leave communities isolated—this is quite an innovative idea—TFGM has produced something called Local Link, which is a local telephone number that any user within the old area of the bus service that has been removed, or when a bus is not running, can ring to get a private hire taxi cab. The taxi will come and pick the person up and take them door to door, so long as that is within roughly the same area as the old bus service that was withdrawn. Because of the small numbers of people concerned, that is cheaper than subsidising a bus service used by very few people.

However, TFGM is using private hire companies in Greater Manchester that may well employ private hire drivers and vehicles that were not licensed by any of the 10 Greater Manchester authorities, and that raises some concerns for the travelling public. There might be an opportunity at least to give Greater Manchester additional regulatory powers in that respect through the legislation that I hope we will be pleased to see in the Queen’s Speech next week.

Lastly, I want to give a quick plug for guide dogs. I have worked with the charity Guide Dogs, which told me in advance of this debate that as the law stands, drivers who refuse to take passengers accompanied by guide dogs can face a modest fine through the courts, but not necessarily a revocation of their licence. It would be entirely up to the issuing authority whether such drivers were able to continue operating and, as we have heard, the issuing authority does not have to consider the interests of the population in whichever area the driver was operating.

To sum up, I hope the Minister will agree with the points that I have raised this evening. Privately, I am sure that he will agree that the taxi licensing regime is drastically outdated. I implore him to get his skates on and have his Department respond in full to the Law Commission report on taxi licensing. Let us sort out the problems that we face in Greater Manchester, and let us sort out the guide dogs issue too.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on securing the Adjournment debate this evening. I know that the topic of taxi and private hire licensing issues has been covered in previous debates in the House. Colleagues are very interested in the subject, but I doubt whether many colleagues could match the historical knowledge that the hon. Gentleman brought to the debate this evening.

As hon. Members will appreciate, although the Government are responsible for creating the legislative framework within which local licensing authorities license taxis and private hire vehicles, responsibility for licensing rests with the local authority. It is the local authority’s responsibility to decide who is a suitable person to hold a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence or a private hire operator’s licence. The local authority is responsible for ensuring that all its licensees comply with the rules and regulations that govern their industry.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to raise on the Floor of the House his concerns about what is happening locally in his area—he obviously has an inside track on the situation in his council—but as licensing is the responsibility of the local authority, I may not be able to address all his points.

Let me start by emphasising the importance of the taxi and private hire vehicle industry. The traditional taxi has become an icon of passenger transport in the UK and around the world. The taxi industry has played a key role in keeping Britain moving for many years, and has a history and reputation that drivers are rightly proud of. The UK’s taxi industry is recognised as one of the best in the world. All the vehicles are of a high standard and are driven by skilled and knowledgeable drivers. I admire the time and dedication that prospective drivers put into becoming taxi drivers—perhaps most famously London cabbies, who have to learn the world-famous “knowledge” of London. That brings the reward of having the unique right to ply for hire on the streets.

In the 1960s, minicabs began to appear in London and the private hire vehicle industry began growing across the UK. Licensing and regulation have ensured that when using such services the public have the same assurance of safety as when using a taxi, and have raised standards throughout the private hire sector. As of March 2015, there were 242,200 licensed taxi and private hire vehicles in England—an increase of 9.3% in just two years—and 69% of those vehicles are private hire vehicles. The availability of taxis and private hire vehicles offers the public real choice: they can instantly hire a taxi in the street or at a taxi rank, or they can pre-book a taxi or a private hire vehicle. When pre-booking, passengers can make an informed choice based on factors such as price, availability and quality. The combination of taxi and private hire ensures that the needs of as many customers as possible can be met.

[Andrew Gwynne]

If a licensing authority such as Tameside or Stockport in my constituency decides for perfectly legitimate reasons that somebody is unsuitable to be a taxi operator in its area, should it not have the power to enforce that to prevent that person from getting a licence from another local authority and operating on the streets of Tameside or Stockport?

[Andrew Jones]

I am coming to cross-border working and licensing. We have had some terrible cases across the country, which have clearly shown that the system has failed in certain areas. We all know these cases, and they are positively shocking.

The industry is seeing real change as new technology provides new ways for the public to engage taxis and private hire vehicles. Smartphone booking apps are now available for taxis and private hire vehicles, offering passengers easy access to services, more choice, faster pick-ups and options for sharing, which can reduce cost. It is encouraging that the London taxi trade has been at the forefront of that technological change. There are now numerous smartphone apps for booking a taxi, and more drivers are embracing cashless payment options. However, that new technology is challenging the traditional operating boundaries between the taxi and private hire trades. That is straining the relationship between local authorities and the industry, but by working in partnership they can deliver a modern industry that continues to provide choice and high standards.

I would like to say a few words about an issue that is particularly important to me. The Government are committed to building transport networks that work for everyone, ensuring that disabled people have the same access to services, and the same opportunities to travel, as other members of society. Disabled people are heavily reliant on buses and particularly on taxis and private hire vehicles, which are critical. That is why the Government intend to commence sections 165 and 167 of the Equality Act 2010 this year. That will impose duties on the driver of a taxi to accept and assist a wheelchair user and not to charge extra for doing so.

I would also like to mention the Government’s ongoing work to improve air quality and reduce emissions in the taxi and private hire sector. In March 2015 the Government launched a £20 million scheme to support the roll-out of ultra-low-emission taxis across the UK. A further £25 million was set aside specifically for the Greater London area, to help taxi drivers cover the cost of upgrading to a greener vehicle. Our aim is for almost every car and van to be a zero-emission vehicle by 2050. The transition to ultra-low-emission taxis is especially important to help improve air quality in our towns and cities.

The hon. Gentleman made specific points about working across areas, and I would like to address those now. The issue involves taxis and private hire vehicles licensed in one area working in another. I appreciate the concern here, but while standards vary between authorities, all taxis and private hire vehicles and their drivers should have been licensed by their home authority, thereby ensuring that the driver is a fit and proper person and that the vehicle is safe.

Local licensing authorities have a duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or PHV licence is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. The term “fit and proper” is not defined in legislation, but the procedure for assessing a driver’s fitness will typically involve criminal record and medical checks. In an instance where a driver commits an offence in a jurisdiction in which he is not registered, the local authority where the offence was committed can prosecute.

The points raised about protecting more vulnerable users are incredibly important in this regard. Some of the cases we have seen in different parts of the country are shocking. I therefore take this opportunity to address the issue of child sexual exploitation related to the taxi and private hire vehicle industry. Let me start by reiterating the Government’s commitment to eradicating the risk to children and vulnerable people from taxi and minicab drivers who seek to abuse their position of trust. I would also like to make it clear that local authorities are responsible for background and safety checks on all employees, including drivers, who work with children and vulnerable people. They have a duty of care to ensure that young people are protected.

The Government expect those who exercise licensing functions routinely to use the powers available to them to keep young people safe. We encourage all local authorities to carry out an enhanced criminal record check on everyone who applies to drive taxis and minicabs. We want to ensure that our licensing arrangements provide the strongest possible protection to children and vulnerable people. We are drawing on lessons learnt in Oxfordshire, Rotherham and other places. I know that there is currently a very topical issue in Lancashire in a neighbouring authority. We are drawing on these lessons to reform and strengthen the law. I have been meeting Home Office Ministers and will continue to work on this.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Law Commission. The Law Commission undertook a very comprehensive review and published its final report, which contained recommendations for a modern and simplified structure. The legislation that governs this industry goes back hundreds of years and is convoluted. The Law Commission’s report provided not only crucial analysis of the problems posed by the current law but solutions designed to make a difference to the travelling public and to those who work in the industry, either from a driving or a licensing perspective. As a Government, we are considering the Law Commission’s recommendations. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about getting a move on with this. That is very timely, as we are working on it. I cannot yet give him a date for when the scrutiny will be complete. We will respond as soon as we can, and I recognise the requirement to do so.

The hon. Gentleman raised other points that I will mention briefly. I am happy to take ideas from all sides as to how we can improve the service, but it might be quite restrictive to operate only within a council area—for example, in the airport taxi service market. There are some difficulties there. However, I am happy to consider all sorts of interesting ideas.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Jones]

It will have to be very speedy.

[Andrew Gwynne]

One of the benefits of an area such as Greater Manchester is that it is a big city region, so perhaps we could have a specific regulatory framework for Greater Manchester taxis.

[Andrew Jones]

I am happy for local authorities to work together to set high standards in their areas, and there is nothing stopping them from doing so. We should all be seeking to raise standards.

The issue of Rossendale’s performance has been raised. I suggest that I write to Rossendale to highlight the concerns that Members have expressed and make sure that it is aware of them. There are quite significant differences between the fees charged in Rossendale for a licence and those charged in Greater Manchester. That might reflect the different standards. It might also reflect the bulk purchasing that Rossendale may be able to do because it processes so many applications. In any case, I will raise the issues with Rossendale and come back to the hon. Gentleman when I get its reply.

The Government are fully aware of the changes and challenges affecting the taxi and private hire vehicle industry across the country, including in and around Denton and Reddish. There are the challenges not only of new technology and increased competition but of the need to ensure that vehicles play their part in improving air quality and accessibility. I believe the reputation of the British taxi trade to be high, and the quality of service it can offer means that it should be well placed to continue to compete in this changing market and have a strong and healthy future. Taxis are an important part of the transport mix in all areas. It is now our responsibility to make sure that they have the regulatory regime among local councils to ensure that they can continue to ply their trade profitably, but securely, for the people whom they serve.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

My right hon. Friend raises the valuable point that there has to be a joined-up approach—we need operators and Network Rail to work together. I will look at the issue she raises about the station, but she should be aware that any improvement works carried out at a station in the UK have to comply with UK disability standards.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply earlier, but given that Network Rail has financial issues and that £50 million is being taken out of the Access for All scheme, will the Minister explain what pressure she can put on Network Rail to make sure that stations that are not accessible to disabled people, such as Reddish North in my constituency, are upgraded, so that everybody can have access to a good rail service?

[Claire Perry]

I am afraid that many of this country’s stations date from Victorian times when this was not even an issue. We are very proud of the Access for All scheme. Almost half a billion pounds has been spent, and money will continue to be spent, with the prioritisation of stations based on footfall and other such criteria. I would be more than happy to see whether anything can be done at the station the hon. Gentleman mentions, but we have to make sure that the money is spent in areas where most people are travelling. For me, this is absolutely part of railways for the future: it is vital for people with disabilities to be able to access their trains, and rolling stock will be fully disability compliant by 2020.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

We are looking at all problems with rolling stock as a result of any delays in the finalisation of electrification. There is a large amount of new rolling stock coming on to our railways over the next five years, not least the new IEP trains, but also the new trains on Thameslink—the Siemens contract, which is being developed at the moment and coming into operation later this year.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

There is still an awful lot of engineering work to be carried out around Manchester Piccadilly and Oxford Road, and that work will almost certainly require the re-routeing of trains through to Victoria while it takes place. When that happens, can we please consider using the line through Reddish South and Denton stations, which are currently served by one train a week in one direction only? If trains can be re-routed on to that line, can they please stop at those stations so that we can start to assess the passenger demand that there really is there?

[Mr McLoughlin]

If it is such a bad experience, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman and his predecessor have been so bad at getting better services, but I am always willing to look at any suggestions. However, the hon. Gentleman’s first point, about the problems with major re-engineering work being carried out on the railways, was actually very serious. That work does lead to inconvenience while it is being carried out, and that is something that we do try to address. It is also something that I regularly talk to the chief executive and the chairman of Network Rail about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend is right to mention Morley station. It has been put forward several times, but there were many others ahead of it in the queue in terms of passenger footfall—again, we are trying to catch up from decades of neglect. It would be a pleasure to meet her and discuss station refurbishment, in particular disability access.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not think much of the second part of my earlier question, but it was deadly serious. The re-routing of services because of the work at Piccadilly and Oxford Road will use the line though my constituency. May I meet the Secretary of State so that I can explain the importance of being able to assess whether Denton and Reddish South stations can make a business case for future services?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am glad that topical questions have given the hon. Gentleman another chance to ask that question because he was not satisfied with the answer in the first place—I presume it was topical because he was not happy with the first answer. I understand that he will meet the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) in 30 minutes, and no doubt he will add that issue to the list of things to discuss.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

I had the pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency to see that particular issue for myself. I will be in a position to make an announcement in due course.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

At the last Transport questions, I asked the Secretary of State if he could look into the issue of excess noise coming from the M60 motorway, which has been made worse as a result of the Denton pinch point scheme. Since then, I have met officers of Highways England on site with the residents. Highways England officers have basically told me that they will not do anything, because the noise affects only eight properties. Will the Minister please meet me to discuss this matter, and will he knock some common sense into Highways England, which, quite frankly, has given me a jobsworth’s answer?

[Mr Goodwill]

I know that particular communities around the country are affected by noise. Mitigation can often be put in place by using better road surfacing materials or noise barriers, and it may well be that something could be done in that area. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets in touch with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones)—he has responsibility for roads—who will no doubt be very happy to meet him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I visited Bradford on Avon with my hon. Friend earlier this year, and I know that she is right about the traffic congestion in the town. I should be more than happy to meet her, along with my hon. Friend the roads Minister, to discuss in detail what we could do to help, but this is, in the main, a matter for Wiltshire council.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The pinch-point scheme at junction 24 of the M60 in Denton has been a great success in tackling congestion. Unfortunately, however, one of its unintended consequences has been the increased motorway noise experienced by nearby residents of Thompson Close. Highways England has promised to introduce noise reduction measures, including new road surfaces, in the next financial year; will the Secretary of State please ensure that that happens early in the next financial year?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not know that junction particularly well, but following the hon. Gentleman representations I will certainly look into it and we will write to him about when Highways England will do that work.