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

George Howarth Excerpts

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

[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.

Aircraft Noise

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

I intend to start calling the three Front Benchers at 10.30. The normal convention is to leave some time for the mover of the motion to say a few words at the end. I have five Back Benchers who have indicated that they want to speak. I am hoping not to need to impose a formal time limit, but informally, if people do the maths, it works out at about six minutes for each speaker, which should be ample.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this debate. He, like me, has many constituents who live in rural communities, where the lower ambient noise makes the experience of aircraft hugely oppressive.

Gatwick is surrounded on three sides by areas of outstanding natural beauty. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said, the impact of Gatwick on the otherwise tranquil environment of large swathes of both of our constituencies is immense. In such conditions, noise can be experienced over a wide field—some 3.5 to 5 miles either side of the aircraft. The concentration of noise in quiet environments is not properly recognised by the existing standard industry metrics, which measure noise over 24 hours. In some parts of my constituency, the rate of take-offs has resulted in a relentless wall of noise, which is a pressing problem for my constituents.

I wish to focus on the issues that are being experienced right now, but, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, no debate on aircraft noise would be complete without a reference to runway expansion. If the Government were to go against the clear recommendation of the Davies commission and make what to my mind is the wrong decision on runway expansion, the number of flights over my constituency would double to up to 560,000 per year. Aircraft movements would become more concentrated on existing flightpaths, and two new flightpaths would be created over Copthorne and Crawley Down. The villages of Rusper and Copthorne would be taken within the standard noise contours for Gatwick. Rusper would be overflown by more than 300 easterly arrivals a day to the southern runway and more than 300 westerly departures using two routes from the same runway. Warnham and Slinfold would experience 150-plus concentrated departures per day, and Billingshurst would be affected by the massive increase in aircraft approaching both runways. The list goes on. I will not mention every single village in my constituency that would be adversely affected, because they all would be.

As the Davies commission pointed out,

“Knowing that aviation noise will be limited to certain times of the day is very important to many people.”

That is something on which I have common cause with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias). With that in mind, I am horrified that Gatwick’s post-expansion proposal is to operate both runways for take-offs and landings throughout the day, offering no period for respite—not even during the night. Night flights are incentivised by Gatwick’s charging structure. That is a nightmarish vision of the future.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani) so eloquently set out, the present has its own severe problems. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, I welcome the independent arrivals review that was established by Gatwick. That shows its awareness of the very real concerns of many residents. I hope that the proposed noise management board will maintain that focus and be given real teeth so that it not only brings together stakeholders but makes a genuine impact.

As Gatwick considers its response, I ask that it addresses certain key issues. I have sought and received assurances from the airport that the impact of departures on communities will be taken into account when it determines its position on arrivals. Although the review focused on the latter, rather than the former, it would be wholly unfair and incongruous if attempts to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise were made without a proper appreciation of both arrivals and departures on residents.

The proposed wider swathe for arrivals from the west should result in a fairer distribution of aircraft impact. However, that will not be the case if air traffic control simply allows pilots to come in consistently by the shortest possible route. That will result in a heavy concentration of flights over a small area of my constituency, which is already severely adversely affected by departures. I understand that negotiations on that point are ongoing between Gatwick and NATS. It is an issue on which my constituents want cast-iron guarantees.

I am disappointed that night flights, which hon. Members have already spoken about, were excluded from the Gatwick review. Like the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I look to the Minister for reassurance that the consultation on night flights will be forthcoming this year. On technical innovations, I again look to the Minister to support the principle that noise modifications should be made on time and be effective. As mentioned earlier, Gatwick has a sunset date of the end of 2017 for A320s to be fitted with noise modification. The success of that depends on defaulters being subjected to severe penalties for non-compliance.

Finally—I again look to the Minister on this point—I am saddened that a more innovative approach has not been taken to stacking. As the Minister also has responsibility for shipping, he is more aware than most that we are an island. Could not a way be found to stack aircraft out to sea, rather than, as at present, over residential areas, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty?

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

I call Caroline Spelman. I ask you to bear in mind that I intend to call the Front Benchers at 10.30 am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I commend and congratulate the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this important and timely debate on a very important issue for his constituency. He has voiced concern about aircraft noise around Gatwick for some time. Although he was pleased that the Airports Commission recommended Heathrow, he vowed to continue to campaign on the matter. I understand that it is close to his heart.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of airspace, which has been a problem in the UK for many decades. We have had a glaring lack of an airspace strategy, so it is about time to deal with the issue in the round, along with noise and air quality. As a side issue, he reflected on the dodging of incoming elements when landing at Helmand and Basra, and of course we have the current issue of drones near aircraft, which needs to be addressed in an air strategy. I hope that the Minister will do something about that before there is a critical problem.

Returning to the main point, I am the MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, and the House will understand that we do not have the same issues as Heathrow or Gatwick. Indeed, we are keen to get more routes, because we have been left behind for many years, and we are delighted that British Airways is introducing a new route between Inverness and Heathrow. However, that does not mean that we have no understanding of the Gatwick and Heathrow situation. Personally, I lived under the Heathrow flight path for many years, enduring night flights and Concorde, which was exceptionally noisy when it flew over my house. We understand the issue, but it is also important to understand that 90% of international visitors to Scotland—a big driver for the tourism economy—travel by air, with more than a third coming through Heathrow, which is therefore clearly of interest to us.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the need for the end of uncertainty about airport expansion. We heard the same from the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and a number of hon. Members, all of whom said that they did not particularly want to talk about airport expansion, although they all mentioned it. I will come back to that subject in a moment.

The hon. Member for Strangford also talked about the need to look at the strategy of other Governments and Administrations. The Scottish Government are committed to understanding and managing the environmental impacts of air travel. They have acknowledged that noise can be distressing, affects quality of life and can have an impact on our health and environment. The existing legislation and controls are for vehicle noise and provide limited solutions to the problems of transportation noise. The Scottish Government are therefore making use of the European Union environmental noise directive, commonly known as END, to manage noise pollution, particularly from transportation sources.

The directive was transposed into Scots law in 2006. As per END, noise maps and noise action plans have been published for all major airport areas in Scotland. Delivery of the END objectives in Scotland has been achieved through extensive partnership working. The Scottish Government assumed responsibility for the co-ordination of noise mapping and action planning exercises, but they were heavily supported by individual working groups dealing with each of the major airports and other transportation systems.

Two rounds of noise mapping have been carried out by consultants AECOM. The consultants also host an interactive website on behalf of the Scottish Government, which displays all the Scottish noise mapping, action plans and statistics, allowing anyone to provide feedback or to raise an issue. The Scottish Government have received many positive comments and much feedback on their approach from others in the UK and throughout Europe. All that work has been informed by research at EU, UK and Scottish levels.

I want to discuss airport expansion, which is the issue that Members have been dancing around. The Scottish Government remain impartial on the Airports Commission’s report. The Prime Minister, however, has put political convenience before UK connectivity by delaying his decision. The concern of local communities is understandable, given the stress and problems that can be caused by noise pollution, not to mention the potential disruption to everyday life, so the longer the Government delay their decision, the further the lives of people living around airports in the south-east will be plunged into uncertainty. That is all the more important given that the Airports Commission stated that aircraft were responsible for some negative effects on health, concentration and wellbeing, as we have heard from hon. Members today. That makes the conclusion of a decision even more important for those negatively affected.

The Prime Minister seems to have wriggled out of his commitment because he wants to help his party to win the mayoral election in London. He is not making a decision, at any scale, based on commercial activity or the direct impact on the economies of the nations of the UK, nor is he considering the uncertainty for local communities. Yet the UK Government constantly promote a new runway as a national infrastructure project with huge ramifications for air connectivity to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England.

Any decision on the runway will have a massive impact on travel, exports, growth and jobs throughout the nations of our islands—not only London and the south-east of England but the rest of us. A further delay in taking a firm decision will mean that the UK continues to be an international laughing stock, as other nations yet again steal a march on investment and business and as people are stuck in the Government’s departure lounge to nowhere. As I said, I believe the delay in the decision is because the Prime Minister wants to allow his party to win the mayoral election in London. The decision, however, should be made not for party political reasons but based on the right outcomes. Freezing a decision is wrong—

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is about aircraft noise. Although he is not out of order, he is straying into a slightly wider argument.

[Drew Hendry]

Thank you for your advice, Mr Howarth. I had hoped to have made it clear why I was discussing those things—the effect on noise and air pollution, as well as the economics. They have been mentioned by all Members who have spoken today. However, I will conclude my remarks now.

Freezing the decision is wrong. The delay is not about noise or air quality. That is just a cold myth; this is about a Goldsmith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the Minister for his promise to consult communities. Should the Government be inclined to go ahead with runway 3 at Heathrow, will they consult the 300,000 residents of west London and beyond who would be affected? Those people are not currently affected by aircraft noise to the same extent as they would be in that situation.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

May I ask the Minister to bear in mind that he needs to leave some time for the mover of the motion to sum up?

[Mr Goodwill]

Thank you, Mr Howarth.

Of course we will consult in that case.

The Government want to maximise the benefits from a strong aviation sector; it is good for the economy, bringing investment and employment to the UK and wider benefits to society and individuals. However, the Government recognise that that needs to be balanced against the costs to the local environment that more flights bring, with noise being a prime example. I thank the Members who have taken part in this debate; it has been useful to inform the Government of people’s views, and I look forward to hearing the summing-up by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling.

Harvey’s Law

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on raising this issue and the Backbench Business Committee on recommending the subject for debate. My hon. Friend put the case with characteristic understatement but with the forensic skill that we all know him to possess, and I praise him for doing so.

Earlier today, I had a conversation with a good friend and constituent in Knowsley, in which we talked about this issue and the fact that I would be speaking about it later today. I know my constituent to be a responsible and caring dog owner, but she made the point that in her lifetime of owning dogs, on three occasions the dogs concerned—different animals—had gone missing for one reason or another. In none of the cases could that be put down to neglect on the part of the owner; it was simply a result of the circumstances. Happily, the outcome in each case was favourable and the dog was found, not least because the owner put a great deal of effort into trying to find it. That emphasises the point that, as we are discussing, even responsible dog owners who have taken every precaution that could reasonably be expected of them find that their animals go missing. It is important that we understand that.

I do not think that my second point strays too far from the subject, and it must be taken into account. Man’s relationship with animals stretches back a very long way, and the love of animals is deeply ingrained in our culture. Every Member of the House will be aware of the fact that we probably get more letters on animal welfare than on almost any other subject. We are not talking about something sentimental, however; the relationship goes back a long way. According to a report in one of the newspapers over the weekend, which I am sure that others have seen, our relationship with dogs in Europe is thought to date back to the time when the Neanderthals walked the earth. Tamed wolves—dogs, as we now know them—were used for hunting, which gave the human race the advantage over the Neanderthals, who had fairly rudimentary weapons. That gave us a real competitive edge. I say that simply to underline the fact the relationship between man and dog is of long standing.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is looking back to the Neanderthals, but does he accept that in our modern society a lot of people purchase dogs and cats to teach their children responsibility for looking after animals and to teach them about the life cycle?

[Mr Howarth]

I agree, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that I am a Neanderthal for having raised that historical fact. I will come on shortly to the point that he raises.

Given the nature and history of our culture, pet owners in this country have close, caring and responsible relationships with their pets, and we should celebrate that fact. Against that background, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton put his case very well. The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) is quite right to say that that those relationships offer young people a way of learning, within their family, the responsibilities that go with pet ownership—and, indeed, the responsibilities that we all have to take on in life as we become adults. In addition, many people who live alone find their dog or cat to be an enormously important part of their lives.

Against the intensity of the relationship between man and pet, Harvey’s law, which my hon. Friend the Member for Halton is promoting, is incredibly important. He explained the measures most adequately, so I will not go over the ground that he has already covered. Harvey’s law would be a small step, but one that might have a great impact on the lives of people and their pets. I hope that the Minister, in summing up the debate, will be able to give us the good news that he is prepared to take the matter on board and do something about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on securing this debate, and the more than 100,000 people who have so far signed the petition calling for Harvey’s law. As my hon. Friend said, it shows that democracy can work and can have an impact, and that people power can get concerns heard in this place. To that extent, congratulations are also due to the Backbench Business Committee for organising this debate; it is good to see the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), here.

I am winding up this debate on behalf of two important bodies: one is the official Opposition, and the other is Charlie, my cat, who has given me special dispensation to be here. Normally he complains a lot when I leave on a Monday, but today he said, “Get yourself down there.” Charlie is a survivor of a road collision. He came in looking very much the worse for wear, but it could have been a lot worse. He made a full recovery, at least physically; he has been a lot more clingy since then. All of us who are pet owners know what it feels like when a pet is involved in a road incident or, worse, as we have heard in this debate, when a pet does not come home and we do not know what has happened to it.

If I have done my figures right, we have heard from 16 hon. Members from across the House who have been united. It is rare to find such a degree of unanimity in this place. Everybody spoke with great feeling, and often from personal experience of having a pet and knowing how it becomes an integral part of the family, and of what it is like not knowing what has happened to it. I was also interested in the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who gave us the historical perspective. I have to say that until I heard his speech I was not aware that the relationship between humans and animals, particularly dogs, played a role in the progression from the Neanderthal race to the human race. I am glad that I now know it, and it should certainly give the UK Independence party something to think about in the period ahead.

[Mr George Howarth]

I do not think that any scientists would take issue with the fact that there was a progression from the Neanderthals to the human race, because I do not think that dogs are the missing link.

[Richard Burden]

I will try to think of a witty response to that, but for the moment it is failing me.

It is really important that hon. Members have spoken up on behalf of not only the human race’s best friends, but pet owners. As the debate has shown, the public care deeply about pets and are concerned about their well-being. I understand that about 9 million households in the UK own a dog, and the House certainly has a responsibility to be concerned for the well-being of all those dogs, as we do for animal welfare more generally. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) recently set out Labour’s intent to lead the way on animal welfare with six important commitments, from ending the badger cull to reviewing the rules on the breeding and selling of dogs and cats. It is with that last commitment in mind that the Opposition approach this debate, which has rightly included important and passionate contributions from Members from all parts of the House.

The Minister has already been asked a number of questions by hon. Members. I hope that he will be able to answer them; we are all looking forward to hearing his response. I may add a couple of questions myself. We have heard about Harvey’s sad death and the 13 weeks of suffering endured by his owners, Judith Devine and Shaun Robertson, because the Highways Agency guidance, as set out in the network management manual, just was not followed. I remind hon. Members that that guidance was published in 2009, and it sets out procedures for a number of Highways Agency area maintenance contractors when animals are found on the roads. It specifies that identification information must be collected and a search made for a collar and disc, and that owners must be notified as soon as possible. Where no collar or disc is found, the entire body of the animal must be scanned for microchips and ears checked for tattoos, and the appropriate authorities must be notified, whether that be the police or the local authority dog warden. If none of this information can be found but the animal is clearly a dog, it will be kept and as much information as possible must be passed on to the local police or dog warden.

This guidance just could not have been followed in Harvey’s case, and we have heard of other cases where it has not been followed. In 2013-14, 189 dogs and 213 cats were reported dead on the Highways Agency network. The Harvey’s Army campaign has told us in its e-mails and other approaches that numerous pets were killed on the roadside and disposed of without their owners being informed; we have also heard examples of that today.

Judith and Shaun wrote to the shadow transport team about this issue last year, and we raised a number of parliamentary questions that clearly showed that there is no standardised procedure for identifying, recording and managing animal fatalities on the road network.

We believe that people who have had their dog microchipped deserve to be treated with consideration and respect. It is also important that there is consistency across the Highways Agency, its contractors, local authorities and the police in how canine fatalities are handled, to ensure that both animals and their owners are treated with the respect they deserve. The point about the importance of a joined-up approach was made forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). Against that background, I was pleased to see in yesterday’s press that the Minister will agree with that point today. I hope that if new guidance is issued, it will provide pet owners with confidence that a consistent procedure will be followed. What we have seen and heard today is that that is not the case at the moment. However, there is another problem; the Government’s decision to scrap mandatory procedures for animal identification in maintenance and management contracts for the strategic road network is part of the picture.

I understand that the Highways Agency has been awarding these new contracts, which do not have a mandatory scanning policy, as a result of decisions made in 2010. The Highways Agency has denied that the change in contract had any part in the failure to identify Harvey, and says that contractors “may” still continue to scan for a chip when an animal is found and would

“attempt to reunite the owner with the animal whenever possible”.

However, that just does not ring true. If procedures are made voluntary, rather than mandatory, of course it is less likely that they will be followed. Even if they are followed in a number of cases, the frequency with which they are followed will decline. I hope that the Minister can tell us today why the decision to remove mandatory scanning was taken, who called for it and what the rationale behind it was. Also, if that decision was about saving money, how much money is it estimated to save?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I could not have summarised my own argument better than the shadow Minister has just done. Those are indeed the commitments. In the note that I will circulate on the contracts, it would be helpful for me to say a word about cats and the practicable means of contacting owners. I take the point that cats are often microchipped. As I was saying, that helps because of the availability of scanners and the fact that, as has been said in the debate, the straightforward business of locating and collecting animals in places where they can be scanned should mean that owners can be contacted wherever possible.

[Mr George Howarth]

I am grateful to the Minister for his constructive approach to the debate. Is his argument that legislation is unnecessary because his ministerial scope enables him to make the necessary changes through the contracts? Would it be more effective to ensure the mandate that he is giving by putting it into statute?

[Mr Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House. He will know that a mandatory contract is what it says it is: mandatory. We must act immediately; I want no further delay. As the shadow Minister said, there is no need for a protracted review. The matter is straightforward, and the last thing I want is to have to wait for a legislative vehicle so that we can amend the law. We have an election coming and would have to wait for the Queen’s Speech; the right hon. Member for Knowsley will know, as will other experienced Members, that that business could become protracted, even for such a relatively straightforward measure. I just want to get on with it. The shadow Minister asked, perfectly properly, whether the changes would be mandatory, and the answer is yes.

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

Morecambe Bay (Tunnel)

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[John Woodcock]

And me! On the Greenodd roundabout, it was me and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I suggest that he does so, rather than making comments from a sedentary position.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to ask about that particular example.

Bus Services (Yorkshire and Humber)

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, for what I believe is the first time. It is also a pleasure to respond to the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton). I noticed that on the Annunciator screen he was down as the Member for Midlothian—I did not know that Midlothian was in Yorkshire and Humber, but we learn something every day. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) was eloquent in her exposition of the needs of young people, particularly in south Yorkshire, and of the need to include young people in the decision-making process on bus services, which is something to which I will return later.

For all of us here today, the question of whether to catch a bus is a matter of genuine choice, because every Member of the House of Commons has, I believe, the means to buy a car. For us, whether to use public transport can be an environmental choice. We have the luxury of that position, but for many the choice is to catch a bus or to stay put and not travel at all. The option of private transport still does not exist for many of the elderly, the young, the disabled and the unemployed, and for different reasons. For those people, the bus is essential for getting to the shops, to school, to training, to work or even to that important job interview.

In the plethora of cuts announced by the coalition Government, it is often the cuts least talked about that do the greatest damage. In 2010, the Government cut by 28% the funding to councils for local transport and removed the ring-fencing from funding passed to councils from the Department for Communities and Local Government. In addition, the bus service operators grant was cut by 20%. The combined cuts have resulted in the removal of £500 million from support for bus services. With that level of cuts, it is no surprise that many people who use bus services believe that services have deteriorated in vast swathes of the country. To make matters worse, the cost of catching a bus has increased by double the rate of inflation in the past year alone.

As things stand, and if the cuts continue, it will become harder and harder for many communities to sustain the social mix that is essential to maintaining the lifeblood of, in particular, our rural areas. If those who cannot afford private transport have to move out of their villages and hamlets, all we will have left is lifeless commuter belts. The problem exists not just in the rural south. My constituency is made up of isolated villages and towns on the edge of the two major urban areas of Barnsley and Sheffield. There is often a misunderstanding in the House about rural areas: they do not belong just to the leafy home counties, as metropolitan areas can be made up of significant expanses of rural landmass. South Yorkshire is a good example, and indeed parts of west Yorkshire still have that status. It is the poor and the young who feel the effects of worsening bus services the most, and in the context of high and rising unemployment the problem has become acute.

In my constituency, which is the second wealthiest— for want of a better word—in Sheffield, the rise in unemployment among the young has been very rapid over the past three years; indeed, I think that the figure has increased by 100%. The increase has been far higher elsewhere in south Yorkshire, particularly in areas such as Rotherham, the Dearne, Barnsley East and Barnsley Central. Unemployment is rising among the young in those places, as it is nationally, and it is not hard, therefore, to imagine the difficulties faced by youngsters in the villages in my constituency.

Young people in villages such as Silkstone, Ingbirchworth, Penistone town, Oughtibridge and High Green are increasingly feeling the pinch because of the cost of bus services—the frequency of service can also be a problem. To access most public services, and to go to work or college or to engage in training, young people in my constituency must travel either to Barnsley or Sheffield, or even perhaps Huddersfield, Wakefield or Leeds. If they have to go over the border, so to speak, into west Yorkshire, the problem becomes particularly acute because they then deal with services run by two different integrated transport authorities. A young person—a local scout leader—frequently contacts me to tell me about the problems he experiences getting to school in Wakefield from, believe it or not, Penistone.

Young people in my area face journeys of many miles on services that are often infrequent, which is not ideal for meeting their needs, and very costly. A good example of the issues faced by many young people in rural and semi-rural areas are those encountered by my ex-part-time caseworker, Alex Guest. He is an intelligent, well-qualified graduate and a great employee, but he lives in the small town of Penistone, which, although in the Barnsley metropolitan district, is 12 miles from Barnsley town centre and 20 miles from the centre of Sheffield. His appointment to the job meant that he had to travel from Penistone to my office in Stocksbridge, which is only four miles away as the crow flies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East pointed out, Barnsley has done some work on the difficulties that its young people face in getting to work. Penistone was highlighted in the report it produced, and Alex is a real-life example of why that report has been so important.

The distance between Stocksbridge and Alex’s home in Penistone is only four miles, but the bus service between the two towns is so bad that he could not get to my office to begin work at the usual start time of 9 am. That is impossible on a bus. He could not start work before 10 am and had to leave by 4 pm or face not being able to get home. He could not take a job four miles away from his house with an employer in the next town—a major employer, as there is still a big steel industry there—unless the job was flexible enough to allow him to work between 10 am and 4 pm. Fortunately, I was able to offer him the flexibility to ensure that he could work his hours around the bus service. It was possible for me to do that because he was part-time, but had I offered him a full-time post, I am not sure that I could have allowed him to take up the job offer permanently.

Unfortunately for many other young people, the flexibility that I could offer Alex is not always there and the chance to work is therefore denied them, as is the chance to earn an income and to improve themselves and their skills and prospects. In Alex’s case, I could offer him only part-time work, but the job he did for me gave him the experience, confidence and knowledge to go elsewhere. He now works full-time for another MP—a traitor, I have to say—who is sitting not far away from me: she took my employee from me, but I wish him all the best in his new job. Alex Guest is now contributing and paying his way in society, but I am not sure that that would necessarily be the case if I had not been able to offer him such flexibility.

Some local authorities are doing their best to mitigate the impact of Government cuts on bus services, especially in relation to young people. Praise will be given where it is due. I know that the Minister is an advocate for public transport from our various discussions on panels and in other contexts before the general election, when the Liberal Democrats were not in coalition with the Conservatives. I will put it on the record that the Minister helped to get the Sheffield bus partnership up and running, and we are ready to pay tribute to that work. I am told that the new bus partnership in Sheffield has improved things—not massively, but it has improved the situation—but that work does not go far enough.

The South Yorkshire integrated transport authority, with the support of better bus area funding, has introduced a scheme under which apprentices aged between 16 and 24 who are claiming jobseeker’s allowance can have free travel for up to three months. Young people in the same age group who are starting work that is expected to last at least 13 weeks and who have claimed JSA for at least 13 weeks can have free travel for four weeks. It also intends to improve the service by reducing the qualification threshold, so that the service can be extended to more young apprentices.

The South Yorkshire integrated transport authority is working closely with the four youth councils in south Yorkshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said. It is holding a young people’s bus summit with 40 young people next week, on 27 April, in Sheffield. The themes to be discussed, which I think she mentioned, are affordability, accessibility, availability and acceptability, which is an important and often overlooked point about bus services. That event alone demonstrates just how important bus services are for young people in south Yorkshire, an area which outsiders often forget is largely rural or semi-rural, like large parts of the rest of Yorkshire.

However, for our every success and step forward, there always seems to me to be a retreat. Part of Barnsley council’s groundbreaking and innovative approach was the Mi card, which, among other things, allowed all under-18s free travel on buses in the borough. Unfortunately, because of the council’s need to make savings, a charge of 30p per journey now applies. That means that the very good principle that we have extended to elderly people and those over 60 has been withdrawn from a section of the population that, in my view, needs it more than others, as they desperately need to find work and opportunities to extend their education and skills.

Although the schemes and efforts of south Yorkshire local authorities are welcome, they are often being put in place despite the Government, not because of them, which is the key problem. The facts, which were mentioned earlier, are that a third of bus journeys are made by people who are eligible for a concessionary fare, and two thirds of all journeys on public transport are made by bus. Those two statistics alone show us why we need frequent and affordable bus services. It is no good having a bus pass if there is no bus to catch, and it is no good having a bus if it is too expensive to catch for those of us who rely on buses. For young people, the latter point is key.

As some Members may be aware—the Minister is well aware of what has long been my position—I am a big proponent of re-regulating the buses. He was a member of the Local Transport Public Bill Committee that discussed re-regulation. The Local Transport Act 2008 went some way towards re-regulation, but the quality contracts on offer have not particularly taken root, partly because of the risks involved in integrated transport authorities wanting to take up the option, and also because of the failure of the Government to underwrite some of those risks to get beyond that first hurdle.

Re-regulation would give the rest of the country, particularly metropolitan areas such as Sheffield, Barnsley and Leeds, what London already enjoys and has never had taken away from it. However, the Government are determined that any area that pursues a quality contract should be excluded from better bus area funding. There is therefore not only an unwillingness—I do not know whether it is ideological—to support integrated transport authorities that want to develop quality contracts, but a penalty for developing one. That is wrong and has put many integrated transport authorities, such as the one serving my area, in the impossible position of having to accept the terms and condition placed on them by the Department for Transport to access any extra funding.

We need more public control and accountability in relation to our bus services, and those services need to take into consideration the people who use them and the role of reliable, frequent bus services that are environmentally friendly, have full disabled access and are clean and warm for the people using them. We all know that such services can play a big role in helping local economies to grow and improve, not least because, to return to the focus of this debate, such services are critical in getting young people where they need to be.

Above all, we need to recognise that if we fail our young people by not providing them with the bus services they need, their general opportunities through life will be curtailed. The damage done to young people who cannot access the opportunities that they need when they are 16, 17 or 18—the limitation on their mobility at that age—might have lifelong impacts. I am part of the generation who suffered in the recessions of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Many people of my generation have never fully recovered from the damage done to them by the very high levels of unemployment in areas such as south Yorkshire in the early 1980s, when opportunities in the steel and coal industries disappeared.

If we do the same to this generation of young people, I would not blame them for turning round to those of us responsible for giving them opportunities, and saying, “You failed us.” I therefore look to the coalition Government and the Minister for a response and a positive affirmation not only that young people are expected to find work and to improve their chances by attending further education and training opportunities, but that the coalition Government recognise their responsibility in making sure that young people can access those opportunities.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

We have just over 50 minutes available, but I remind the two Front-Bench speakers that it is not obligatory to take up all that time—I can suspend the sitting if necessary.

Thameslink and Crossrail Contracts

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Offord]

In the next few moments, I will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to catch his breath and focus on some of his comments. He has presented an eloquent case for his constituents, and I would not take that away from him. None the less, I hope he agrees that I present an equally valid case on behalf of my constituents, who want a speedy resolution to the Thameslink project. That project is vital to them as it runs through the constituency.

The hon. Gentleman started by saying that there were flaws in the process. So far, he has identified issues that he considers unfair; perhaps he is questioning their validity and clarity.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. An intervention should be just that, not a mini-speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the close of his intervention.

[Dr Offord]

Of course, Mr Howarth. My point is that the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) has not identified any flaws in the tendering process. Will he address that matter, before the Minister rises to speak, by describing those flaws?

West Coast Main Line

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend make a good point, because the line is very important for his constituency. I know that he has already had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State about rail investment in his constituency. I am keen to make sure that the benefits that people will get from the franchise are realised as soon as possible. There has been a necessary delay and I very much regret that.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

In his statement the Secretary of State referred to discussions that he is holding with Virgin about extending its involvement for a short period of 14 months. Can he give some reassurance to travellers and also to the staff who work on the west coast main line that if it becomes necessary to extend that 14-month period, there is no in-principle reason why that should not happen?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Over the next eight months, which we are talking about as the extension to the franchise, and the following five-month changeover period, if that is necessary, we will obviously be talking with Virgin and other companies interested in running the interim two-year contract, but I think that the jobs of the people who operate the trains will remain the same under any operator.

Rail Investment

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

Our investment proposal today is about making sure that we have a railway network that can cope with the level of demand in coming years, and that is absolutely critical for our economy, but my hon. Friend is right that we have to ensure that the railways are efficient, and a railway system that every year costs us £3.5 billion more than it needs to is not acceptable. That is why in order to address efficiency we have some difficult challenges ahead of us, but we are going to work with the industry to do that, because the points that he makes are absolutely valid. We have to tackle inefficiency. Well-run organisations provide a better service to their customers, and I am determined to turn the railways into a well-run organisation.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but can she assure me that the west coast main line franchise will not be determined on the basis of job cuts and a corresponding reduction in service to the travelling public?

[Justine Greening]

We have been very clear about wanting to see improvements in the west coast main line service, and we have actually seen passenger numbers on that franchise grow rapidly over recent years. We want to see those improvements continue and, at the same time, we want value for money for the taxpayer. I hope that some of the investment that we are putting in across the network today will help support all that, and the right hon. Gentleman will obviously be interested to see the outcome of the tender process later on.

Port of Southampton

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Denham]

I want to concentrate on getting this scheme approved. However, when the dust has settled it will be clear that the scope for getting things wrong and for commercial challenges by people who have no interest in environmental issues in the Southampton area is so great that it can lead to huge delays. If our collective attempts to get investment in the UK infrastructure are bogged down in legal challenges between rival commercial companies, enormous damage will be done to the chances of getting infrastructure investment under way and rebuilding the economy. There has to be a point where every major company is prepared to consider what is in the UK national interest, not a narrow view of what is in their own local commercial interest.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

May I thank my right hon. Friend for the reasonable way he has dealt with the conflict between Southampton and Liverpool? He is aware, though, that there are still problems between Liverpool city council and the local authority in Southampton. Liverpool city council has asked for talks with Southampton to see whether common ground can be found. That is a good idea. Does he agree that those local authorities should get together and find common ground, so that it is not either/or, but possibly both?

[Mr Denham]

We are perfectly clear that Liverpool is utterly entitled to have a cruise terminal. The question is whether, given that the one operating successfully in Southampton has been developed entirely with private sector finance, the one in Liverpool should not operate according to the same principles of fair competition. We are more than happy to have that discussion, but I do not want to spend my time this morning getting too far into that issue, because we are in the last critical weeks that will determine whether this investment in Southampton takes place in the autumn. I want to focus on that.

Parking (Westminster)

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The character of this part of town—a town in which I was born and brought up—is unique in the country. However, I will come on to the issues relating to parking and parking spaces, and revenues that are surplus to the cost of creating those parking spaces. They are important issues, and they were the issues that the hon. Lady was referring to.

Many people choose to travel by public transport, but many others usually use their car or van. Also, parking spaces are clearly limited, both on and off the street, and there is considerable demand for road space in one of the busiest areas not only in London but in the country. Without doubt, congestion—one of the areas covered in my portfolio—is a real problem. I can understand the competing concerns that the local authority in Westminster has to address. There are very difficult issues that need to be addressed when developing appropriate parking strategies in such circumstances.

The hon. Lady referred to the fact that Mary Portas produced a report for the Government on high streets, recommending that local areas should implement free controlled parking schemes in their town centres wherever possible. However, I am not certain that such a scheme would work brilliantly within Westminster, for obvious reasons.

The Portas review points out that the high street is in serious threat of decline. No matter where we look around the country we can see that, and Westminster is no exception. Town centre shopping is affected by the internet and out-of-town stores. The number of shops in the country as a whole has gone down by 25,000 during the past 10 years, so it is not something that has just suddenly happened, and Opposition parties cannot blame everything on the current Government; that decline has been going on for some considerable time. The case that Mary Portas makes in her report is that a range of measures—not just parking measures—should be used to encourage people to use secondary and main high streets, and it is an absolutely important case.

However, as the hon. Lady said, the report by Mary Portas indicates the crucial role of parking in making an area vibrant, and I think that that is the biggest point that we have heard today. The Government agree with the report by Mary Portas on that. I am not saying whether the Government fully agree with the comments that the hon. Lady said that Mary Portas had made, because I have not actually seen those comments, but I am sure that Mary Portas is more than capable of standing up for her own comments. So we are encouraging local authorities to look closely at how parking provision and charges work.

The Government understand that these issues have a massive effect. So, in January 2011, we amended the national planning guidance to remove Whitehall restrictions that imposed maximum numbers of parking places in new residential developments; to change a policy that inhibited competition between council areas, so that one parking charge would be imposed and another would not, which related to in and out of town centre developments; to introduce a policy that parking enforcement should be proportionate, and I stress proportionate; to remove the policy that encouraged councils to set car parking charges to discourage the use of cars; and to increase support for electric car power-charging infrastructure in parking areas.

The Government’s draft national planning policy framework follows through on those changes by removing the restrictions that impose maximum numbers of parking spaces in new non-residential developments. That will also relieve pressure on on-street parking.

As we know, Westminster council has now postponed its plans until beyond the Olympics and the jubilee celebrations. The Government welcome that decision, but we will wait—I think everyone will wait—for the judicial review to reach its own conclusions. It is up to Westminster council—if we believe in localism, we must leave it to the council—to come forward and make its decisions, based on the guidance that it has.

We appreciate Westminster council keeping Department for Transport Ministers fully informed, and council representatives have had several meetings and conversations with Ministers; I myself had a phone conversation yesterday with Westminster’s chief whip, Mr Caplan, about this debate. I understand that Westminster council has agreed to use the intervening period to discuss its policy and to continue to listen to the concerns of residents, visitors and businesses, who I am sure also want to find solutions to the ongoing pressures that the hon. Lady alluded to in her speech. The key is achieving a sustainable economy for the residents and the businesses together, and that is something that we all want to achieve.

It would perhaps be useful if I provided some context and said where Westminster is in the legal framework; the hon. Lady referred to the legal framework. The Department issues operational guidance to local authorities on parking policy and enforcement. That guidance was revised in November 2010, and it supports and complements the statutory guidance published under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, to which local authorities must have regard—I stress the word “must”.

Local authorities have long been responsible for managing all on-street parking and some off-street parking, and their relevant powers were first laid out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 imposes an explicit duty on local authorities when they are carrying out these functions to manage their network so as to reduce congestion and disruption, and to appoint a traffic manager.

Following the provisions for authorities to manage parking that are laid out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Road Traffic Act 1991 significantly changed the way that on-street parking restrictions are enforced. Before the 1991 Act, the police and traffic wardens were responsible for enforcement, and income from fixed penalty notices specifically went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the police found that the impact of parking enforcement on the resources of a number of forces supported the idea that another agency should take responsibility for such enforcement.

The potential road safety and congestion implications of a lack of enforcement were unacceptable, so the 1991 Act made it mandatory for London boroughs and optional for other local authorities to take on the civil enforcement of non-endorsable parking contraventions; in other words, parking fines where a driver does not receive points on their licence. In London, boroughs were responsible for enforcement of such fines and some other authorities also enforced such fines. The legal framework for enforcement authorities is now contained in part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.

Now you know, Mr Howarth, why I am reading it and not trying to do this from memory.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman was referring to his notes.

[Mike Penning]

Correct, Mr Howarth. And noted.

The legislation clearly places the responsibility for managing and enforcing parking on local authorities, and it is a mandatory requirement in London, including in Westminster.

The Department for Transport supports local authorities by issuing both statutory and operational guidance on parking policy and enforcement. The guidance makes it clear that each local authority should have a clear idea of what its parking policy is and what it intends to achieve by having that policy. Then the local authority needs to make traffic regulation orders to put parking arrangements in place, displaying appropriate traffic signs to show the public what the restrictions mean.

The parking strategy needs to take account of planning policies and transport powers; the needs of the many and various road users, businesses and residents in the area; the appropriate scale and type of provision that it will undertake; the balance between short and long-term provision; and the level of charges, which must be formally addressed.

On the issue of charges, I should add that both the statutory and operational guidance make it clear that parking charges are a tool to manage the demand for parking and should not be used as a revenue-raising measure. I will return to that point in a few moments if I can. The Department also recommends that authorities should consult the public on parking policies as they formulate or appraise them, before coming to a decision.

What I think the hon. Member for Westminster North was asking about earlier, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster alluded to it too, is what happens if a council tries to reduce congestion and address the parking issues—as set out in the guidance—and there is a surplus. In my constituency, there is a surplus. We have looked very carefully at how we fix the charges, and there were lots of discussions about whether there should be a charge of £1, £1.50 or £1.75, and there were all the arguments about the change and so on. The figure ended up being, say, £2, and then the surplus comes.

I do not think that there is any doubt that Westminster council knew—I think that it has been very open about it—that there would be a surplus and that that surplus would be used. However, it is quite specifically set out in the regulations and the guidance how that money—the surplus—should be used within the community. So I think what the Secretary of State for Transport was alluding to in her comments was that there was a knowledge that there would be a surplus, but the main reason Westminster council was introducing this scheme was to reduce congestion and to ensure that it is possible for the local community, businesses and people—

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. We must now move on to the next debate.