Bus Passes: 1950s-born Women

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Cunningham]

It is a problem, but an additional point is that central Government could fund the bus passes and not leave that to local authorities. We all know that at the moment local authorities are cash-strapped, to say the least. I will not go down that road, but I emphasise that the Government should compensate local authorities for the bus passes.

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very sound, thoughtful and definite call to Governments, of whatever hue, to do something to ameliorate these things now. Obviously, there are issues to do with misinformation and all the rest of it, but does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that this Government could seriously consider—there are precedents for this in other areas—is the proposal from the Opposition Benches to return eligibility for pension credit to the state pension age timetable of the Pensions Act 1995, but with the qualifying age continuing to increase to 66 by 2022? Hundreds of thousands of women would benefit from that offer. I am thinking of the WASPI people who have come to see me in my Blackpool constituency and who have been on low incomes or had to dial down their work to support an aged relative. Of course, eligibility for pension credit takes them into other areas of credit. That would be a modest but very significant improvement on their position.

[Mr Cunningham]

I agree with my hon. Friend on those credits, but I think that what he refers to can only be an interim measure. We have to look at the longer term and putting the injustice right. Interim measures are all right, provided that they are not permanent. When they become permanent, we perpetuate the injustice, frankly.

That is why today I call on the Government to give these women the small compensation of free bus travel from the age at which they were meant to retire before the 2011 changes. Right now, bus passes are given to those in receipt of their state pension at the discretion of their local authority. I have just said that there should be adequate funding, and I once again draw hon. Members’ attention to that point.

The Government must provide the necessary funds to ensure that all 1950s women can enjoy a free bus pass. This concession is small, and by no means replaces the tens of thousands of pounds that 1950s women have lost. However, constituents have written to me to describe the benefits that it would bring them. Many of these women are now unemployed, living off savings or supported by their spouse—and that is not to mention the women who are widows and do not have a spouse to support them.

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

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

Buses are England’s most used form of public transport. With over 4.65 billion passenger journeys a year, they account for over 60% of all public transport trips. Buses support our economy, and they connect our communities to the workplace and vital public services, such as healthcare and education. They help to reduce congestion, and cleaner bus technologies also contribute significantly to improving air quality. The Government continue to regard this as a priority, and we are helping to drive it forward through investing in schemes such as the £30 million low emission bus scheme and the £7 million in the clean bus technology fund.

Across England, the bus industry is delivering excellent services for passengers. According to the most recent bus passenger survey by Transport Focus, 86% of passengers were satisfied with their services. Buses today are very different from the buses of 30 years ago: over 90% are accessible; many have free wi-fi, CCTV and USB charging points; and nine out of 10 have smart ticketing equipment. That is all thanks to significant private sector investment in the industry. I am particularly pleased that the five largest operators are continuing to invest in better services and that they will bring contactless payment to every bus outside London during the next five years. We have an industry of large and small firms, with large firms doing a good job and small firms doing a good job.

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State congratulate our municipal transport company, Blackpool Transport, on not only introducing a new fleet of accessible buses, but making a profit last year of £1.38 million, £1 million of which was returned as a dividend to the council? Does not that make the case for extending rather than stifling municipal bus companies?

[Chris Grayling]

There is no doubt that in a small number of places, municipal bus companies have survived and that, in a place such as Blackpool, they play an important role in the local transport system. However, the Government do not believe that extending the provision of bus services to council after council is the right approach. It will stifle the private sector investment that has made such a significant difference. However, I pay tribute to Blackpool, which has also done excellent work on the tram system. Those of us who look back to the days of taking “The Ship” and the other historic trams up and down the seafront are slightly disappointed that that can now happen only at illumination time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I would always want to see our young people encouraged to use our bus services. I was somewhat disappointed when I heard what the Secretary of State said about young people and their access to buses. He might want to reflect on that as the Bill proceeds.

[Gordon Marsden]

As my hon. Friend will know, the background behind the inability of local authorities to subsidise travel schemes for young people is the huge cuts to local authority funding over the whole period of this Government and the previous one. Is it not scandalous that this Government have brought nothing forward in any shape or form to permit major improvements, particularly for young people, students and apprentices, in this area?

[Andy McDonald]

Indeed. I could not agree more. One of the critical issues facing our young people today is getting from A to B—to get to their further education colleges or to go after job opportunities, especially when they have to work with the Department for Work and Pensions in trying to find work and are then penalised if they do not get there. It is critical to have a properly integrated transport system across the country so that young people can benefit from it.

draft Merchant Shipping (Alcohol) (prescribed limits amendment) Regulations 2015

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 General Committees

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

May I say that it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries? May I also, without straying beyond the terms of the motion, commend my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester for his concern about the tragic case of his constituent? What he has said raises larger issues about not just the relationship of the IMO to the UK but ensign registering. I am sure that he will wish to pursue that angle with the Minister and using the other parliamentary mechanisms available to him.

However, we are concerned today, as you have highlighted, Ms Dorries, with the specifics of these regulations. We welcome measures that are derived internationally—although they need to have the fullest input from the UK—and that may help to improve safety at sea, and therefore the decision today to implement them through this statutory instrument.

The Minister talked at the beginning about British shipping week. I join him in commending the great tribute that the week was, in particular, to all those who bring freight and passengers to this country and take them all round the world. It was a week that my late father, who served in the merchant navy during world war two, would have been proud of. But that makes it all the more important that people who serve on merchant ships observe the proper codes that have been implemented.

We have seen in a range of incidents—some particularly tragic—the damaging role that alcohol can play in maritime accidents. Collisions in Belfast, already alluded to, and in Cornwall have sharpened the need to focus attention on alcohol and ensure that we uphold the strongest standards possible when it comes to safety at sea. Again, referring to what my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester said, we need to ensure that the mechanisms for monitoring that are as strong as possible.

Research by the US Coast Guard has found that a blood alcohol concentration of 0.1 or higher increases the odds of being involved in a fatal accident at sea by 10 times. Clearly, therefore, it makes sense, in maritime matters, that the standards should be applicable as commonly as possible worldwide on the open seas. A drunken navigator can be as lethal as a drunken driver.

The measures in themselves seem sensible and proportionate, but I would appreciate the Minister’s response on just a few points about how the appropriate regulations were arrived at by due process and how Ministers intend to ensure that they are implemented effectively in the future. In that respect, I was pleased to see in the explanatory memorandum that there was strong consultation with both shipping companies and trade unions via the Merchant Navy Training Board, and that they were asked for their views on the appropriateness of the regulations. However, can the Minister give us an assurance that as the regulations bed down, that close monitoring and close consultation will continue? How will information about the new regulations be distributed to seafarers to ensure that no one is found in contravention of the rules without being made aware of the new limits?

I have sat on many of these Committees—I am sure you have sat on many of them too, Mrs Dorries, and indeed chaired some of them—and Francis Drake’s famous phrase has often come to mind: that

“it is not the beginning, but the continuing of the same unto the end, until it be thoroughly finished”—

this is a naval reference, but I hope it is appropriate—

“which yieldeth the true glory”.

The important issue is not simply passing the regulations, but implementing and monitoring them.

The Government’s draft regulations say the policy will be reviewed after five years at the latest. Does the Minister think that is sufficient? If events require the policy to be revisited more frequently, will he consider that? What metrics will the Government use to assess how well the regulations have been adopted and the effect they have had on safety levels?

The regulations state that the review will consider whether the objectives

“could be achieved with a system which imposes less regulation.”

I assume that is standard language for a Government instrument—I hesitate to use the word “boilerplate”—but will the Minister assure me that the regulation of alcohol levels in a seafarer’s blood will not, under any circumstances, be seen as a case of burdensome red tape and will always be treated as the sensible and necessary oversight it is?

The hon. Member for Lichfield alluded to the situation on inland waters. I noted with interest the terminology in the explanatory memorandum, which states that the limits, as the Minister said,

“apply to professional mariners only, as the provisions relating to non-professional mariners in section 80 have not been commenced.”

For my enlightenment, and perhaps for that of other members of the Committee, will the Minister enlarge on that reference to section 80 not having been commenced?

I think we all accept the need to have the strictest possible regulation of people who are in charge of any aspect of a ship. The points I have raised are ones on which I genuinely seek reassurance, as I am sure my hon. Friends do. Otherwise, however, we are happy to support these sensible and safety-conscious proposals, with the proviso that Ministers keep a strong focus on their comprehensive implementation in the coming years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

I seek a little more clarification on that point. I absolutely accept the Minister’s points. I do not want to stray beyond the narrow interpretation of the regulations into uncharted waters, but he will be aware that sensitivities in relation to such issues, including among Members, are inevitably highlighted by individual incidents and accidents, a couple of which have been mentioned in this debate. We can see the river outside, and we know that tragic incidents occur on inland waters, too. Perhaps the Government will think about how they might be even more proactive in that process without necessarily resorting to major new secondary or primary legislation.

[Mr Goodwill]

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s intention to ensure that we do everything we can to protect life. One problem we face is in connection with the recent Court of Appeal ruling on what constitutes a vessel in the case of an accident involving a jet ski. The Railways and Transport Safety Act defines a ship as a “vessel used in navigation”. The Court of Appeal held that that means that, to be a ship, a vessel must be used to make ordered progression from one place to another. A vessel or buoyant craft simply used for having fun without the object of going anywhere does not fall within the meaning of “ship” in the Act. The Court of Appeal has therefore decided that a jet ski is not a ship within the legislation. We could be getting into difficult territory, because making that change would not simply be about amending legislation. If we needed to take action, we would need legislation that addressed some of the issues raised by the Court of Appeal.

We have had a useful discussion today that demonstrates the high regard that hon. Members have for the maritime industry and the vital part it plays in sustaining our nation’s wellbeing. In particular, it is evident that we share a strong commitment to upholding safety at sea. I welcome the support shown today for the regulations as part of the continuing effort to address the risk posed by excessive alcohol consumption by seafarers.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Alcohol) (Prescribed Limits Amendment) Regulations 2015.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

The Government support the bus sector, which is the backbone of our public transport sector, in lots of different ways, including through the bus service operators grant of £250 million in England this year. The proposals in the buses Bill will include opportunities right across the country for more local control, including the development of franchising, which the Manchester combined authorities are taking forward. The Bill will be published later in this Session.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Is it not clear that the Government have lost the plot for bus users outside London? Their own latest statistics show that journeys there were down by 11 million and fares up by 3.6% last year. Two thousand bus routes countrywide have been lost through cuts since 2010. London, with franchise powers to set routes and fares, has rising bus use. Why are this Government blocking them for communities elsewhere in England—unless they have an elected mayor, which many do not want, forced on them? Is this not sham rather than real localism?

[Andrew Jones]

Bus fares in Greater London have, in fact, been rising faster than those in non-metropolitan areas. As for the issue of franchising and local mayors, it is all about local control and decision accountability. A range of proposals will be published later in the year with the buses Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend, whose constituency neighbours mine, makes an important point. Of course, I was delighted that the Government made money available in the previous Parliament to support exactly that sort of community access scheme.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones)—I congratulate him on his appointment—said at a transport event last night that his door would always be open. I invite the Minister and her new colleague to start with disabled people’s access to buses, because the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Transport Committee have all said that the Government’s exemption of bus companies from mandatory driver training is not working. The Government have ducked and dived on this: a review was first promised for 2014, then more evidence this January confirmed the disquiet, and this week I received a written answer telling me that there will be a research project—a review of the review of the review. Will she use the open door that her colleague spoke about to stop the buck being passed for disabled people on buses?

[Claire Perry]

All our ministerial doors are always open to all colleagues. I invite the hon. Gentleman to focus on the fact that almost 100% of drivers have now received some form of disability awareness training. We think that the future lies in providing public sector data, so that people can use an app themselves to make their specific journey. The cost of providing this across the UK can be prohibitive, but we will have 100% accessibility on all buses by the end of next year.

Road Traffic

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Minister on this subject. He and I may have a sense that, if not groundhog day, it is perhaps groundhog piglet day because—he alluded to this—we discussed the closely related draft Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015 only last Monday. I will therefore do my best to focus specifically on the amphetamine aspects of today’s debate, although as the Minister demonstrated, some points may overlay with the broader discussion from last Monday.

The Minister has rightly said that the order confirms the limit for amphetamines in the new drug-driving legislation—indeed, amphetamine was the only drug that the Government did not confirm the limits for in October 2014—and he spelt out in some detail and with considerable clarity the iterative process that led to the Government proposing that limit. I understand that, and the Minister dealt manfully with the various chemical substances that were referred to, and in the process he gave the House a useful insight into the risk-benefit analysis that must take place in such areas—I hesitate to call it a master class, but it was informative and useful.

I want to raise one or two points with the Minister, although as he will know the Opposition strongly support the broad thrust of these regulations and the previous ones. I do not propose to quote in detail from last week’s discussion, but he will recall that when I asked why the consultations on amphetamine limits had been cancelled, he replied that he thought the balance achieved was absolutely right. Today, he has given chapter and verse on that process and why he thought the third consultation was no longer necessary. However, that does not explain why the Department for Transport originally proposed to re-consult on the amphetamine limit, if it was already holding extensive discussions with medical stakeholders that it now says makes such consultation unnecessary.

Will the Minister clarify why the Department said in September that the consultation would take place, only to announce in March that it will not? If we had had an earlier statement, would there not have been ample time for a formal consultation to be held and still make the order today? I make that point not in a spirit of churlishness or to be slightly anorak, but because it is essential to have a broad breadth of consultation and agreement on this issue.

Will the Minister update the House on why, as amphetamine has to be treated differently from other illegal drugs, the advice of his own expert panel, which originally recommended 600 micrograms of amphetamine per litre of blood, was set aside?

I want to touch on the 50 microgram limit arrived at in the proposal. Will the Minister explain again, for the benefit of the House and Members who may not have been present at the more general discussion of the previous order, how this argument relates to the level set for the eight drugs used for medicinal purposes? Does that not perhaps occasionally undermine the Government’s continued statement that the medical defence provided to drivers on prescription drugs will be enough to ensure they will not be discouraged from seeking treatment?

On a previous occasion, I alluded to the fact that the essential element is not simply the passing of an order, but the ability to enforce it and the resources to go with that enforcement process. I do not propose to repeat the concerns we raised last week. However, the Minister made much of the fact that, although the main screening in police stations was going to cost about £3,000, 35 of the 42 police authorities—if I have the figures right—already had them, so I was not to be too concerned about the postcode lottery issue, which I had raised. He also said that the roadside tests for these substances, the so-called use-once Drugwipe device or the electronic Dräger device, would be available, quoting the figure of £20.

On enforcement, the Minister’s hon. Friend in the other place said that in most cases it was not necessary for this to be done in the station, but on roadside screening devices. However, she also said that it was up to manufacturers to market them and the police to purchase them. It is therefore still by no means certain that roadside screening for drugs will become routine across the country. How has this significant uncertainty been factored into the Government’s estimates of how many more convictions for the offence there will be, how many crashes may be prevented and how many lives may be saved?

We join the Government—and, I think, all Members—in wanting the new regulations to be imposed as speedily and effectively as possible. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to ensure, insofar as is humanly possible, that the resources and quality of enforcement across the country are adequate and sufficient.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

On behalf of the sponsors of the Bill, I oppose new clauses 1 and 2 and amendments 21 to 29.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

What an extraordinary spectacle we have seen on the Government Front Benches! As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, a set of proposals are being brought forward on important issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has spoken at length—some might have thought that he spoke at too great a length, but that is not for me to judge.

During all that, however, those on the Government Front Bench have remained mute on an issue of great importance to Londoners and to us all. I want to know why the Government have taken that position. Has the Minister consulted with the great helmsman of infrastructure, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will not be happy that the Government are not putting forward a position on the Bill? If he wants to intervene on me, he is welcome to.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. This is private business. A number of amendments have been tabled that, in my judgment, have very little support, even on the Labour Benches and among London Members whom the Bill affects directly. I will make the Government’s position clear when we reach Third Reading.

[Mr Marsden]

I am sure the House is extremely grateful that the Minister is not going to take a Trappist vow of silence for the whole debate.

[John McDonnell]

This is truly shocking. I have never known a situation where those on the Government Benches have not taken a view on a private Bill of this moment. This is the point we were making earlier. We are talking about the use of billions of pounds of public assets. The amendments are trying to ensure accountability of those assets—openness and transparency—yet the Government do not have a view on that. Does my hon. Friend not find that absolutely outrageous?

[Mr Marsden]

The House will have heard my hon. Friend, as will those outside this House, including millions of Londoners, and they will make their own judgments. You wish me to speak on the specifics of the first group of amendments, Mr Deputy Speaker, which, as others have said, would impose additional duties on TfL when it wished to sell or develop non-operational land. Those on the Opposition Front Bench welcome that change to the Bill, which has already been made in the other place and offers some clarification on the distinction between operational and non-operational land.

I would like to say a few further words on this group. I understand the desire of my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington, for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), and of the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway), to submit the Bill to additional scrutiny in the hope of obtaining further concessions from Transport for London. It is for others to judge, but I know that they are disappointed and very surprised that no concessions have come forward.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

We do not just want concessions; we want sensible planning of the transport needs of London. My hon. Friend will have heard our concerns in the earlier debate on new clause 1. Increasing use of the tube means increased trains, increased sidings and increased maintenance depots. If all the infrastructure facilities are sold off in a fire sale of public assets to bolster the income of Transport for London, Londoners will be short-changed and we will have greater transport chaos, not less.

[Mr Marsden]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. We want sensible planning and infrastructure to be at the heart of any development, which is why the Opposition have so strongly supported the establishment of an infrastructure commission. It is also why I am so surprised that those on the Government Front Bench do not feel they need to comment on this matter at this stage.

I return to the specifics of new clause 1. It is important that the concerns raised in the House today are addressed, especially in the light of the ongoing controversy over the Earls Court development, which has inevitably sharpened views and concerns about the general direction of travel in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, he is trying to reflect the views raised by people and petitioners. He has also raised the issue of homes and housing. Those, too, are important issues for us to consider on both sides of the House. There are also the issues of transparency and consultation, which, my hon. Friend has made clear, lie behind many of his concerns in new clause 1.

We are not opposed in principle to granting TfL greater powers, but, as always, there must be a balanced approach to any restrictions imposed on the relevant public authority. It is important that powers are not granted to TfL in theory if they then prove to be unworkable in practice. As legislators, we always have to be concerned about the law of unintended consequences and that is why I will now raise some points about this group in particular.

We have not spoken a great deal about new clause 2 so far, but as I understand it, it would debar Transport for London from leasing land that has been in operational use or even been considered for operational use, however briefly. As I understand it, there would be no barrier to TfL selling such land—indeed, it currently has the power to do so. Is there a danger, by forbidding the leasing of land but not the sale, of unintentionally creating an incentive to sell, with some assets lost to the public interest for ever? I feel sure that that is not the wish or the intention of the movers of the new clause.

[John McDonnell]

Clearly, there could be that interpretation, but a wise Mayor and a wise management of TfL would not jeopardise the future planning of the transport network in that way. The key aspect of new clause 2, which, unfortunately, I was not allowed to speak to, is a full consultation with all stakeholders to enable the complete engagement of all interested parties in the development of these sites.

[Mr Marsden]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point at the conclusion of his comments, which goes to the heart of the point he raised earlier on consultation and transparency. Since the Minister has not been prepared to address that here, I sincerely hope he will address it in a subsequent group or on summing up the whole debate.

I well understand the intentions behind the amendments. The Bill has already been improved through parliamentary scrutiny. It is important that draft legislation, whether private or public, is tested even at this late stage in the parliamentary process. I welcome the opportunity the amendments have presented to probe the Minister and the Bill’s sponsor, the hon. Member for Harrow East, and the clarification, even at this late stage, that I hope they will bring to the concerns.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to the difficulties that members of the London assembly have had in getting information on the assets concerned. Let us be in no doubt whatever: it is the responsibility of the Minister and the sponsor to justify the accountability agreements to the House tonight. I am interested to know whether members of the Greater London authority have asked for the powers that would oblige them to be consulted.

The issues that lie behind the first set of amendments go to the heart of transparency and accountability—whether of Governments or public corporations. It is important that they be given every probing and every ventilation in the Chamber tonight.

[George Galloway]

This has not been our finest hour, as I tried to say in a point of order just 10 minutes or so ago. The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) drew attention to the dog that did not bark in the form of the Minister, but there have been other dogs that have not barked or even turned up. In a short speech, that is the first point I should like to make.

I am not a London Member, but I am a user of London transport and I have been a resident of London for 35 years. My eye was caught by this item of business because of a strong point of view I have about Earls Court. I expected to come into a packed Chamber. I especially expected to come into a Chamber packed with London Members of Parliament, but they have been very thin on the ground, with the honourable exceptions of my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on either side of me, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) who unavoidably had to leave. That, however, has been the size of it. That is truly extraordinary given the importance of this measure.

This is, potentially, a grand theft auto Bill. It deals with 3,000 properties. I have no idea of their value because no figure has been published. Taking a rudimentary guess, I think TfL—about which more later—will have £3 billion, £4 billion or £5 billion of potentially disposable public assets, with almost no transparency or accountability, and no discussion or negotiation with other stakeholders.

By anyone’s standards, this is truly a remarkably important measure. It is more important even than I had thought before entering the Chamber. As I listened with horror to the narrative developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, it took me back—your esteemed father was there, Mr Deputy Speaker, as was Madam Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair a moment ago, as she was in the Treasury at the time—to when the Treasury forced the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, down the road of a private finance initiative that came within an ace of sinking the London underground and costing the taxpayer £3 billion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although an ambulance can use a bus lane when responding to an emergency, it is otherwise up to a local authority to use its discretion on that matter. Indeed, local authorities such as Labour-controlled Manchester and Sheffield do not allow ambulances in bus lanes. I have written to every local authority in the country to make that point and ask them to bear it in mind when they make their local decisions.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The Minister has talked in detail about privatising buses and bus lanes, but the process needs more than warm words from the Government; it means bus lanes with strong local management and control of funding. Why will the Government not sign up to our franchising proposals to allow communities and councils to plan a network that includes the bus lanes they need? Why, instead of real localism, have this Government presided over a failed record, with bus fares up 25% and 2,000 routes cut, and a broken bus market, which lets users down, but which Labour will fix in government?

[Mr Goodwill]

The Government have a very good record on buses. Bus companies, including the one in my constituency, have very full order books, because they are investing as never before in new buses on routes such the one north of Whitby in my constituency. We have a very good record to protect.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley]

As we heard from the Minister just now, there may well be time for further amendments, because clearly we have not got the amendments that we need to be looking at right now. When those further amendments are introduced, it is imperative that the Government examine that long-term issue, making sure, for example, that whatever a local planning authority is going to rule on it is not going to be overturned by the Secretary of State. That is the real danger we face. On something as controversial as this issue and this Bill, the current approach makes no sense. There has been consultation and people have been saying that they do not want these proposals coming forward in this way. It is a toxic recipe for the Government to be—

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has referred to the potential for further amendments to be introduced. I know we have had an iterative process here this afternoon, to put it mildly, but even I did not think there would be scope for the Government to introduce further amendments in this House. Will you rule on this issue and clarify whether the Minister is making a statement correctly or incorrectly?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let me help by saying that it would be possible for the Lords to look at that and do something about the Bill at that stage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I accept that there is a huge job to be done on Access for All. The programme was due to end in 2015 and we have extended that. As I say, 1,100 stations have already been served, but I am always interested to hear of other applications and positions on various stations. We have tried to concentrate on the busy stations.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

If, as we have heard, the Government’s progress on rail access for disabled people has been questionable, what is their record on disabled access on buses? Twice last year Ministers ducked questions from me in the Chamber on why they are blocking mandatory bus staff training, as the Select Committee and disabled groups have urged. Then in a letter last May they proposed to review the matter again shortly, but eight months later nothing has happened. They are also ducking pressing bus operators to expand audio-visual technology, and instead they have school students competing to design a cheap alternative. Will the Minister confirm that the winning idea is to be announced only three weeks before Parliament dissolves? What message does all this buck-passing send to disabled people using our buses?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman feels that way about access for disabled people. It is a matter that I take very seriously, and it is right that we do so. There is obviously a big problem in upgrading to allow access for all right across the public services but, as I pointed out, we have invested quite a lot of money. On his more detailed questions about bus access, I will write to him.