Road Safety

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) in what has been a powerful debate.

Cars can kill, and I start by telling the story of two Sarahs. Sarah Childs, 22 years old, crossed Walsall Road with her 20-year-old sister and was mown down by a driver doing 64 miles per hour. Sarah died instantly. Bizarrely, the driver got four years in prison and a four-year driving ban, and he started serving the ban on his first day in prison. We campaigned together with Avril, the grieving mother, to get the law changed, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who agreed to the law changes so that, in future, the prison sentence and the driving ban are served consecutively.

Sarah Giles, a 20-year-old much loved by her family, was killed by a speeding car fleeing a police chase. A car flew through the air, as her car was rammed at high speed. John and Sharon Giles, her loving parents, are absolutely distraught over what has happened. Avril has come together with John and Sharon to say, “Why is it that the Government 13 months ago agreed that tougher penalties should in future apply for drivers who kill with a car and there has been no action yet taken?” Nothing will ever bring back their daughters, but they want at least to contribute towards ensuring that never again should anyone suffer as they have suffered.

I come then to the story of Poppy-Arabella Clarke, a wonderful little three-year-old girl who was crossing the Chester Road with her mother. She was on a pedestrian crossing when she was hit by a 72-year-old driver and killed instantly. The driver had been told twice in the previous three weeks, by a doctor and an optometrist, never to drive again, but he got behind the wheel of the car and as a consequence Poppy is dead. This raises fundamental issues that have not yet featured in this debate and which relate to drivers who can longer see safely behind the wheel. When people pass their driving test they take a 20-metre test. It is an 80-year-old test that was invented before the second world war, and it is completely out of kilter with the rest of Europe; we are one of only five countries that has this kind of test. We are also one of the very few countries that allows an instructor, as opposed to a doctor or an optometrist, to carry out the test before somebody gets their licence.

What is clear beyond any doubt is that action needs to be taken. There is an argument as to how we should proceed: should we have regular tests throughout people’s driving life, as they do in many continental countries in Europe; or should we have a test for those who renew their licence at 70? At the moment, people self-declare that their eyesight is sound when they renew their licence; there is no obligation for someone to have an independent third party carry out a test that says that they are safe to drive in future. Whether the test is staged throughout the driving life or at the age of 70 or beyond, there is a powerful case for the Government now to embrace changing the law so that we can ensure that people on the road are fit to be on the road and that they can drive safely. That is right in itself in order to avoid terrible accidents, the kind of which befell Poppy-Arabella Clarke, but it is also right because eye tests pick up a range of other problems that an individual may have, such as glaucoma.

In conclusion, for all that progress has been made over the years on a number of fronts, there is a simple, sad reality: too many innocent people still die on our roads. That is why I hope that the Minister says in responding to this debate that the Government will act on tougher penalties for those who kill with a car and that they are prepared seriously to examine in future having such an eyesight test, so that never again is a precious little three-year-old girl taken from her grieving parents.

Road Safety

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) on initiating the debate. I want to raise an issue that is rarely discussed in the context of road safety—driver eyesight. My interest—indeed, my passion—about the issue arises from a terrible incident in my constituency two years ago. Poppy-Arabella Clarke—three years old, a delightful girl and the apple of her mum’s and dad’s eye—was crossing the Chester Road with her mother, Rachel. She was run down by a driver who was 72, and who had been told twice in the previous three weeks that he should never drive again, although he continued to do so. The family are devastated to this day.

We need a common-sense approach towards this—indeed, on other issues we have had such common-sense engagement with the Government. Five years ago Avril Child’s two daughters, who were in their early 20s, were crossing the Walsall Road. They got hit by a driver who was doing 64 miles an hour, and Sarah died. Bizarrely, the individual who was behind the wheel got four years in jail and a four-year driving ban, and he started serving the driving ban on day one of being in jail. We engaged with the then Justice Minister, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), and the law was changed so that such bans will now run consecutively. In a similar vein, I hope that the Government will approach with common sense the issue of what needs to be done about driver eyesight.

I wish to make three points. First, as things stand, when we take a driving test we have to read a number plate from 20 metres. That is a lamentably poor measure of visual acuity, so why not improve it? The original number plate test dates back 80 years to 1937. It is a comparatively weak test, and across Europe there is a much more robust approach. Of 29 countries assessed by the European Council of Optometry and Optics, the UK was one of only five that required just a licence plate test. Furthermore, in 22 of the 29 countries assessed, a doctor or ophthalmologist is required to carry out an eye test, yet in the UK, only the driving instructor conducts the test on the day. Evidence from Brake suggests that the public would support such a measure, and polling shows that 67% of the general public believe that the system should change.

There is also a case for the introduction of regular eyesight tests during our driving lives, because at no point do most drivers ever have to take an eye test. Again, if we consider the European experience we see that some countries such as Hungary and Finland require an eye test from drivers in their 40s, and a further 13 countries require an eye test at 70, 75 or 80. We know from evidence provided by Brake and data from Direct Line that British drivers are not getting their eyes tested on a regular basis. Indeed, 12% of drivers never get their eyes tested, and 16% of drivers have had an accident in the past two years. For those who have problems with their eyesight, the figure for those involved in an accident increases to 67%. There is a strong case for us to do something in the United Kingdom, as has happened in many countries throughout Europe.

There is also the question of older drivers. Under UK law, once someone reaches 70 they must renew their driving licence, but they self-certify that they are fit to drive. There is no requirement for a medical—people just fill out a form and stay on the road. According to evidence from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, there are 4.5 million drivers over 70, and 100,000 over 90. The overwhelming majority of those people drive safely—indeed, statistically the big problem is not older drivers; it is young men. Having said that, there has been rapid growth in the number of older drivers, and as we live longer the number of drivers over 70 and over 90 increases—there are 3,700 drivers over 90 in the west midlands alone.

In conclusion, we hope that the Government will consider a range of measures, including a mandatory obligation for an ophthalmologist or doctor to report to the DVLA anyone they examine who cannot drive safely. It is somewhat surprising that the road safety strategy does not refer to eye testing, and I hope that the Minister will agree that these are real issues. We have already engaged with the Minister and had constructive discussions, and I hope that the Government will be prepared to take the necessary action, because never again should we have a tragedy such as the one that befell Poppy-Arabella Clarke.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

“No more top-down reorganisations”; “no plans to raise VAT”; “We back Sure Start”—these are all broken pledges from a Government and a Chancellor who cannot be trusted. Had I shaken the Chancellor’s hand last Sunday, I would have counted my fingers afterwards.

The pledge on no cuts to front-line services rings particularly hollow in the Home Office. Some 17,000 police officers have gone, 8,500 of them from the front line; 4,000 police and community support officers and 15,000 members of police staff have gone, too. These are the biggest cuts in Europe, and there is worse to come, with the Association of Chief Police Officers predicting 30,000 more losses in the next Parliament.

All of this is happening at the worst possible time. The threat from terrorism has been elevated to “severe”, yet we are seeing the systematic undermining of a vital tool in combating terrorism—neighbourhood policing, described by Peter Clarke, the former head of the counter-terrorism command, as the “golden thread” that runs through the police effort in combating it. The number of rapes is up by 31% and violent crime by 16%. As more cases of child sex exploitation and abuse come to light, so, too, are the pressures growing on police time and resources. We have heard of revelations in the midlands today of 500 vulnerable individuals, 70 separate investigations and a police service now devoting 10% and rising of its resources to combating child abuse.

As for the claim that crime is falling, crime is changing. It is true that traditional forms of volume crimes such as burglary and car theft are down, but other forms of crime—fraud, cybercrime, online crime—are increasing at a massive rate. The Office for National Statistics has said that if these were fully reflected in the annual crime survey for England and Wales, we would see an increase in crime of 50%. Many police forces are on the brink. In the words of Neil Rhodes, the chief constable of Lincolnshire, forces are

“on the edge of viability.”

On top of all that, our police forces are stretched to breaking point, and are taking up to 30% longer to respond to 999 calls. Nearly 14,000 more crimes have been unsolved since the Government came to power. The victims of crime are being let down as too many criminals get away scot free. Under this Government, 7,000 fewer crimes of violence have been solved, and, although domestic violence is on the rise, the number of cases passed for prosecution has fallen by 13%. The first duty of any Government is to provide for the safety and security of their citizens, and it will fall to us, as the party of neighbourhood policing, to rebuild it when we are in government. Neighbourhood policing is the bedrock of policing: it means local policing, local roots and a local say.

A more general choice now confronts the people of our country. Labour is, and always has been, the party of working people. The contrast with the Tories could not be more stark. They are the party of low wages and insecurity. One in five people in my constituency earns less than the living wage, and hundreds are on zero-hours contracts. The Tories are the party of high rents and high house prices, of high energy bills and high child care costs. They are pushing up the benefits bill with one hand, and borrowing £200 billion more than planned with the other.

The Tories are failing their own test, but they are also failing the big tests that my constituents apply to their own lives: “Am I better off? No, I am not”, I am told time and again on the doorstep. “What planet does the Chancellor live on?” asked someone in Kingstanding last week. The average family is £1,600 a year worse off. The other test is “Do my kids have real prospects for the future?” The answer to that question is that this is the first generation since the war who are growing up with less good prospects than their mums and dads and grandmums and granddads.

Labour, in contrast, is the party that believes in making work pay. Labour believes that it is wrong for people to go to work and live in poverty. It is the party of the much higher minimum wage—the £8 minimum wage. It is the party of the living wage. It is the party of security at work, which will tackle the exploitation of workers through zero-hours contracts. It is the party that will build the homes that Birmingham, and Britain, need, and will act to ensure security at home for those who live in the private rented sector. It is the party that will tackle the energy giants and bring down energy bills. It is the party that will provide affordable child care—25 hours free of charge—for all families. It is the party of equal pay and opportunity. It is the party that will tackle the abuse of power, and the abuse of workers by the rich or those who seek to take advantage.

There is but one alternative to this Government, and that is a Labour Government. UKIP? UKIP is not so much the party of the flat cap as the party of the flat-rate tax. It would privatise the national health service, drive women back into the home and gays back into the closet, and divide our country once again. My dad described to me the humiliation that he experienced when he came from County Cork to dig roads in London and saw signs reading “No dogs, no Irish.” As for Nigel Farage, boasting, vainglorious, saloon bar Nigel—a man of the people? In the immortal words of Ricky Tomlinson, my arse, or if that is not parliamentary language, Mr Speaker, my posterior.

What kind of society do we live in? This is a Government who are strong with the weak and weak with the strong. In the words of one former Tory voter in my constituency, an ex-policeman, they are a Government of the rich, for the rich, making the rich richer. What says it all is that they introduced the bedroom tax on the very day that they gave 13,000 millionaires a £100,000 tax cut—a grotesque combination. There are heartbreaking cases in my constituency of people who have been hit hard by the bedroom tax.

This is a Government whose days are numbered. Their end cannot come soon enough.

Washwood Heath Marshalling Yard

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

I would like to start by telling the tale of two great plants. The first is the Jaguar Land Rover plant. When I was elected in 2010, the Jaguar plant in Erdington was on its way to closure. I remember meeting the management and shop stewards before the general election, and there was a funereal atmosphere. After I was elected, my first priority was to work with the Government, the new management brought in by Tata, the work force and a range of other players to put together the complex jigsaw that led to the historic decision by Tata in October 2010 to invest £5 billion. I will never forget that day. We stood outside the Jaguar heritage centre in Erdington, and I said that a plant with such a great history—it manufactured the Spitfire during the war and two generations of Jaguars afterwards—was now safe for the next generation. A factory with a great history had a great future.

Secondly, as deputy general secretary of the old Transport and General Workers’ Union, I was involved in a successful campaign to win an order for LDV that helped to keep the factory going. Tragically, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) said, LDV ultimately closed in 2009—a particular factor was that it did not succeed in securing a key order. LDV also had a remarkable history of motor manufacturing: the bodies for the Morris Minor were first produced there in 1948, and Morris commercial vans commenced production in 1974. It was a tragedy that a second factory with a great history ended up with no future.

Why do I paint that background? Because High Speed 2 impacted on both factories. In the case of Jaguar Land Rover, bizarrely, it was proposed that the High Speed 2 route would take out the Jaguar rail terminal. However, constructive discussions with the Government and the Secretary of State followed, involving my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who cannot be here today. The outcome of those discussions was the welcome decision to re-route the High Speed 2 line to avoid taking out the Jaguar terminal.

In the case of LDV—sadly now history—I will do my best to describe the bizarre proposal as it affects Washwood Heath. I remember meeting an LDV worker in Kingstanding in 2010—I met a lot of them, as many live in my constituency. He had lost his job early in 2009 and subsequently been out of work. He was absolutely devastated; he was a skilled man who worked for LDV for 25 years. I stayed in touch with him and met him only last month. He had managed to get back into secure employment. He and one of his LDV mates—an old friend—both said the same thing to me: they asked with incredulity, “Why put a maintenance depot on the old site where we worked for so many years when it is perfectly possible for the depot to be put elsewhere? Why not develop that great site, as we understand the council is proposing, for commercial and manufacturing use?” They kept asking, “Why Washwood Heath?” One of them went on, “Not least because, Jack, we need the jobs here locally. Where I live in Kingstanding, one in four young people are out of work. We desperately need those jobs. I would like to see that site, where I went to work for so many years and that generated thousands of jobs when I worked at LDV, generating thousands of jobs again.” He is absolutely right: we do need the jobs, which are at the heart of Birmingham’s ambitious plan for economic growth. Because of the excellent work that has been done by right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, in alliance with a number of potential developers and sources of finance, we are talking about not just jobs on that site but good jobs—high-quality jobs.

I would like to draw a parallel with Jaguar Land Rover. I was in the Jaguar plant last Friday. It has an excellent programme to train young people, providing a ladder into apprenticeships and giving hope to the young unemployed in my constituency. That is exactly the kind of hope and opportunity that we would like to create by making sensible use of the Washwood Heath site.

Like my right hon. Friend I am a strong supporter of High Speed 2. At the heart of the argument for that project is the contribution it will make to the growth of our country as a whole. Britain cannot succeed through London and the south-east alone. There is cross-party support for High Speed 2, so there is no question about the principle; it is a grand, ambitious project that should go ahead. Nevertheless, would it not be bizarre if something designed to develop and create jobs actually causes the sacking of workers currently in a job and the denial of opportunities on a grand scale—potentially 5,000 to 7,000 jobs at the next stage?

I live in the real world and know that the issue is not without difficulties, but where there is a will, there is a way. I hope that, just as they engaged constructively with local MPs on re-routing the line in the best interests of Jaguar Land Rover, the Government will engage constructively with MPs to see the marshalling terminal developed elsewhere and the site used in the way that our city so desperately needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

It is quite a big number. However, warehousing and similar development on sites throughout the country would undercut the level of jobs aspired to.

In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns in relation to Jaguar Land Rover, I confirm that, while the area is safeguarded, there are no plans to take out this yard. I am pleased that Jaguar Land Rover continues to be successful. I have had six of their products over the years and am very proud of Jaguar Land Rover and what it is doing. There is a tunnel in the area where the Jaguar Land Rover freight road is located.

[Jack Dromey]

The Minister helpfully disclosed the Government’s own assessment of the potential to create 3,700 jobs. Will he confirm that their estimate of what could happen is four times greater than the proposal currently on the table for the marshalling yard, if it goes ahead?

[Mr Goodwill]

Indeed. We have been absolutely honest about this. The density of employment in the yard, under the proposals, is not as high as the density under high-value engineering or even warehousing or other uses for the site. However, the advantages to the west midlands as a whole from this project will bring jobs to the area. At the moment, month after month, more jobs are being created in the private sector, which have more than compensated for jobs lost in the public sector.

The 6 hectares of balancing pond is critical infrastructure to help manage flood risk in the area. Any development in the land would need to deal with water attenuation. This is not unique to the use of the land as a depot. It is important, from a water management point of view, that something is done about water if large areas of concrete are being laid on the land.

Transport Infrastructure

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The chief executive of Birmingham airport, Paul Kehoe, has described the Davies report today as focusing disproportionately on the south-east and entrenching the dominance of the south-east economy to the detriment of growth in the rest of the UK. The Birmingham chamber of commerce has said the same thing. Does the Secretary of State recognise that, in circumstances where Birmingham wants the expansion of its airport, which will be key to economic growth in the midlands, Britain simply cannot succeed through London and the south-east alone?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am a passionate believer in the role of airports outside London. The first time I appeared before the Select Committee, I said that we should stop describing airports such as Birmingham and Manchester as regional airports, because they are major international airports in their own right. I want to see those airports—along with East Midlands airport—serving their local communities. On page 195 of its report, the commission says that it does not see

“a strong case for expansion at Birmingham”

at the moment, but that may well change by 2050. Moreover, being served directly by HS2 will give the airport a great opportunity for the future.

Port of Southampton

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I declare an interest. As deputy general secretary of Unite, I worked with ABP, the local authority and the work force, who are members of Unite, in seeking to drive this project forward. The common ground is the need to rebalance and grow our economy, although we may disagree on how to do that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that infrastructure is key if we are to grow the economy? This development is in the national interest and the interests of growing the economy. Any further delay will damage not only the interests of Southampton but the prospects of economic recovery.

[Mr Denham]

My hon. Friend is right. The involvement of Felixstowe’s owners in this matter gives a UK angle to the competition, but the blunt truth is that there is no reason to believe that the container work lost from Southampton will end up anywhere in the UK. If the effect is that ships go to Rotterdam and their cargo is broken down for trans-shipment, there is a huge loss to the entire UK economy. That is why a view of what is in the interests of the whole UK is crucial. We can have local fights, but we will look pretty ridiculous if we end up damaging the whole UK economy and sending the business elsewhere.

Public Transport (Disabled Access)

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing the debate and for her passionate advocacy of a noble cause.

My hon. Friend is right: how we support and care for the blind, the partially sighted and the disabled in our communities is the hallmark of a civilised society. I pay tribute to many friends from over many years, including those I represent in my constituency of Erdington, who have battled against adversity, often in the most extreme circumstances. Their approach to life was captured by one sufferer of multiple sclerosis from Castle Vale who has been confined to a wheelchair for many years, but said, “I’m disabled, but I’m proud of being disabled.” Disabled people do not want our pity; they want to play a full part in society. They expect us to discharge our moral duty to them, and for those with responsibility to comply with obligations in the law.

My hon. Friend was right to say that there was all-party consensus on some of the landmark changes over the past 20 years, including the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. However, if that is the hallmark of a civilised society, by that test and under successive Governments, our society has sadly too often failed the disabled. Having said that, this Government are moving in the wrong direction.

Today, we rightly focus on transport, and the problems with it are set out in the excellent Trailblazers report. That report includes the personal experiences of an admirable woman, Jagdeep Kaur Sehmbi—Jagz, to her friends—who is here today. She has undertaken tremendous work on behalf of those who are wheelchair bound and the disabled more generally, and she has demonstrated just what the problem is. Let me quote just two paragraphs from what she says in the report. On the issue of trains, she says:

“A couple of times there has been no one with the ramp to help me off the train at my destination platform, even though I had informed them at the other station and been assured that someone would have the ramps ready.”

On the issue of buses, she says:

“Once the driver didn’t drive up to the pavement, not because he couldn’t, but because it was easier for him to drive off after the other passengers had got on, so I had to get off in the road, which meant the ramp was very steep and then I had to find a place to get up onto the pavement.”

Jagz has not been deterred from continuing to travel, but it is clear from my experience that many who have such bitter experiences give up and stay at home, just when they want to play a full part in society.

The report goes on to detail its findings, and I want to refer briefly to four. First, on transport, the disabled end up having less choice and paying more. Secondly, the young disabled, in particular, feel very much that they are second-class citizens. Thirdly, disabled people cannot always access the first taxi, train or bus to come along. As a result, one disabled person told me, “I felt humiliated about being there on the pavement. Everyone else could get on board, but I couldn’t.” Fourthly, the assisted passenger registration scheme demands 24 hours’ notice, which in turn restricts spontaneity and independence. It also fails to provide a service that passengers can count on, which again is evidenced by Jagz’s experience.

Of course, there is an obligation on the companies that provide those services, and I will come to one such company in a moment. Crucially, however, the Government must also act—not only on the framework of regulation, but where there is evidence that companies are not discharging their obligations properly.

That leads me to London Midland. The company is proposing—the proposals are on the Secretary of State’s desk right now—to make significant changes, including to the manning of stations. In my constituency, for example, Gravelly Hill station and Erdington station will no longer be manned after 5 o’clock in the evening. Centro has concluded a consultation process, and 18,000 representations have been made, including many from the disabled, objecting to the proposals and seeking to bring home what they would mean.

I have been working with the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Mencap and the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign to bring home what the impact of the proposals will be, and I want to give one example. The formidable Mike Hughes, who is a former police officer, is now blind. He is chair of the west midlands region of the RNIB. He tells a story about how he got off at Sutton Coldfield station at 9.30 one evening. Normally, he immediately rings for a taxi—he has two numbers programmed into his phone—but this time he could not get a signal. He was completely lost, and this is a strong, self-confident individual. Fortunately, the person manning the ticket office, who was about to close it down, helped him out and took him somewhere where he could get a signal and call a taxi. Like Jagz, Mike said, “I wasn’t deterred, Jack, but I know many people like me who’ve had bad experiences and who were deterred from travelling.”

As a result of the growing concern among the disabled, I and the organisations that I mentioned met London Midland in July. With me was the admirable Rebecca Swift, the RNIB’s regional director. The people we met from London Midland were perfectly decent individuals, but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for saying that they were somewhat uncomprehending of their proposals’ consequences for the disabled. We asked whether the company had consulted. They replied, “We think we did.” We asked how. They said, and I kid thee not, “For example, we put up posters in the stations.” Our next question was, “Posters for the blind and partially sighted?”

We then asked, “Do you think you’re covered by the obligations in the law?” The London Midland people said, “Not sure. We’ll go away and write to you.” They wrote back and said, “We don’t think we are, but in future we will act as if we were and consult properly.” That was in accordance with what we had argued. The problem is that they now propose to go full steam ahead with their proposals; there has been no change. That is simply not good enough, which is why I have written to the Secretary of State asking whether he will intervene. I will say more about that in a moment.

Others have contributed to this important debate. Mencap, for example, has focused on National Express, a company I know very well. It is the biggest long-distance coach company and it is a reputable company. It is also a good employer and it is sensitive to the needs of the communities it serves. However, on 18 routes, the 30% of fares that are concessionary are now at risk because of the changes to the bus service operators grant. I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), and the reply I got today said:

“All coach operators, including National Express, are free to continue to offer half-price concessionary travel to older and eligible disabled people on a commercial basis.”

That sounds like the legendary saying by Anatole France that the rich and the poor are both free to sleep under Paris bridges at night. National Express is not a charity; it is a good company, but if it is to continue to offer concessionary fares in a significant way, it will require continuing Government support.

What is so admirable about the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan is that she has ensured that the voice of the blind, the partially sighted and the disabled is properly heard in the debate. I know that the Minister understands some of the issues, and when he responds to what he has heard today I hope he says how the Government intend to proceed. Specifically, London Midland cannot be allowed to blunder on regardless if the disabled are the casualties of its actions. It has not consulted properly, but the organisations representing the disabled have, crucially, offered to work with it on a consultation. That is why I have requested a meeting with the Secretary of State that involves Jagz and the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, the RNIB and Mencap. No fundamental decisions that impact seriously on public transport and, in turn, on the disabled should be taken unless the voice of the disabled has been properly heard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

That is right. The lift cost £25 million. One issue that has been raised is the age of our network. I do not know whether that applies to our buses. Actually, the situation in London has dramatically improved because all buses have disabled access now. Although we have more modern trains, our stations and platforms are a massive issue for all constituency MPs.

[Jack Dromey]

I thank the Minister for his constructive response to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan for a wider discussion to take place and the establishment of a working group. That is welcome indeed. May I just ask him about the specific issue of the changes being proposed by London Midland? Given that the proposals are now on the Secretary of State’s desk, will he facilitate a meeting with the RNIB, Mencap and the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign because it is important that their voices are heard before a final decision is made?

[Mike Penning]

The point that I was going to get to is the urgency of some issues, including the one that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. It is the Minister of State who is responsible for that issue. I will put a note on her desk tomorrow asking if that meeting can take place. I am not responsible any further than that, but I will do what I say and anyone who knows me will say that that is the case.

I thank the hon. Member for Wigan, who is relatively new in the House, for giving the Minister a list of the questions that she wants answered; it is ever so helpful. Notes are flying back and forth and I must have 20 notes sitting on my desk here. Clearly, I will not be able to answer all of them in the four minutes that I have left and I am not going to try. I do not wish to have a pop at the hon. Member for Nottingham South. I remember sitting in the same seat as a shadow Health Minister for almost exactly the same amount of time that she has been in the House. It is an honour and a privilege to be in this place whether in government or in opposition. Sometimes it may seem difficult, especially when one thinks of the huge number of civil servants backing the Minister and writing his speeches for him. However, I must say that I have not read the speech that they wrote for me. Well, I read it last night and did not like it. They will get used to me; I am just that way.

Let me stress again that all the points that have been raised are about tone and about people’s rights. I know that we are not allowed to indicate who is in the Public Gallery in Westminster Hall, but we are privileged that people have come here, sometimes in very difficult circumstances, to express their rights and to say, “Why am I getting a bum deal compared with other people?”—I do not know how Hansard will work that one out, but there we are. The situation is fundamentally wrong, but it is not easy to resolve. I hate the word “targets” but we have targets for 2020, which the companies will have to meet. In the hon. Member for Wigan’s constituency, there will be a franchise change in 2013. I am conscious of her question, and the Minister responsible will respond to it. I also need to know what rail operator she refers to. Perhaps she can write to me and let me know. We got rid of guards vans in 2004. If that was a comment, it might have been sarcastic, but it was also manifestly incorrect. There are no guards vans to travel in.

The rail companies operate a taxi service—I do not like it because it is a cop-out for them—and the people to whom the hon. Lady referred should have been offered a taxi for the short distance that we are talking about. Instead of one person waiting to be shuttled to their destination, which is an appalling situation to be in, common sense should have prevailed and a taxi should have been ordered to take all four people to their destination. If the hon. Lady can write to me and tell me the name of the company, it would help. People are out there checking up on these companies. It is a huge rail and bus network, but there are people out there checking out what is going on and whether promises, commitments and franchise agreements are being met.

Instead of being typically British and just putting up with things because that is the way we are, we should perhaps be more like the German transport people whom I met earlier today. They would not put up with this because they have a completely different attitude. They expect a service and they tell people in no uncertain terms where they should be. Let us speak up on behalf of our constituents. Constituents need to complain to their MPs and their MPs should tell us. If that happens, perhaps we can have a service for the 21st century that everyone deserves.

Train-building Industry

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for initiating this debate. My father was a train driver for 15 years and he was proud to drive British trains. British trains were at the heart of a thriving manufacturing base that at its peak employed more than 8 million people. Successive Governments have presided over the decline of manufacturing in Britain. On one hand, the previous Conservative Government saw 3 million jobs lost in manufacturing during the 1980s, while on the other hand the Labour Government were slow to learn painful lessons. They eventually arrived at industrial activism, but only after 10 years, after our economy had become unbalanced, with too much emphasis on the financial sector and not enough on the manufacturing sector. There was too much financial engineering, and not enough real engineering.

Throughout that period, I fought many battles for procurement contracts. In 1992, I was involved with British Rail engineering works in York. We successfully won an order for Networker trains for the southern region, which kept that admirable world-class establishment open for three further years. In general—I hope you will excuse the bad pun, Mr Gale—the direction of travel has been depressing, with consequences for our country and especially the midlands. Some 30 years ago, the midlands had one of the two strongest economies in Britain; it now has one of the two weakest.

The country is recovering at a painfully slow pace compared with Germany and France, which had the wisdom to sustain a strong manufacturing base. Bombardier is right when it says that the situation we are now in could not have happened in Germany or France. In recent years we have embraced industrial activism, and the Government have said that they wish to rebalance the economy as part of the growth strategy. I welcome that, but profound lessons must be learned from this sorry saga. Why can the Department for Transport not seem to get backing British industry right? Will the Government recognise the immense leverage that exists in more than £100 billion of public procurement funds, and will they use that in an intelligent way to underpin our manufacturing economy as part of the strategy for growth? The Government must use their power to help manufacturing with a determination equal to that of France or Germany.

Will the Government look again at how contracts are procured? The process was fundamentally flawed. As hon. Members from all parties have said, there was no proper concern for the socio-economic consequences of the contract decision, or for the consequences on the supply chain and the long-term impact of such a loss of capacity in Britain. That includes contracts that could be won both in Britain and internationally, since the trains will no longer be manufactured in Britain.

Finally, it is not too late for the Government to think again. I have been impressed by the excellent contributions made by hon. Members from all parties during the debate. We must learn lessons for the future, but for the here and now we need the Government to state that only preferred-bidder status has been allocated and that it is not too late to change. Where there is a will, there is a way. The voice of people in the midlands is clear: they want the Government to back Britain and to back Bombardier.