Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. We had an important hour and a half debate on electric vehicle charging in this place less than two weeks ago, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). It was a wide-ranging debate and we touched on a number of issues, but today I want to define it slightly more tightly and look at a couple of issues in a bit more detail. I recognise that there is a risk of repetition, but this is an extraordinarily important matter for this country to get right.

Although the country and the Government are making huge progress—the Government are leading the world, to a great extent, with the UK’s net zero target of 2050 and the phasing out of the internal combustion engine by the beginning of the 2030s—it is hugely important that they set aspirations and lead other nations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. There just are not enough electric charging points across the whole of the United Kingdom. As a result, constituents are unwilling or unable to buy electric cars, which take eight hours to charge fully. The latest figures indicate that there are now more than 90 vehicles per rapid charging point. Does he agree that it is crucial that conversations are had with Departments in the devolved Governments and other countries to enable them to align with the rest of the UK in electric vehicle charging points?

[Stephen Hammond]

I will later refer to the barriers to greater electric vehicle uptake, which include accessibility and the number of on and off-street charging points. There are great regional disparities across the United Kingdom in the number of charging points per 1,000 people. There are great differences between London, Scotland and the rest of the world. I am sure colleagues from more rural areas will talk about access to charging points and about local councils’ ability to allow people to use on-street and off-street parking, which sometimes prohibits the movement from the internal combustion engine to electric vehicles.

Transport represents 27% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, and road transport is somewhat over 85% of that. We should not underestimate the progress that has been made. There are now 39,000 charging points across the UK and about 1,135,000 plug-in vehicles. But, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the price of those vehicles and the lack of access to charging points prevent uptake. There is also a lack of a second-hand market—perhaps unsurprisingly, given the relatively recent development of the electric vehicle—which would mean more widespread availability and help the movement to electric vehicles.

Production levels of electric vehicles, which were greater two years ago than they are now, means that although there are 1,135,000 vehicles at the moment, the progress of uptake is slower than we would have expected, given the culture behind electric and hybrid.

Smart Motorways

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered smart motorways.

As ever, it is a real pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Betts. I know that, as the MP for a neighbouring constituency, you are very aware of this topic, so thank you.

On the morning of 7 June 2019, Jason Mercer said goodbye to his wife, Claire, and left for work. While travelling on the M1 near Rotherham, he was involved in a minor collision. Two years prior to the collision, the hard shoulder on that section of motorway had been converted into a full-time running lane. Local authorities, emergency services and local people had all objected to that, but were ignored. With no emergency refuge nearby, and with the hard shoulder removed, Mr Mercer and his fellow motorist stopped on the inside lane of the motorway to exchange details. Minutes later, both were dead. With a steep bank immediately behind the safety barrier, Mr Mercer was unable to move out of the live lane. Their vehicles were hit by a lorry, and both men were killed instantly. The stationary vehicles were not detected by the then Highways England for more than six minutes. The lane in which they were stranded was closed only after both men had been killed. Mr Mercer’s was one of 79 lives claimed on Britain’s growing smart motorway network in the period up to July 2022.

Since their inception, the alarm has been raised repeatedly about all-lane-running motorways. In 2016, the Select Committee on Transport found that the attendant safety risks of all-lane-running motorways had not been addressed. It recommended:

“The Department should not proceed with a major motorway programme on the basis of cost savings while major safety concerns continue to exist.”

Five years later, in 2021, the Committee again criticised the smart motorway programme, noting that

“the promised safety improvements were delivered neither efficiently nor effectively.”

It argued that safety risks

“should have been addressed before those motorways were rolled out.”

It is hard to escape the conclusion that had they been addressed, Jason Mercer might still be alive. Multiple inquests into deaths on smart motorways have said as much. In recording a verdict of unlawful killing, the inquest into Mr Mercer’s death listed five contributing factors, including the absence of a hard shoulder, the lack of stationary vehicle detection technology, and insufficient driver training on how smart motorways work. The inquest into the death of Sheffield-based Nargis Begum, killed in 2018 on the same stretch of the M1 as Mr Mercer, found that the lack of a hard shoulder contributed to her death. Yet National Highways, inexplicably, continues to claim that smart motorways are safer than conventional motorways. Data that it offers to support that conclusion is misleading, to say the least.

The 2016 Select Committee report noted:

“The ‘smart’ in smart motorways does not come from the loss of the hard shoulder…It could be seen as disingenuous to present this change as part and parcel of ‘smart’ motorways. The Department cannot use a reduction in risk in some hazards to justify an increase in risk in others.”

The implementation of new safety features is of course welcome. The installation of stopped vehicle detection technology in particular is a much-needed safety feature. But it is far from a magic bullet. Although SVD can reduce the time that it takes to identify stopped vehicles, it is far from perfect.

The lack of a hard shoulder is inherently dangerous, particularly without frequent emergency refuges to provide a place of safety. The spacing of emergency refuges is one of the most concerning aspects of design changes made as the all-lane-running programme has developed. The initial pilot project saw refuges spaced at 400-to-800-metre intervals. In later designs, that was expanded to a frankly staggering 2,500 metres between refuge areas. That is more than 1.5 miles.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, who brings to Westminster Hall and the Chamber many issues that I support, and this is one of them. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. There are conflicting opinions on smart motorways and their safety. Northern Ireland has seen the introduction of smart motorway techniques, which in Northern Ireland are referred to as intelligent traffic systems. We have that on the A12 Westlink. We cannot ignore the fact that many fear smart motorways because of the arguments about no hard shoulder. Does the hon. Lady agree that before smart motorways are implemented, the Government must ensure that there is sufficient signage to make drivers aware of that? They may be driving on roads they have never been on before and not notice the change. More signage is needed before any more people panic or become involved in road traffic incidents.

[Sarah Champion]

I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman says.

Just imagine that someone is having a heart attack, their car is breaking down or they have been in an accident, and they then have to drive a mile and a half to get to a safe space of refuge. It is difficult to fathom. The only explanation that I can come up with is that a decision has been made on cost grounds, and that is hard to reconcile with the repeated claims of National Highways that its overriding priority is the safety of motorists.

The 2021 Select Committee report recommended that the roll-out be paused pending the collation and analysis of five years of safety data. The Government’s acceptance of that recommendation was welcome, but misleading. Not only do all-lane-running motorways continue to operate but, as the hon. Gentleman said, new schemes are being built and brought online. By spring of this year, four new sections of all-lane-running motorways will begin operation. While the Government dither, constituencies like mine continue to host death-trap roads. Make no mistake, all-lane-running motorways are death traps.

In 2014, with the road operating as a conventional motorway, an average of 14 vehicles became stranded in live lanes each month between junctions 32 and 35A of the M1. In 2018, the first year of all-lane running for the same stretch of motorway, a staggering 81 vehicles per month were stranded in live lanes. Each of those incidents represents a potential tragedy. Each saw a motorist stationary in high-speed traffic, hoping and praying that other motorists would see them in time—staring in terror at their rear-view mirror as vehicles hurtled towards them. And what is National Highways advice to motorists stranded in live lanes? Hon. Members will not believe this, but it is: “Keep your seatbelts on, turn on your hazard lights and call 999”. No place of refuge is available. Motorists are forced to wait and hope.

We are told that technology mitigates the risks—that stranded vehicles will be spotted quickly, that lanes will be closed and we will be safe—but even with stopped vehicle detection technology, it can still take several minutes to detect a stationary vehicle. Almost 10% of vehicles stopped in live lanes on smart motorways are not detected within a minute. Almost 2% are not detected within five minutes. Still worse, SVD does not even work properly. The Office of Rail and Road has disclosed that SVD has failed to meet key performance requirements on detection rates, speed of detection or even the number of false alerts. That is simply not good enough, and it makes the claim that all-lane-running motorways are safer than conventional motorways difficult to comprehend.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is illustrating the issue well. I was sitting here and thinking about when someone is stuck on the hard shoulder and vehicles are going by at a speed in excess of 70 miles an hour. Does she agree that the speed factor contributes to how quickly they can stop, and that compounds the panic and fear?

[Sarah Champion]

If we have to stop on the hard shoulder, having those cars racing by is terrifying. If there is no hard shoulder and we are stuck in a live lane, we can see them coming, but we have no control other than to hope that our seatbelt works.

The claim that smart motorways—all-lane-running motorways—are safer than conventional ones is ridiculous. It is based largely on offsetting the safety risk that is introduced by removing the hard shoulder against the safety improvements that a managed environment delivers, but those two things are not mutually dependent. As a 2016 Select Committee pointed out, it is perfectly possible to introduce a managed environment while retaining the hard shoulder. National Highways should not continue to offset the safety improvements delivered by technology against the risk of removing the hard shoulder in an ever desperate effort to justify what it does.

Roads with safety features in place that retain the hard shoulder do exist, and they are called controlled motorways. It would seem logical to use them as a realistic point of comparison when determining relative safety, but that is a comparison that National Highways seems hugely reluctant to make. I have repeatedly questioned it about this and have requested a direct comparison between the rates of fatal incidents involving stationary vehicles in live lanes on controlled motorways and on all-lane-running motorways. It was with much kicking and screaming that the data was eventually published in the second year progress report. The comparison is truly shocking. The rate of incidents involving stopped vehicles in which someone was killed or seriously injured on controlled motorways was 0.06 per 100 million vehicle miles travelled. For all-lane-running motorways it was a staggering 0.19 per 100 million vehicle miles travelled.

In the name of increasing capacity on the cheap, National Highways has more than tripled the likelihood of serious incidents involving stationary vehicles. Given those risks, it is hard to overstate just how important the proper functioning of the managed environment is, and yet the technology is far from reliable. For the month of September 2022, the national availability of stopped vehicle detection technology was recorded at 98%, and for warning signs 90%. That might sound reassuring, but for crucial safety equipment, a failure rate of 2% and 10% is shocking. Would we trust a seatbelt that worked 90% of the time? It is not unreasonable to ask that those features work reliably before placing our lives in their hands.

Last month, technology across the network was down for several hours during planned maintenance on National Highways’ DYNAC system. No advance warning was provided to motorists. This was the latest in a series of outages that whistleblowers have reported and that have deeply alarmed National Highways staff. Those whistle- blowers have said that the technology is out today, but I am unable to verify that. It is hardly surprising that the public lack confidence in these roads.

E-petitions calling for smart motorways to be scrapped and hard shoulders restored have received more than 10,000 signatures. Research conducted by the RAC has shown that 85% of motorists believe that safety is compromised by the removal of a hard shoulder. Worse still, just 46% of respondents felt confident that they knew what to do in the event of a breakdown in a live lane. The consequences of that lack of public awareness were shockingly exposed during the inquest into the death of Nargis Begum. The inquest heard that 153 vehicles passed the stranded vehicle, but no one reported it to the authorities. Why? Because they believed the vehicle would be detected by CCTV. That is not unreasonable in the face of National Highways’ repeated claims about the efficiency of its technology, and yet National Highways testified to the inquest that detecting a stopped vehicle using CCTV was not “practicable”.

National Highways belatedly recognised the importance of public education in ensuring that smart motorways can operate safely. The result was a public information campaign in which actors dressed as insects smeared on windscreens sang to the tune of the Pet Shop Boys’ “Go West”. Understandably, this staggeringly misjudged campaign was condemned by those who had lost family members on smart motorways.

During the recent Conservative leadership campaign, it was a relief that both the former Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss)—and the current Prime Minister expressed concern about these roads. The current Prime Minister branded them “unsafe” and committed to banning all new smart motorways. Campaigners and bereaved families were left bitterly disappointed when, just weeks later, he U-turned, with the Secretary of State for Transport reverting to the familiar refrain of waiting for evidence.

How much evidence do the Government need? How many more people have to die? How many more families will be left to grieve for their loved ones? We cannot continue to gamble with the lives of motorists. Removing the hard shoulder greatly increases the risks for motorists. The technology that is meant to secure their safety is unreliable, incomplete and ineffective. Tinkering around the edges, tweaking designs and rolling out flawed technology will not remove the inherent risk that the Government have chosen to introduce to our motorways. People are dying and yet the Government continue to delay, searching for an answer that is staring them in the face.

Had Jason Mercer been able to pull on to a hard shoulder, he would still be alive and Claire Mercer would still have a husband. The Government can prevent further loss of life, but to do so they need to recognise something that even the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), the former Minister who commissioned these smart motorways, has admitted, namely that they were a mistake. Nothing will bring back Jason Mercer, but the Government can at least put right their mistake and restore the hard shoulder across the motorway network. I plead with the Minister to do so right now, before more lives are needlessly lost.

Restoring Your Railway Fund

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Foster]

I could not put it better. Transport systems are not just about an academic exercise of connecting point A to point B, but about linking communities, providing opportunities and levelling up communities. Instead of looking back to a service that existed until the late 1960s, we should look forward to the opportunities. My hon. Friend is a very strong advocate for his constituents and I know he will push the Government on that scheme.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Foster]

It would be rude not to give way to probably the most regular attender at 9.30 am on a Tuesday.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. It is a real pleasure to intervene on him, whom I see as a very dear friend. My constituency used to have a railway line, but now has no railway whatever. Does the hon. Member not agree that it makes no sense for any constituency to have less public transport at a time when we are encouraging people to ditch their cars and make changes to help the environment? It takes investment. If the Government are serious, the funding must also be serious.

[Kevin Foster]

The hon. Gentleman puts it well and reminds us that in the Beeching era many communities went from having train services to numerous destinations to literally having none. We have mentioned the example of the Scottish Borders railway. After the closure of the Waverley route, certain communities became some of the furthest away from the mainline network. Train services provide people with different choices and opportunities. It is safe to say that the people of Strangford can be reassured that if there is any prospect of getting a train service back to Strangford, the hon. Gentleman will regularly pursue it in this place until it happens.

I am conscious that there are many requests for new lines and stations across the country. In June, the Government published a restoring your railway fund programme update with details of all successful and unsuccessful bids. In total, the programme update listed 44 successful schemes, which are at different stages, and 23 schemes are being funded to develop a strategic outline business case—one of the earlier stages in considering a transport intervention. Thirteen schemes that had already developed a SOBC are being supported to develop further, and eight schemes are being delivered. Of those, the Dartmoor line between Okehampton and Exeter has already reopened.

The schemes stretch across the country, ranging from the Northumberland line reopening to the new Thanet Parkway station in Kent, plus St Clears station in Wales and the White Rose station in Yorkshire. As evidenced today, many other communities want to join them. Many communities who were not successful at first now hope to join them in future rounds.

In some areas the dreams of restoring a railway service will come up against the harsh realities of previous track beds having been lost or development having taken over where a line once cut through. What might in the early 1970s have been a relatively easy job of re-laying track will now mean cutting a new track bed through previously untouched countryside. I know from my brief time in the Department for Transport about the issues with restoring the key section of the Varsity line between Cambridge and Bedford, given the short-sighted decisions of past generations to build over the old track bed. The modern realities of development since the line closed mean a different realignment is needed. It is interesting to note that this is one railway that Dr Beeching proposed to keep open in his infamous report, with the mistake of closure being clear almost from the time it was implemented.

In many locations where enthusiasts or a local council have sought to preserve the dream that trains would one day come back down the track to them, reopening former lines can offer excellent value for money. We can also benefit from the quality of railway engineering in the Victorian era. The report on the former line from Bere Alston to Tavistock, more than 40 years after its closure, found that many of the key structures were in fairly good condition, despite not having been maintained for decades. Think of how each pound spent on the restoring your railway programme delivers popularity and inspiration for the local community. Then think how HS2 developers must dream of getting anywhere near that with the tens of billions being spent on that.

The Minister will not be surprised to hear me talk of the opportunity to do just that in my own constituency. The former Goodrington Sands station lies only a few hundred metres from the railhead that marks the end of the Network Rail track, and has done since the line from nearby Paignton station to Kingswear closed. It is not the derelict building that some hon. Members might now be picturing in their minds. Since 1972, it has operated successfully as part of the Dartmouth Steam Railway, with its platforms still in very good condition.

Goodrington station provides a great example, not just of preserving the past, but of an opportunity for the future. Given the Network Rail track nearby, it is possible to create a track route, entirely separate from the operations of the steam railway, to Goodrington from Paignton. That would allow a new platform to be created alongside the heritage station, with accessibility provided by stairs and a lift to the road bridge that passes over the site. Whereas parking is limited at Paignton, there are large car parks near Goodrington station, which are often only used in the summer peak season.

Those ingredients, alongside the presence of a large beach and leisure facilities around the former station, provide a tempting chance directly to reconnect communities nearby and facilitate a parkway-style access to the rail network. Despite the obvious attractions of that plan, plus support from the local community, the spirit of the Beeching era lived on in the coalition of Lib Dem and independent councillors currently running Torbay Council, who objected to the bid for restoring your railway funds. It was disappointing to note their opposition, and the way they assumed they could get an officer to write to MPs, simply demanding we withdraw a bid, as they had said no. As some will know, such ill-judged actions merely provoked not compliance but scorn from me, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and many local residents.

The restoring your railway programme is not just about reopening lines closed during the Beeching era. It is also providing entirely new stations, such as the one being built at Marsh Barton, which I passed on the train when I travelled up yesterday, and the very welcome Edginswell station in Torquay, where preparatory works are under way ahead of the main construction work starting later this year. Having asked many questions about that project of previous Rail Ministers, I welcome the new stations fund and the Torquay town deal supporting it: the first new station in Torbay since the war, delivered by a Conservative team.

I could be here a long time, listing individual schemes and opportunities for reopening, and I suspect we will hear quite a few more as the debate progresses. Yet the purpose of this debate is not just to put in a pitch for a local scheme, although this is a good opportunity for colleagues to ensure that the Minister has heard the exact benefits a scheme will bring for their local area. There are a few points it would be good for the Minister to respond to.

The first is the easiest: to confirm that the Government remain committed to the vision of reversing Beeching-era cuts, giving communities new train services, as set out in our 2019 manifesto, and the £500 million previously agreed. Secondly, what work will the Government do to support groups and MPs looking to bid where a local council retains the spirit of the Beeching era and decides to object, but the community is positive? Thirdly, what assessment of the value delivered with these projects will be used to capture the full impact for the community of being reconnected to the rail network?

As I said at the start, the fact that we can mention one man’s name 60 years after his report was published shows how the railway closures affected so many communities. For the first time in decades, many communities can now talk about railways as part of their future, not just something they reminisce about from the past. That is what the restoring your railway scheme is about. It is the ultimate prize from levelling up, and it is vital that the commitment shown to it by the Government’s 2019 manifesto continues.

MOTs: Increased Particulate Matter Testing

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered increased particulate matter testing during MOTs.

I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Air pollution is one of the greatest public health challenges of our time. As we speak, in this place and beyond, people are being poisoned by filthy, unsafe air. Indeed, today the Mayor of London issued a high air pollution alert across the capital.

A diesel particulate filter, or DPF, captures and stores dangerous emissions. It can be found at the back of a diesel exhaust system and can reduce emissions from a vehicle by around 80%. In some instances, a faulty DPF is responsible for the same amount of pollution as a three-lane, 360-mile traffic jam. That is the distance between my constituency of Huddersfield and Land’s End in Cornwall. That truly terrifying fact must spur us on to identify and remove dangerous faulty filters. I emphasise that just one faulty filter in one car can spread that amount of poison.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has been quite insistent and persistent in highlighting this issue. He said that a faulty DPF on a single vehicle can cause the same amount of pollution as a 360-mile traffic jam. Does he agree that while we are putting fresh restrictions on business and manufacturing, there is a simple and effective way of cutting emissions? If so, will he put forward his ideas?

[Mr Sheerman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and he is absolutely right; I will address his point during my remarks.

Increased particulate matter testing during the MOT would ensure that we identified faulty DPFs that are not picked in the current testing regime. I am pleased to see, from the Government’s open consultation on the MOT, which was published last week, that the Government want to adopt particulate number testing.

As chair of the Westminster Commission for Road Air Quality, I have been campaigning on this issue for a long time, and it looks as though we are making some progress at last. If the Government are looking for a legislative vehicle, my Motor Vehicle Tests (Diesel Particulate Filters) Bill is due for Second Reading on 24 March. I am very happy to share it, and all credit for it, with the Minister.

Before I speak more about changes that we can make to the MOT, it is worth dwelling on the life-changing harmful effects of air pollution, which my Bill would help to mitigate. It is estimated that up to 36,000 people die prematurely each year from the effects of air pollution in our country. The total cost to the NHS and social care will be £1.5 billion by 2025 and £5.1 billion by 2035.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, there are 4,000 electric vehicles and 337 charge points. Central Government have assisted and funded charge points in the past. People are unable and unwilling to buy an electric car if there are not enough charge points, so what discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Infrastructure in the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that the number of charge points is increased across the whole of Northern Ireland?

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question. I myself have not recently spoken to the infrastructure board in Northern Ireland, but I shall make a point of doing so in the near future.

Lifeboat Services: Search and Rescue

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Davies, for chairing the debate and for giving me a chance to participate. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for setting the scene so well, and hon. Members for contributing to the debate.

Lifeboats and their services are imperative for safety in coastal communities, which is the key issue for me. The hon. Member for Torbay represents a coastal area that is similar to my constituency of Strangford, and we follow each other in debates more often than not—either him before me or me before him. The neighbouring constituency of North Down also has coastal areas with lifeboats, and people rely on the local stations.

It is great to be here to give them the praise they truly deserve and to thank them for their work and efforts.

Thousands of people along the coastline of Northern Ireland depend on the services of the RNLI for their protection and safety. During the summer, thousands of families and young people partake in coastal sports such as sailing, surfing and pier jumping. I used to do that myself off Ballywalter harbour, although that is not a very wise thing to do—always ensure the tide is in or there is big trouble. In addition, people go out in canoes and boats to fish, including from the fishing village of Portavogie. There are caravan parks at Millisle and my home village of Ballywalter, where I was brought up. They lie very close to where I live on the edge of Strangford lough. I am aware of the sheer number of water sports undertaken in this area.

The RNLI charity provides a 24-hour search and rescue service around the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Across the entire UK, there are 238 lifeboat stations, 46 of them in Northern Ireland. There are also 240 lifeguard units on beaches, which gives an idea of the magnitude of the issue. I found this figure incredible: since the RNLI was founded in 1824, its lifeboat crews have saved more than 142,700 lives. That is an enormous figure.

We are fortunate to have a lifeboat station in Portaferry in my constituency, and I visited the station just before the summer. Portaferry is one of seven RNLI lifeboat stations operating a lifeboat funded by viewers of the BBC TV programme “Blue Peter”. Some of us can cast our minds back to that, although others cannot go back that far. The station was established due to increased pleasure boating in Strangford lough, after Cloughey lifeboat station closed. Most recently, in November, the Portaferry lifeboat station came to the aid of two kayakers who got into difficulty near St Patrick’s rock in Strangford lough, and who faced weather conditions of wind force 8 to 10. Since the station opened in 1980, there have been 850 launches, rescuing 600 people and saving the lives of 100 people. That is just my lifeboat station in Portaferry. Thank you to all lifeboat crews, past and present, for their commitment.

Last year, I attended the parliamentary launch of the National Independent Lifeboat Association. I think the hon. Member for Torbay sponsored that event. It is important to pay thanks to those independent lifeguards and life-saving organisations who risk their lives in dangerous seas to help save others.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman, like me, welcome the representation provided by the National Independent Lifeboat Association for smaller lifeboat operators, which might otherwise be overlooked?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. We have all said how much we appreciate that. The hon. Member for Torbay said that in his introduction. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) will recognise the independent ones in his contribution. I am thinking of the Foyle rescue team, about which we have spoken. We understand the commitment that those volunteers give. When I visited Portaferry before the summer, I was greatly impressed by their commitment and by the fact that they were there every time they were needed.

There are 46 independent lifeboat organisations that operate along the coastline and on inland waterways across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Those independent lifeboats are run primarily, if not entirely, by volunteers, and funded by local donations. The invaluable service they provide has saved the lives of so many and, in conjunction with the RNLI, they continue with those dedicated efforts day in and day out to save people. They are an asset to our communities. We would be completely lost without them, and many lives would sadly be lost as well. I am not the only who was moved by adverts on TV for RNLI showing a lady leave her house over Christmas to go and save people. We see how important these crews are when we recognise what they do.

To conclude, there are many ways in which we can support institutions such as the RNLI. It is possible to become a volunteer or a member, and even train to become assistance personnel. There are many things that people can do, including fundraising and donating money to ensure the RNLI staff have the best equipment available to fulfil their duties and be able to perform with the correct number of staff.

I sincerely thank the RNLI Portaferry team for all their dedication and work in my constituency. I also thank the lifeboat teams across Northern Ireland and the whole of the UK for the work they do, as our coastal communities would literally be lost without them. I live in a coastal community and understand what it means to have the RNLI, and I thank them very much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for bringing forward this important debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee, of which I am a former Member, along with you, Mr Davies, and the hon. Member for Torbay.

The hon. Member for Torbay started the debate extremely powerfully with a lot of good points. There will be a huge amount of consensus, which is unusual, particularly from the SNP in this place. I will detail that particularly when I get to the speech made by the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). The hon. Member for Torbay rightly said that search and rescue is carried out by a number of governmental and independent organisations and agencies. He also mentioned the Penlee lifeboat, which lost all eight of its crew in 1981. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has just powerfully described that incident, and I will come to that when I sum up his contribution. The hon. Member for Torbay mentioned that there were nearly 10,000 taskings last year, and made an important point about preventive work through education and training. He rightly highlighted the excellent work of his own local lifeboat in Torbay.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) was absolutely right to mention how treacherous the waters can be off the north-west coast of Scotland. He also made what may appear to be a lighter point about the sheep rescue and how important it would have been to the crofter—and no doubt to the sheep themselves. That put me in mind of another rescue; I think it was the Skye lifeboat that helped to refloat some stranded dolphins last summer. It is not just humans that the RNLI supports.

The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) made many better points than he made in the independence debate just weeks ago. I did not catch their names, but he made a good point about four volunteers who have served for 40 years with the lifeboat service. I add my thanks and gratitude. That makes the wider point that many who serve in the RNLI have done so for a long time, and that must be recognised. He also mentioned the Nicola Faith tragedy, in which three lives were sadly lost.

It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He mentioned coastal activities, including sailing and surfing. The one I was interested in was pier jumping. He confessed that he partook in that activity himself. It is not clear whether that was last week or some time ago, so we are unsure whether his pier-jumping speedos have been retired. Now that I have loaded up that image, I will come to the hon. Member for Moray. It is very rare—in fact, probably unique—that I agree with every word that he said.

[Jim Shannon]

I think the hon. Gentleman can finish now.

[Gavin Newlands]

I should probably sit down at that, yes. I will not put that on my leaflets, obviously.

The hon. Member for Moray brought up the National Independent Lifeboat Association, which I very much support. That leads me on nicely to the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). I thank him for his work in setting up that organisation. He was right to say that this debate is essentially a moment of consensus when we can thank all those who volunteer and put their lives at risk on our behalf to save those in distress at sea. He also made the point that they do it all by raising their own money. I add my thanks and gratitude to all those who fundraise for, and donate to, the RNLI, making possible all its excellent work, which we have all spoken about.

That brings me on to the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), who said he was a proud yachtsman and talked about how he shared water safety training with a local school. He, too, reiterated the vital importance of such training for youngsters in school at all ages. As he said, one only has to reflect on the tragedy in Solihull in recent weeks to realise that we must do more in that regard.

The hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) spoke about the impact on the volunteers—the risk they take and the unsocial hours—but also about the impact on the families, which is something we do not always mention, so that was a very welcome point. She also mentioned her new year’s day dip. Rather her than me.

The last speaker, whose constituency I have forgotten—

Bus Routes: Local Consultation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dean Russell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. That is absolutely true in rural areas, but also in urban areas. Bus services provide a really important role for our communities. That role is not political. We do not catch a blue bus or a red bus or a yellow bus—we catch a bus. The reality is that we must all work together. We must find ways to ensure we serve our community in the best way we can.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I did text him before he came in to ask if it would be okay to make an intervention. When I saw the title of the debate I immediately thought of my constituency of Strangford, which is similar to his constituency of Watford. Speaking as an active representative of the rural constituency of Strangford, I have attempted to fight many battles for those who are the victims of reduced services, often without prior warning. They are often cancelled without any consultation. Does he not agree that the duty of care to isolated communities should demand at least some consultation and that if bus companies are not prepared to do that voluntarily, then this place must be the place to take action legally?

[Dean Russell]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments. To be fair, he did not need to text me. I was hoping he would join the Adjournment debate—it would be very odd if he did not. I appreciate his comments and agree wholeheartedly. Surely the point of a timetable is to ensure that people know what time buses are coming. If that timetable changes, the people who use the bus should be consulted and asked about how it will impact them, not just seen as numbers on a spreadsheet. Having spoken to local residents, I was surprised to learn that there is not a Government or local government edict that bus users must be consulted before a change to the timetable, which would seem an obvious thing to do, so I wholeheartedly agree with his comments.

I have been actively engaging, talking and corresponding with organisations, whether Arriva or local government, so none of them will be surprised about the concerns I raise today in the Chamber. This is a constructive opportunity to say that I will not give up on raising these issues, but will work with them to ensure they are resolved in the best way possible for my constituents.

Future of Rail Services

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of rail services.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. I want to thank Mr Speaker for giving me the opportunity to host this debate. I have always believed that rail is critical to the success of our country. It connects our cities, towns and communities; it drives economic regeneration and growth; it is the employer of the present but also of the future, as new technological skills will be required; and it is the key to achieving many of our decarbonisation ambitions.

It is clear that the pandemic has caused many industries catastrophic problems, and the rail industry is no different. When covid hit, ridership fell to about 4%, which was a record low. Train operating companies that had been providing the Treasury with £100 million every four weeks were requiring a subsidy of something like £600 million. The franchise system—which had been broadly successful from 1992 to 2016, when it experienced a number of problems—collapsed and the Government became the operator of last resort.

It is not the case that all the problems of the industry came merely from the pandemic. The franchising system had worked well until 2016, but the more prescriptive franchising system set out in that round saw too much prescription and too little room for initiative. A distinguished predecessor of my hon. Friend the Minister recounts a story of how he was required to set the time of the last train from Southampton to Bournemouth. It should never be the role of Ministers to set timetables. There was too much interference.

Network Rail was the cause of 80% of the delays, which is what caused most passenger dissatisfaction. The new timetable that was introduced in 2018 collapsed in September that year, which triggered the response from the Department to have the Williams review. It is true that the Williams review took some time, but it has now come forward and highlighted some problems. There are some very good elements of the Williams review. I have already mentioned the incentives to decarbonisation and the suggestion that no one disagrees that the industry needs a guiding mind.

Equally, however, the review has embedded a number of problems. The concept of the guiding mind, the acceptance that the railways can drive social mobility and a cleaner, greener transport system, and that technology must be at the heart of future investment, are all absolutely key. However, I want to concentrate on two flaws of the Williams plan. First, the creation of Great British Railways as the guiding mind, the system operator, maintainer, enhancer and controller of operations, with the setting of passenger service contracts, safety and ticketing—I could go on—is to all extents and purposes the renationalisation of the railway system. Some in this room might think that is a good idea. Those of us old enough to have experienced British Rail will realise that no one in future would want to wear such rose-tinted glasses.

There is also concern that there is too little emphasis in the plan on the benefits that the private sector has brought to the railway. It gives no incentive for operators to offer an enhanced service, and suggests little punitive action if it is a poor service. The passenger service operating contracts may well be a short-term palliative, but if adopted in the long run they would drive the private sector from the industry.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. The key thing for me is the customer, and I know that that is the key thing for him as well. Does he agree that connectivity is essential to rural communities? The ability to jump on the tube or a train is missing in too many communities. We must look at not simply holding on to what we have, but at expanding the network so that we can tackle rural isolation. That is what the customer wants.

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. If he listens to my speech later on, he will hear me say that the passenger must be at the heart of the new railway system. The new system needs not to go back to what it was previously but to evolve. In a few moments’ time, he will hear me make that point.

I have always been in favour of privatised railways, although I accept that there are some legitimate criticisms. However, the creation of a not just fat but staggeringly obese controller at the centre and heart of a hybrid railway system is likely to be the worst of all worlds. I can only echo the view of so many senior rail experts who believe that, as the Government are soon to finalise their plans, now is the time and opportune moment to consider not just the best of the Williams-Shapps proposals but radical change.

The first test of this iteration of the Government’s plans has come with the recently announced SoFA—statement of funds available—for control period 7, which is £44 billion. That is a huge sum of money, but it is £4 billion less than the amount given for control period 6. That partly reflects the fact that, while Network Rail has excellent leadership at the top, all too often there are layers of permafrost that stifle initiative, do not give clear prioritisation to investment plans and do not get them delivered. In some cases, they have prioritised engineering over the customer. I reiterate that if this money is to be used sensibly, as I will say in a few minutes’ time, it is absolutely clear that the future plans for this industry must have well-defined, accountable plans for investment.

I have also looked at the HLOS—the high-level output specification—which was even more revealing, probably for what it did not say as much as what it did say. I saw no reference in the HLOS to either the rail review or Great British Railways. Although I accept that I may well be overinterpreting the HLOS, the optimist in me thinks that that means that the Government are actually signalling that they intend to revise their proposals.

Disappointingly, there was no reference to encouraging the participation of the private sector in the development of projects nor in the financing or funding of specific projects, despite that being one of the core suggestions that the transition team works on as it moves from the old system to the new. In response to the point about connectivity made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I accept that paragraph 24 of the HLOS refers to engaging with regional transport authorities, but I believe that local, regional and national schemes are all equally important. I hope the Minister will confirm that that was an error of omission rather than intent.

Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

Clearly, given what happened earlier this year, we do not think the existing position is satisfactory. That is why we are bringing forward the Bill. If my hon. Friend wants to set out his argument in more detail during the debate, we will obviously listen with great care, but we think legislation is necessary. The Bill is a major step forward and it will deliver on point one of the nine-point plan, changing the law so that seafarers with close ties to the UK working on frequent services to UK ports are paid at least an equivalent to the UK national minimum wage while they are in our waters.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The concern I have, and I believe other Members in the Chamber have, is that I understand the chief executive officer of P&O said that the average hourly wage for his new crewing model would be £5.50 per hour, yet the minimum wage is much more than that even for under-18s. Can the Secretary of State provide clarification? I want the Bill to be firm, hard and strong—I think we all do—so will he address that issue?

[Mr Harper]

The legislation will ensure that seafarers with close ties to the UK who are working on frequent services to UK ports have to be paid at least an equivalent to the UK national minimum wage while they are in our waters. As the hon. Gentleman points out, for those aged 23 and over, the current rate is £9.50 an hour. From April 2023, it will be £10.42 an hour. That is clearly significantly higher than the amount the hon. Gentleman just set out. That is the point of the Bill: to discourage the sort of behaviour we saw from P&O earlier this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

We judge that the risk of operators moving to or operating out of a different port is relatively small. The routes on which they operate are the profitable ones, so ceasing to operate on them would not make business sense. We think that denying access to a port is a proportionate response to the problem, so we have settled on that measure as the appropriate solution.

We will draw up regulations and guidance setting out further details of how the legislation will work. They will be subject to consultation to ensure that our measures are practical and effective and that people cannot avoid them. Feedback from the industry has been crucial throughout the process. Ferry operators told us that inclusions or exclusions based on type of service would create market distortion and ambiguity, so the only specific exclusion in the Bill is for

“a service that is for the purpose of leisure or recreation, or…a service provided by a fishing vessel.”

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Secretary of State for his graciousness in giving way. Will resources be made available for the extra work that harbour authorities and marine services will have to carry out? If they are already rushed and under pressure, surely it makes sense to employ more people and make more resources available.

[Mr Harper]

We do not think that the responsibility on harbour authorities will be particularly onerous. Their job will be to receive declarations, not to investigate or do compliance work; those responsibilities will fall to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. As with all our agencies, it will be a question of setting priorities. As the hon. Gentleman can see from the fact that we are introducing primary legislation on the matter, improving services for seafarers is indeed one of our priorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I say how pleased I am to have heard the comments of right hon. and hon. Members? In particular, it was a real pleasure to follow the forensic contribution of the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris); he has a vast wealth of knowledge on this subject. I thank him for sharing it with all of us in the Chamber; it was good to have those points strongly reinforced.

I warmly welcome the Bill. It makes complete sense that those who spend a considerable amount of time in British ports should be paid at least the minimum British wage—indeed, they should be paid more. In my constituency, there are many seafarers and fishermen from the Philippines; they spend a lot of time in Portavogie. It is not only morally correct but our responsibility to ensure that those seafarers are looked after financially.

The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) outlined his case very clearly; unfortunately, he has had to do so over a great number of years. As he said, every time he thought an agreement was reached, another obstacle—another reason for saying no—was found. How frustrating that must be! Our hope is that this legislation will be the start of something firm, strong and final that gives the reassurance and the protection that the seafarers want. He also referred to fire and rehire. I wholeheartedly endorse what he said on that, as others have done. Perhaps the Bill could deal with that issue. If it could, then we will have achieved something above and beyond what we hoped for. It would be good to have provisions in place to deal with that.

The issues surrounding P&O Ferries have proven instrumental to the fishing and trading industry. I echo what has been said about P&O. I am outraged by how people wearing balaclavas strong-armed and man-handled the workers off the P&O boats. I watched that, that day; it was the same in Larne harbour as in other places. There was something totally wrong, outrageous and disgraceful about it in a democratic country—a country of freedom, where we stand up for the rights of others. We watched what was happening on TV, and we could do nothing about it. I hope that the legislation will be strong and firm, and will give the protection that is necessary.

A combined number of 800 staff, including in Northern Ireland, were made redundant at start of the year, in additional to a £100 million loss year on year. P&O stated that the business is not viable in its current state. P&O’s chief executive officer stated that the average hourly rate for agency workers under the crewing model would be £5.50, yet the minimum wage in the United Kingdom is higher than that for those 18 and over.

I read the comparisons by the International Labour Organisation—for Hansard it is important to put this on the record. It stated that the recommended basic wage for an able seaman is $648, around £550 per month, based on seafarers working eight hours a day, or a 48-hour working week. That equates to around £2.66 an hour. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) has quoted that figure in this House on numerous occasions, and it is disgraceful that that should be the wage for people on the international seas. I know that control over what we do in British waters is with the Minister in the House, but we are all outraged by that sort of wage for seafarers across the world. Such a wage is unheard of, and impossible for those working to live on. The Government must step in and ensure that seafarers are rewarded for their work in British ports—I think the Minister has given that commitment, but we want to see a bit more strength in that if we can.

I hope that the Bill will pass, because if it does, harbour authorities will have the power to request ship operators covered by the Bill to declare that their seafarers are paid at a rate at least equivalent to the national minimum wage for their work in the UK or its territorial waters. In addition, as the Minister said earlier, harbour authorities can refuse access to the harbours if operators fail to pay the surcharge and the additional payment. Those are the sorts of penalties I wish to see in law, and like others, I wish to see stronger, firmer laws and greater protection and penalties. We should hit these people in their pockets, and that will have an effect because they are very much money orientated.

I commend Relate NI—this is a different issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is linked to seafarers so I wanted to put it on record. It is working with the Seafarers’ Charity to provide free counselling for current and retired seafarers, fishermen, and anyone who works with them. It provides finance and counselling or advice about isolation due to being out at sea or homesickness. It provides six fully funded sessions for seafarers, their dependants, children and wider families, which is incredible support for those who are based at sea and possibly not earning much money. We all recognise the good work that Relate NI does, and I wanted to put that on the record in the House and thank it for all that it does and for stepping up.

In conclusion, there is more we can do to ensure that seafarers working in British ports a certain number of times each year are properly paid. This debate is all about that. This is about protection and a Bill that makes a difference. It is about ensuring that people want to be seafarers and have that as a vocation or job that will give them great confidence for the future. It is not possible, and more importantly it is not fair, for staff to be so severely underpaid for the decent work they do. One old saying, which I think is important, is “a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work” and that is what we want from the Bill. I look to the Minister to give us that reassurance, and I welcome the Bill. This is a giant step in the right direction, but as others have said, particularly the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, we want the Bill to have teeth, because with those teeth comes protection, which is what this debate is all about.

Free Bus Travel: Care Leavers

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered free bus travel for care leavers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I am pleased to have the opportunity to make this case, as I have a long-standing interest in the challenges that care leavers face, which I pursue as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for looked after children and care leavers.

Those in care and care leavers have many issues to contend with. There are about 80,000 children in the care system across England and Wales, with about 10,000 attempting to exit the system each year. Children and young people in care tend to do less well on a number of indicators. They do less well in education and training and end up with lesser qualifications. Nearly half experience mental health difficulties, and an estimated 25% of homeless people have been in care at some point in their life. From age 18, many young people are expected to become independent and manage their own affairs. A wealth of research shows just how financially vulnerable care leavers are, and obviously the cost of living crisis will only exacerbate the difficulties they face.

I am conscious that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), will reply to the debate, so let me be clear at the outset why I requested the debate, and why I am pleased that he is responding. There is a tendency in both national and local government to see issues involving the care system as the responsibility of the Department for Education, or of children’s and education departments in local government, but one clear theme arising from the recent inquiry chaired by Josh MacAlister is the corporate nature of parenting, and how responsibility for those who experience the care system is a cross-Government and cross-departmental responsibility.

For many care-experienced young people, travel can almost become a luxury. They are unlikely to afford to own, or even run, a car, so they are heavily dependent on buses, not as a luxury but as an essential. The average cost of a bus pass is about £18 a week, which represents a third of the income of care leavers under 25 on universal credit.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate, and thank him for highlighting the issue. As he outlined, those care leavers under 25 on universal credit do not have much money to start with. Does he agree that they, and care leavers seeking employment, need to afford buses, so that they can get to appointments and get a job? The Government have been keen to encourage young people to get jobs. Does he feel that free bus travel would enable young people to get the opportunities in this life that they need?

[Steve McCabe]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will say a bit more about the work situation later. We have a problem with vacancies that cannot be filled, and the travel-to-work pattern is the obstacle in some situations. If youngsters are looking to move outside their immediate area to find employment that works for them, they have to be able to travel, so he is quite right.

Travel is not a luxury for the very reasons the hon. Gentleman set out. It is essential to attend work and interviews, go to the jobcentre and remain in touch with family, friends and former foster carers—the normal social links that the rest of us take for granted. A lack of access to transport can contribute to young people feeling cut off and isolated. One in five care leavers already identifies loneliness as an acute problem.

A recent Barnardo’s report, “Transport for Freedom”, makes a powerful case for extending free bus travel to care leavers aged 18 to 25 in England. If the Minister has not already seen it, I will be happy to furnish him with a copy. The Barnardo’s campaign is inspired by work that it undertook in Cornwall in 2021, when it teamed up with Carefree, a local charity, to run a pilot project with support from bus operator First Bus. It provided free bus passes for local care leavers for a year. I ask the Minister to consider the report when he has an opportunity, and I would like him to agree to meet me and representatives of Barnardo’s to discuss issues raised in it, and the potential for a scheme for care leavers in England aged 18 to 25.

The Scottish Government recently recognised the important role that bus travel can play in improving the lives of young people, and introduced a national scheme of free bus travel for all young people under the age of 22. There are schemes for other groups, including some vulnerable groups. The English national concessionary travel scheme, with which the Minister will be familiar, provides free off-peak bus travel in England for pensioners and those with a disability.

Some bus companies have their own schemes. One of the biggest is Back on Board, which is offered by Stagecoach. It gives jobseekers a 50% discount on bus travel to help them attend job interviews. That is the point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made. Some areas have their own schemes. Greater Manchester offers free bus travel to all care leavers aged 18 to 21 in its 10 authorities, and Newcastle has recently started a pilot looking at care leavers aged 18 to 25, offering free travel on the bus and metro network. I believe that the Mayor of London is also looking at introducing a reduced fare scheme on the London transport network some time next year.

Those schemes are good, but they are inevitably thinly spread. In these difficult economic times, the vast majority of local authorities have no such support. Some care leavers can seek help if they can negotiate the system by applying for discretionary awards, but in an era of ever-tightening budgets, they are harder and harder to access.

Based on the average weekly cost of a bus ticket of £18.77 and a take-up rate of around 76%, which the Minister will recognise is equivalent to similar national concessionary bus travel schemes, Barnardo’s estimates that a national scheme for all care leavers aged 18 to 25 would cost £77 million. That is not cheap, but when we think about the costs incurred for care leavers for other support after a life in care, it may be a figure worth exploring.

I do not deny for a second that the money would have to come from somewhere, but I note that a study of the English concessionary travel scheme shows that, for every £1 invested, nearly £3 of benefits were created in a host of ways, whether in reduced demands on the health service or better employment and tax returns. That is not to mention the benefits of creating a culture where there is a healthy desire to use public transport from a young age—something I am sure the Minister is anxious to promote. Beyond the return on investment, there is both a social and a moral case for supporting young care leavers by providing free bus travel. When we add the distinct economic benefits of doing so, the case becomes clearer and clearer.

Will the Minister take advantage of the opportunity of the MacAlister report to talk to his colleagues across Government? The Government have said that they are considering the implementation plan for the children’s social care review and hope to make announcements early in the new year. This is a classic example of the need to overhaul the package of support we provide for young people in care. We should remember that the reason most young people end up in care is that the state determines that the quality and nature of care they are experiencing in their existing arrangements is not good enough, so the onus is on us to guarantee that the care they receive while they are in the system and as they leave it is infinitely better than it was before. At times, it is in danger of not being as good, which is clearly not an acceptable state of affairs.

[Jim Shannon]

I have been listening intently to the hon. Gentleman. While I am ever mindful of the fact that these children are coming out of the care system, does he think that free bus passes could be tied to seeking employment? That would give care leavers an incentive to seek employment and would help the Government to achieve some of their employment goals.

[Steve McCabe]

That would be an extremely valuable use of the idea. As I said, it is not the only reason for considering this proposal, but it is a crucial reason.

Will the Minister commit to assess the impact of extending concessionary bus travel schemes to other vulnerable groups and consider that in the context of care leavers? His Department will have considerable data on the issue already, so will he look at that in the context of care leavers? When time allows, will he meet me and representatives of Barnardo’s in the new year to explore the potential for introducing such a scheme? Will he talk to his colleagues across Government about the opportunity presented by the implementation plan for the independent review of children’s care to bring forward such a measure, which would clearly be in keeping with the thinking of the MacAlister review?

We are at that time of year—the season of good will—when the Minister gets the opportunity to play Santa, and I get the opportunity to tell him all I want for Christmas. On this occasion, I want him to agree to that meeting, look at those reports and review this proposal in the context of children leaving care. I ask him to give it serious consideration. I would prefer him to say that I can just have it, but I will settle for serious consideration of introducing, at the very least, a decent pilot scheme for concessionary or free travel for 18 to 25-year-old care leavers, so that we can do our best by them.