Management of the Economy and Ministerial Severance Payments

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

Honestly, a bit of humility from Government Members would be in order. The situation is unprecedented. They have been in office for 12 years. You put two people in office, or rather, they put two people in office, Mr Speaker—I would never for a moment suggest that you would do such a thing—who were fundamentally unsuitable for the role. They supported them, backed them to the hilt and stood up from the Government Benches and supported every move that they made. They cheered as the mini-Budget was announced and they still do not have the humility to apologise for the damage that they have inflicted on families up and down the country. The Chancellor may have U-turned, the new Prime Minister may have admitted that mistakes were made, and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities may have apologised for the error of his party’s ways, but apologies do not cut it. Government Members allowed this to happen. Without them, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) would not have become Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Spelthorne would not have been Chancellor. Government Members let it happen; they cheered as the disastrous mini-Budget was commended to the House. They may be sorry now, although I am still waiting to hear it, but the damage has been done. Some 113,000 people were forced to re-mortgage between the mini-Budget and the present Chancellor’s belated U-turn.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the shadow Minister agree that this is not just about those who have to re-mortgage or restructure their deal, but about people’s vision of having their own home? I and everyone in the House own their home. My constituents own or want to own their home, but their dreams have been knocked on the head. Does she agree that we are at a crossroads—betwixt where we are and where we will be? If we do not sort this out, people’s ambition to own their home will not be realised.

[Lisa Nandy]

The hon. Member and I have discussed that issue many times. As he knows, in my first job, I worked for the homelessness charity Centrepoint and I learned that a secure, decent home that is fit to live in is the foundation of a decent, secure, richer, larger and more dignified life, and without it, nothing is possible.

Some 1.6 million borrowers on variable rate deals—one in five mortgaged homeowners—are seeing their bills rise higher than ever. Many of them face the prospect of re-mortgaging on more expensive deals because rates are now higher than they would have been otherwise.

Child Migration Programmes (Child Abuse)

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Nandy]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for attending this debate and for raising that point. One of the reasons why it was important for me to bring this issue to the House for the first time for a full debate is that many Members have a strong interest in this area and in pursuing justice for the affected families. It is important that those suggestions are heard, and I hope the Minister has heard them.

Like Marcelle O’Brien, many of those who survived that horrendous period are still living with the consequences. Four years ago, the Prime Minister—then the Home Secretary—commissioned an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. MPs from various parties, including me, welcomed that decision. The inquiry’s first full report is on this subject, and it is damning.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this issue to Westminster Hall. It is a pity that there are not more Members here to contribute, but I commend her for leading the charge. Does she agree that, given that every child migrant was exposed to an equal level of risk due to the failings in the system she has referred to, they must all be entitled to an equal level of redress?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this issue. Although I agree that it would be great to see more Members of Parliament in the Chamber, one of the problems is that this issue did not get the coverage or attention it deserves until relatively recently. I hope that by bringing it to the House, I will help more Members to understand what is happening and more survivors to come forward so we can start to see action, which is long overdue. The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point: the report recommends equal compensation for equal risk. I have no desire to see survivors and victims have to prove what happened to them and recount those horrific stories again. The report was absolutely right to make that recommendation, and I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to it.

I mentioned the first full report from the wide-ranging, comprehensive inquiry into child sexual abuse. It acknowledges the role of churches and charities in causing harm to children, but it concludes that the British Government were primarily to blame for the continued existence of child migration programmes after the second world war. They failed to act, even when warned about allegations of sexual abuse. The report is devastating in its conclusion that

“the main reason for HMG’s failure to act was the politics of the day, which were consistently prioritised over the welfare of children.”

The Government did not want to risk their relations with Australia or to offend the voluntary societies that participated in the scheme. Ministers in successive Governments were cowed by the patronage and power of those who were involved in the schemes.

Despite that, the children were stronger. The truth began to emerge more than 30 years ago, thanks to their determination and courage. Even in the face of their bravery, successive Governments failed to accept responsibility. As the current Government recently acknowledged, the UK Government continued to maintain that it was a matter for the Australian Government until well into the 2000s. It is only because of the Child Migrants Trust, led by Dr Margaret Humphreys, who has rightly been described as the “conscience of Britain” on this important human rights issue, and a number of brave and persistent survivors here and across the world, many of whom will be watching this debate with interest today—some have had to stay up quite late to do so—that this became a matter of public attention that is still being pursued now.

The report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse was published four months ago. It recognised the importance of the public apology made by Gordon Brown in one of his last acts as Prime Minister, and of the family restoration fund, for which he and Andy Burnham, the then Health Secretary, found £6 million, and which has enabled more than 1,000 people to be reunited with their families. The current Government have since announced an additional £2 million for that fund, for which I am grateful. It is very welcome. I will return to that subject in a moment.

The report made just three recommendations: that the sending institutions that have failed to apologise publicly and in person to the children abused in their care do so; that all institutions that sent children abroad put in place robust systems for retaining and preserving easily accessible records of individual child migrants; and, finally, that adequate financial redress be made to the more than 2,000 surviving former child migrants. It also made it clear that this is urgent—many have died and others are dying, and it was unequivocal that the scheme must be up and running within 12 months.

In the four months since that urgent, devastating report was published, the silence from the Government has been deafening. Confusion about which Department is responsible has reigned. The Home Office made a short statement in March, when the report was published. The Department of Health and Social Care later responded to written questions. After four weeks of back-and-forth between those two Departments, I resorted to raising a point of order in the Chamber. In response, I was told that I could seek to raise the matter with the Prime Minister, which I did. I had to resort to going to the Prime Minister a month after the report was published just to get clarity from the Government about which Department is responsible. Four months on and multiple attempts later, the Government are still no clearer about their response and have still not told us when it will be made.

I am not the only one who has hit this brick wall. The Australian law firm Hugh James, which acts for former child migrants, shared with me a letter it sent to the Health Secretary. It said:

“We hand delivered a letter concerning this matter to the FCO on 26 April 2018. We served the enclosed letter on the Prime Minister’s Office on 29 May 2018. On 5 June 2018 we were informed by the Prime Minister’s Office that both of our letters were passed to your department. We are disappointed we are yet to receive a response from you and we ask you to contact us as soon as possible.”

That was two weeks ago. I ask the Minister, when will that firm get a reply on behalf of those former child migrants?

I want to say something really serious to the Minister today. The Child Migrants Trust tells me that, in the time that the Government have sat on the report, 10 former child migrants have died. Ten people died not knowing whether the Government will now draw a line under one of the darkest periods of our history, and whether they are committed to truth, redress, justice, and learning lessons to ensure this never happens again. That is the legacy those people deserve. Still now, the state, which did so much harm to them at the beginning of their lives, continues to do harm to them all the way through until their death. That cannot go on.

Will the Minister explain the reason for the delay within Government? Will she assure us that this is now the highest priority and is being dealt with a matter of urgency? As well as being a clear question of justice, this goes to the heart of whether any of us can have confidence in the child sex abuse inquiry that the Prime Minister established. She told the House when she set up the inquiry that she believed it to be essential that the lessons that come out are not only learned but acted upon. As the Minister knows, the inquiry has been beset by problems since. It has been through four chairs and has faced serious allegations of misconduct. It has cost £64 million so far—the costs are rising—and has lost the confidence of many victims’ and survivors’ groups, which have walked away over that time. Many, however, continue to invest time and energy in the inquiry, because they hope that it will make a difference. That first report must have been a sign of encouragement to them that the inquiry would not shy away from asking the difficult questions and telling the truth.

Now the Government must show that they are serious about taking action, and get on with doing so. It has been four months, and at least 10 people have died in that time, so will the Minister tell us today, do the Government accept the report’s three clear recommendations? If she cannot tell us today, will she at least commit to a full and formal response to the report before the summer recess? That request comes directly from child migrant groups, and I would be grateful for a clear answer.

The inquiry made huge progress in ensuring that apologies were made. Many organisations, including the Children’s Society, where I once worked, took the opportunity afforded to make a welcome but long-overdue apology. Will the Minister tell us, however, what progress has been made to ensure that the records are kept and made available? I have been told that the Prince’s Trust—it took over Fairbridge, which was involved in the child migration programmes—has not yet made all its records available. Have the Government contacted the agencies listed in the report to ensure that such measures are in place? What has been the response of those agencies? If the Government have not yet done that, will she commit today to doing so?

What progress has the Minister made on the question of financial redress? Has she assessed the numbers of those who might qualify? Has she done a scoping exercise to determine potential costs? In the past four months, what discussions have the Government had with the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse and the Child Migrants Trust about implementing the recommendations? Does she accept the principle, mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), of equal compensation because children were exposed to equal risk?

Let me compare the UK Government’s response and their position with Australia’s. In December 2017, a royal commission in Australia published the results of its five-year investigation into child abuse and recommended a national redress scheme. Within two months the Prime Minister had responded and set a deadline of 1 July. Legislation was fast-tracked through Parliament last month, and the scheme began accepting applications on Sunday, as promised. The scheme offers not only monetary payments but access to counselling and a direct personal response. Survivors who are elderly or ill will be fast-tracked but, in any case, the promise has been made that claims will be processed within weeks. Redress payments will not be taxed. The average payment is expected to be about 76,000 Australian dollars, which is about £42,000 in our money.

Surely it should shame us that the country the child migrants were sent to is responding, but not the country that sent them there—the country that was responsible for their care and welfare at the time. How can it be right that the Australian Prime Minister can respond to a report with 409 recommendations in only two months, but our Prime Minister cannot respond to a report with only three recommendations in more than double that time? Has the Minister made contact with Ministers and officials in Australia to understand how they established that scheme and to learn the lessons? Will she tell me today that the Government at least accept the principle of financial redress? Will she confirm that a scheme will be up and running by March next year, as per the IICSA’s recommendation?

The Minister is aware that when Gordon Brown made a formal apology in 2010, the full extent of the abuse was not known. He and many of the survivors therefore believe that a full apology is overdue. In this matter, I have to disagree with the conclusion of the independent inquiry’s report—not to recommend a further apology—because the harms caused by the migrant programmes are many and complex. That is why it matters that we recognise not simply the harm done to children by separating them from their families and countries, but the additional sexual, physical and emotional abuse laid bare so starkly by the report and the harm of our failure to confront it over successive Governments and many decades. Will the Minister commit to that today, or at the very least provide us with a date by which time the Prime Minister will respond to that specific request?

Another pressing need is a commitment to continue the family restoration fund beyond 2019. One thousand people remain to be reunited with their families, and there is a waiting list. I welcome the Government’s commitment so far, and the £2 million that they made available to the fund, but its continuation is of central importance. Many of the mums and dads of the former child migrants went to their graves not knowing what had happened to their children or even whether they were dead or alive. They never found out that they had become grandparents, and they never saw or got to hold their children ever again.

The family restoration fund has enabled some of those deep wounds at least to start to heal, and important work remains to be done before it is too late. The Minister knows, as I do—as we all do—that many of the former child migrants have died and that others are seriously ill and dying. Every day counts. The fund will enable nothing less than a restoration to families of the rights stripped away from them many decades ago. Will she give us a commitment that the fund will be continued until all the former child migrants have been able to seek to be reunited with their families?

This has been one of the most shameful episodes in British history. For 30 years we have known about the scandal but failed to act. The harm that was done then is compounded by our knowledge that it continues to cause harm to people in this country and across the world, yet still nothing is done. The secretary of the International Association of former Child Migrants and their Families, Harold Haig, put it movingly when he said on the day of the formal apology by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, that

“our thoughts are with those child migrants who have died and particularly those who ended their lives because the wounds were too deep and too painful”.

At least 10 people have died that we know of since the report was published four months ago. I hope that the Minister will tell us today that no more will die suffering harm from the British Government, and that we shall finally deal with one of the darkest periods in our history.

Young People in Care

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I thank the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) for introducing the debate and the report. I also thank all those involved in producing it, because it contains many good and helpful points. It has been a pleasure to listen to all the Members who have spoken so far. They have all spoken with passion, interest and a real, earnest endeavour on behalf of young people, and it is good to hear the House united in that.

Ensuring that our young people, particularly those who are vulnerable, have somewhere to call home—somewhere that is important to them—is vital. I have no doubt in my mind that every child is entitled to a hot meal, a warm home and, most importantly, a loving home—that seems natural and fair. In fact, to me it is a basic human right. As the report states, not every child has that, and we need to work extra hard to give those children who, for whatever reason, do not have a permanent home with their parents a home they can call their own. That is why I am pleased to make a contribution here. A number of charities actively help to do just that, including Action for Children, Citizens Advice and Bridging the Gap, to name just a few.

Young people leaving care are among the most vulnerable groups in society, so it is little wonder that there needs to be adequate provision in place, not just for when young people are in care, but to help them when they leave. Each Member who has spoken, particularly the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), has made that point clearly.

Some of the statistics about young people in care are truly worrying. They are three times more likely to be cautioned or convicted of an offence; they are four times more likely to have a mental health disorder; they are five times less likely to achieve five good GCSEs; they are eight times more likely to be excluded from school and less likely to go to university; and finally, one in five homeless people are care leavers. Those horrifying statistics make us think about those in society whom we have a responsibility to assist.

The fact that one in five care leavers end up living on the streets is undoubtedly a direct result of academic underachievement, criminal records and/or mental health conditions, all of which stem from a disrupted upbringing. That is why we need to do more to create stable home environments as quickly as possible after problems arise. Our main aim is to ensure that young people have a roof over their head. We do not want them to be continually moving around as if they were playing a game of musical chairs or as if they were just a piece of the furniture. We must promote stability, although I do understand that that is not always possible. We must also do our absolute best to work with the charities and other organisations to get young people into care and long-term homes. When the Minister responds to this debate, perhaps he could tell me what discussions he has had with the charities that work at the coalface, as they understand the issues involved.

The options available to young people in care include fostering, adoption, family short breaks and residential care, all of which ensure that young people have some form of accommodation. The greatest issue facing young people is not necessarily while they are in care, but after they leave care. That concern has been expressed in every contribution so far.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and to the Education Committee for producing this important report. It is more than a decade since I worked with Hammersmith and Fulham council to phase out the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds, including care leavers. Given our special and unique responsibility to these young people who rely on the state to keep them safe, and the fact that councils such as Hammersmith and Fulham showed over a decade ago that it could be done, surely the time has come to outlaw the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for these young people. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such accommodation is entirely unsuitable?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. Earlier, I said that I was surprised that she was not here at the start of the debate, because I know that she has a real, deep interest in this subject. I am pleased to see her here now, and I agree wholeheartedly with what she said, and I am sure that that applies to everyone else in the Chamber. It is always good to exchange ideas.

In Northern Ireland, a public consultation was held in 2012 to decipher the best way forward for young adults living in supported accommodation. Ten key principles were developed and they are now used by charities and organisations in Northern Ireland for those in care and those leaving care. They are dignity and respect, independence, rights, equality and diversity, choice, fulfilment, safeguarding, privacy, confidentiality and partnership. A variety of options are available for those who leave care, and they include supported lodgings and private rented or social housing.

Young people may wish to remain with foster families or return to their birth parents, but the options available to those over 18 who want to move on can be limited. Has the Minister had any discussion with John O’Dowd, the Minister for Education in the Northern Ireland Assembly, about the report we compiled in Northern Ireland? The figures for young people in care working and having adequate academic achievements need to be better. Supported lodgings are an option for young people but, depending on where they live, they may not be available to them. The option that is used the most in Northern Ireland is social housing, but that young person can fall between two stools. No one seems to grasp the problem, and it becomes very frustrating.

Although charities such as Action for Children do fantastic work and try to give young people in care and those who leave care the best opportunities and homes available, we need to do more. We must do all we can to reduce the number of people living on the streets, and to help young people in care to reach their academic potential. That means that they would be in a better position to get jobs and set up homes in the future. We should consider setting up some sort of support system in schools and further education colleges aimed specifically at helping young people in care to get the skills and qualifications that they need for the future.

I strongly believe that family is the cornerstone of society. I am not necessarily talking about birth family. Family means providing care, support and love. It comes in many forms and it is up to us to ensure that young people in care, our most vulnerable young people, get the support and stability they need at home, which will give them the best possible chance to reach their academic potential.

Finally, I say well done to the Education Committee for producing this report, which highlights all the issues. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Transparency and Public Trust in Business

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Six years after the peak of the global financial crisis there should surely no longer be disagreement among any of us that businesses are bound by the same ethical and social responsibilities that bind us all. As the financial crash showed, business transparency is absolutely essential to society. The lack of it in the financial sector in recent years continues to have huge repercussions for people in my town of Wigan, in the UK, and across the world.

We saw in the recent horsemeat scandal that lack of transparency can have major implications for consumers in the UK, but it can have even greater implications for the lives of people across the world, as in the horrific loss of life in Bangladesh with the collapse of the Rana Plaza complex. As business has become increasingly complex, it is very hard for consumers to know, first, whether they can trust the product they are buying, and secondly, whether the business they are supporting is operating ethically. Little wonder, then, that there is increasing public appetite for action. I was surprised to hear recently that the Edelman Trust Barometer found that the public want greater regulation of business by a margin of 4:1.

But it is not just the public who want action; companies and business leaders are also behind the call for higher business standards. The Minister will be aware of the B Team, an alliance of thinkers and business leaders, including Richard Branson and Paul Polman, the chief executive of Unilever, who are calling for a plan B that, in their words, puts

“people and planet alongside profit”.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, they called for companies to implement the highest standards in their core operations and across their supply chains, including greater transparency as a matter of course and as good business practice.

There is good reason for this. Business needs to command the support of the public, of investors and of shareholders in order to survive and to grow. However, public trust is low. Last year, an Ipsos MORI poll found that only 34% of the people questioned trusted business leaders to tell the truth. We need to see this in context; I would hate to think what they had to say about politicians. Research by Goldman Sachs and KPMG has shown that companies that have implemented responsible business practices such as transparency throughout their operations often lead on stock market performance and attract a wider and more loyal investor base from investors who are increasingly looking at these issues and want to invest in companies that have a long-term, not a short-term, outlook.

There are many examples of business leading the way in this field. As chairperson of the all-party parliamentary group on corporate responsibility, I have been pleased to meet and work with many such business leaders over the past four years. However, the Government need to play their part too, because, as many of these business leaders have told me, operating transparently is not always easy. They do so in the glare of public attention, they sometimes get it wrong, and it is incredibly complicated. Companies are often involved in extremely complex supply chains. That was brought home to me and to the wider public after the Rana Plaza disaster, where some of the multinational companies involved did not even realise at first that they had been contracting from suppliers who were based in the complex. It was only after campaigners and the media got involved that they realised they had been doing so.

Some companies are making efforts to operate to the highest ethical standards in terms of human rights and the environment—and to be open about it—but their problem is that they are in competition with businesses that do not do that. Many such businesses are based in the UK and listed on the London stock exchange, but they face no penalties whatsoever for breaching the standards the Government say they want them to meet. Like so many others, I believe it is time that the playing field was tilted in favour of those that are operating to high ethical standards, not against them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I asked the hon. Lady beforehand for permission to intervene on her. Does she agree that greater transparency of who owns and controls companies is necessary and that, in addition to addressing the issues she has mentioned, any new measures must address tax evasion, money laundering and the financing of terror?

[Lisa Nandy]

That is absolutely right. This goes to the heart of public trust in business, which is about transparency and a commitment to tackling such issues.

The business and human rights action plan was published jointly last September by the Foreign Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The UK was one of the first countries to breathe life into the United Nations’ guiding principles on business and human rights. I am proud of that and congratulate Ministers for taking a lead on it. “Good Business” sets out the standards it expects companies to uphold, but so far it does nothing to demand those standards of them. We have had a decade of voluntary corporate social responsibility. Given the experience of the past year and previously—when John Ruggie set out the guiding principles, which were unanimously endorsed by the UN—it is time for the Government to take a more proactive approach.

First, I have been deeply concerned by reports from non-governmental organisations and others that companies have been given conflicting messages by different parts of Government. Although the Foreign Office has consistently warned about the dangers for UK-based companies in knowingly or unknowingly breaching human rights overseas, it appears from anecdotal evidence that BIS has been acting in direct conflict with the commitments made in the action plan.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to one concrete example where there is evidence of that happening. The Kiobel case was brought by a group of Nigerian activists who claimed that Shell had helped the Nigerian military to systematically torture and kill environmentalists in the 1990s. The cases against Shell were filed under the US alien tort statute, which applies extraterritorially, so it enables non-US plaintiffs to bring claims against foreign companies in the US courts for acts that occur in a third country. Shell challenged that use of the alien tort statute and the UK Government intervened to support the company’s position. The court then ruled in Shell’s favour, which limits the ability of communities in developing countries to challenge corporate malpractice in the US courts in future. The Government’s intervention ran contrary to the commitment made by the Prime Minister to implement the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, which were unanimously endorsed by Governments in 2011.

Will the Minister give an assurance that her Department is completely committed to upholding the principles in the action plan, without qualification, and that it will commit to the same openness in its dealings with business as the Government say they want to see from business itself? In particular, will she ensure that businesses receiving export credit support or development partnership funding have to show that they are meeting the standards of the UN guiding principles?

Secondly, the entire action plan is predicated on the principle of transparency—none of it can be monitored or enforced without it. Nowhere is that more true than in one of the central pillars of John Ruggie’s principles, namely the access to remedy. Without transparency, people whose lives and communities have been destroyed have no effective way of getting justice. As we saw with the South African miners who took a case against Cape plc, companies will often seek to cover the impact of their actions, creating enormous difficulties for communities and their lawyers in gaining the evidence they need to put before the courts.

I must tell the Minister that without transparency requirements, there is no way to prevent such injustices. I recently met representatives of the Afro-Colombian Community Council of Opoca in Colombia. After an 11-year struggle to acquire a collective land title, it was finally granted the right to 73,000 hectares of collective land titles in September 2011, which affected about 17,500 people. They had an 11-year struggle only to discover that a mining concession, covering approximately 55,000 hectares of their ancestral territory, had been granted to AngloGold Ashanti, which is a company registered on the British stock exchange. A proactive duty on companies to disclose information would prevent such harm, while a greater commitment to transparency and—crucially—penalties for those who do not comply is the only way to enable people to access justice.

Finally, I want to tell the Minister:

“To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”

That principle in Magna Carta has formed the basis of law, liberty and rights in this country for centuries. In this area at least, we are falling well short. Will the Minister commit to improving transparency and access to justice for communities harmed by the actions of British businesses abroad? At present, I and many other hon. Members in the Chamber are approached by so many people who have such a different story to tell. This is an issue of morality, good business and consumer confidence, but above all of national reputation. We should promote not the worst but the best of British business to the world. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Public Transport (Disabled Access)

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Nandy]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. The example he gives highlights exactly the indignity and humiliation that far too many people must face when they try to do something that the rest of us take for granted. I am grateful to him for raising that point.

On the buses, people seem to fare little better. Half of all disabled people say that buses are a concern for them. Even something as simple as boarding the bus presents a problem. Many buses still do not have ramps and, even when they do, a common story emerges from all the reports that I have been sent from across the country of drivers refusing to stop because it would take too long to allow somebody to board, or because the space allocated for a wheelchair is taken up by a pushchair. I want to be absolutely clear on this point: I am not advocating that there should not be space for pushchairs; it is simply unacceptable that there is not room for everybody.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. This is an issue that concerns the whole of the United Kingdom, although this debate obviously relates to the UK mainland. In my previous job as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I sat on a Committee that was responsible for bringing forward legislative change that enabled public transport, both bus and rail, to ensure access for disabled people in wheelchairs in particular, but for visually disabled people, too. That is starting to roll off the Assembly line, to use a pun, in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady feel that the Government might take that as an example of how legislation could be introduced and delivered, in conjunction with local councils and other responsible bodies, to ensure disabled access for those who are wheelchair bound or visually disabled, not just to public transport—bus and rail—but to taxis as well?

[Jim Shannon]

I appreciate that.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to some of the public transport companies that have worked hard to make real strides forward on this issue. All those examples show that it can be done if there is a will for it to be done. It is up to all of us here in the Chamber to ensure that we push as hard as we can to make this happen.

Seat belts on buses are not routinely provided for wheelchair users. I have been sent some absolutely appalling stories of the indignity that people suffer when the bus drives off too fast and their wheelchair is not properly secured. Blind people have told me of their particular difficulties in identifying which bus is arriving, and knowing when to get off. Those issues could be rectified by introducing talking buses, by introducing seat belts, by introducing more space for buggies and wheelchairs, and training for drivers.