High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Bill to start the building of the high-speed line from London to the west midlands. High Speed 2 was first put forward in 2009 by Lord Adonis when he was Secretary of State for Transport. Since then there has been considerable and very necessary discussion and debate. The project has all-party backing; it is now time to fire the starting gun.

This must be just the first stage in building a high-speed network for the UK, with phase 2 expanding the network to the north. It must be built as a major addition to the national network, linked with investment in the existing classic line so that essential increased capacity and connectivity, together with the potential for regeneration, are realised. Increasing capacity for both passengers and freight is required on both the east coast main line and the west coast main line. The figures released last week by the Office of Rail Regulation showed a phenomenal doubling of rail passenger journeys in recent years, together with a vast increase in freight on rail. In the past decade, rail passenger journeys have increased on average by 5% per annum and freight has expanded. On some routes, the increase in passenger journeys has been more than 70% over that decade. That increase is expected to continue, and the demand for freight is increasing.

The growing demand for rail from both passengers and freight is already causing problems on the west coast main line, where there are insufficient rail paths available to meet the needs of the new services that are required, and delays are already occurring. The Transport Committee has addressed this issue on a number of occasions. In our first inquiry in 2011, we looked at alternatives to building a new high speed network. We looked specifically at upgrading the west coast main line as an alternative. The Committee was very clear that that will not provide the step change that is required. The £9 billion west coast main line investment of 2008 has brought essential improvements, but it has not created enough capacity for the future.

I was pleased to see that the recent reports from both Sir David Higgins and Lord Deighton took forward the very specific recommendations made by the Transport Committee to ensure that the best possible value is obtained from this necessary investment across the nation. Those recommendations include building a line, together with continuing investment in the classic line at the same time as the new capacity is built.

[Mr Redwood]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. As over this weekend the marketing materials for the current railway said that one could travel to Birmingham for £7.50 and to Liverpool or Manchester for £12.50, is she worried that when this huge amount of capacity comes on stream, if it does, there will be even more intense price competition and huge disappointment in the fare revenue needed for the scheme?

[Mrs Ellman]

One of my concerns is that if the new line is not built, the problems of capacity will lead to whatever Government are in power being tempted to increase rail fares to manage demand.

Further recommendations from the Select Committee taken up by Sir David Higgins and Lord Deighton include ensuring wider access to the new network—

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Ellman]

I am sorry; I am limited in time to allow other hon. Members to participate.

Further recommendations include ensuring wider access to the new network and providing new services on the freed line—perhaps we should designate those as high speed Britain projects—together with promoting regional economic strategies with local enterprise partnerships and others, making sure that the potential for economic regeneration along the lines and beyond is recognised.

High Speed 2 will improve connectivity, but that improvement is not solely in relation to connecting the midlands and the north to London. It is also about improving the links between the major cities of the north and the midlands, between cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds and Liverpool. The potential benefits of High Speed 2 are immense. The current benefit-cost ratio estimate for the full network is 2.3. That means £2.30 in benefit generated for every £1 invested, but those figures do not take into account the very real potential for major economic regeneration. It is the major cities which recognise what that potential might be, and they are among the strongest advocates of the new line. Indeed, the research commissioned by the core cities themselves identifies around 400,000 new jobs that would come from the development of High Speed 2.

Little attention has been given to the major potential for employment across the country from building and operating HS2. According to the Government, this could provide over 3,000 jobs in running the railway, and more than 24,500 jobs in construction, together with 400,000 additional jobs through regeneration. It is essential that the Department for Transport produces a strategy for procurement to deliver maximum opportunities for British firms. The Department must be more active in doing that. The proposals for a new skills college will be extremely important in widening those opportunities.

Those who oppose High Speed 2 discuss the size of the investment required. Indeed, HS2 involves a major investment of around £50 billion over about 20 years. Costs must be controlled to secure value for money, but the benefits must be maximised. I understand that some hon. Members will have justifiable local concerns which should be addressed, but these do not outweigh the strategic case for HS2. Without HS2, the west coast main line will become increasingly overloaded. Commuters will suffer from overcrowding and there will be fewer passenger services on the line than the public require and the market could sustain. Future Governments will be tempted to use price to control demand. Growth in rail freight will be stifled, leading to more lorries on the roads. Perhaps more significantly, the chance to reshape the national economy and boost growth in the north and the midlands will have been lost. This is an opportunity to show vision and commitment through a bold investment decision. It must be grasped.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Access to Ports

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate the Transport Committee’s recent report, “Access to Ports,” which was published in November. Ports are essential to the UK’s economy. About 95% of UK cargo movement by tonnage is waterborne. Ports collectively employ about 120,000 people. Whether large or small, ports are affected by the quality of transport links to their hinterlands, whether that involves road, rail, inland waterways or coastal shipping. No matter how modern and efficient the infrastructure is inside the port gates, ports cannot function if hauliers and logistics firms struggle to get goods in and out of them. Equally important is access to ports from the sea. Many ports depend on the dredging of channels of sufficient depth to accommodate visiting ships. That is particularly important as container ships continue to grow in size. The newest container ships can transport up to 18,000 20-foot containers.

Earlier in this Parliament, we expressed disappointment that the Government were not focusing more strongly on the connectivity of the UK’s international gateways, including marine ports. Since then, I am pleased to say, the Department for Transport has placed increasing emphasis on transport infrastructure as an “engine for growth” and has announced a number of transport schemes, some of which relate to ports.

The Select Committee decided to have a closer look at this issue, in view of its importance. We heard evidence from a wide variety of organisations as part of our inquiry. We visited Felixstowe—the UK’s biggest container port—and the new development at London Gateway, which is now open for business. We also visited the port of London at Gravesend and the facilities at Hull. We heard a presentation from Peel Ports on the Atlantic Gateway project, including Liverpool SuperPort. That focuses on ports and infrastructure along the River Mersey and the Manchester ship canal, as part of the north-west’s regeneration.

Connectivity is vital. Two issues about port access were raised during our inquiry. They related to both road and rail networks. First, we were told that many ports suffered from a lack of access in the final few miles to the port gates. That is one of the issues for Liverpool, but it is all too frequent around the country. Felixstowe was served only by a single-track branch line. Hutchison Ports, which operates Felixstowe, told us of the difficulty of balancing passenger and freight needs. I am pleased to say that that line has now been expanded.

The second issue relates to how the UK’s strategic road and rail networks accommodate freight transport. Many business groups have argued for the A14 in Cambridgeshire to be upgraded. It is an important route for road freight travelling to and from Felixstowe, Harwich and Ipswich, as well as London and Dover. The current Government cancelled the upgrade planned in the last Parliament. It was then reinstated, but with a controversial tolled section. The Government have now abandoned that tolling. Can the Minister let us know the current position in relation to the A14? When will road improvements there actually begin?

There are also numerous proposals to enhance the rail network to facilitate freight traffic, and those are very welcome. They include new inland terminals to handle retail commodities, a route through the Pennines suitable for freight traffic, more electrified lines and enhanced services. Transport for London told us about the pressures created on the rail network in north London by strong growth in both passenger and freight demand and called for a rail freight bypass of the capital in the long term. Progress is being made, and I hope that we can soon visit Reading station to see how freight traffic and passenger traffic are being separated. However, a lot more could be done.

It is vital that ports secure better connectivity. Knowing whom to approach is often problematic. Structures and funding arrangements for local and regional infrastructure have changed significantly in recent years and continue to evolve. From 2015, transport funding will be subsumed into a new single local growth fund. Local enterprise partnerships will decide how the money is spent. That change is causing great uncertainty. For example, the United Kingdom Major Ports Group described the new arrangements as

“complex and not easy to understand”.

I ask the Department to be more active in ensuring that the necessary priority is given to schemes providing access to ports; their wider regional and national significance should be recognised. It should act as an advocate, helping the sector to navigate complex arrangements for getting important transport schemes off the ground. The Department should also be prepared to challenge decisions made by local enterprise partnerships and other bodies if they fail to prioritise improvements in port access over other, less strategically important schemes. In other words, we are asking the Department to show more leadership in enabling ports to improve their connectivity.

In reply to our report, the Department said that there were

“encouraging signs that most of those LEPs which include major port facilities are well aware of those ports’ national…and regional importance.”

It said that it would, however,

“be ready to challenge LEPs should it appear that they have insufficiently prioritised port access.”

I welcome that, but I want to press the Minister to take a greater leadership role. Will ports have an advocate in Government to ensure that action is taken to deliver connectivity? That is vital; I cannot emphasise its importance too much.

The Select Committee also considered the question of who pays for transport measures needed to accommodate port expansion. The picture is confused. In theory, ports pay for those measures. If there is benefit to the wider community from the transport improvements, the Government make a contribution. However, the guidance on evaluating the Government contribution has never been applied. In practice, private sector funding of infrastructure linked to ports seems to be the exception, rather than the rule.

Ports argued strongly that they should not have to contribute towards infrastructure. They stated that major European ports were not expected to pay for transport improvements outside their gates and argued that those different rules put the UK at a disadvantage in a fiercely competitive market. New guidance is required on funding access improvements. There should be a presumption that significant access improvements and particularly improvements to strategic networks will be publicly funded, because of their wider economic benefits. However, that should not preclude ports from contributing to local transport infrastructure improvements, following local discussions with the appropriate bodies.

The Department did not agree with the Committee on this issue, but accepted that a lack of understanding of the Government’s policy could deter investors. Can the Minister tell us when new guidance on the issue will be published? Given that he is not prepared to change his policy—that is what we were told in the response to our report—can he explain how the situation envisaged by the new guidance will be different from the existing situation? It was clear to the Committee as we conducted our inquiry, listened to the representations and visited ports that it is a crucial issue.

I welcome the Government’s high-level strategy for ports and the new shipping strategy. The Committee’s report on this issue was published yesterday, and in some ways the two reports go together. Both strategies must be developed with more specific actions and time scales if they are to have any practical significance. The Committee will continue to pay attention to all these issues. The Government strategy commits the Department to working with industry

“to ensure coastal shipping can develop to its full potential”.

That is a particularly important aspiration, because coastal shipping has declined in recent years. It could help to relieve congestion on road and rail networks and rejuvenate smaller ports. The Government must do more to support it. In particular, the waterborne freight grant has been ineffective, with no grants issued in recent years. The Department told us that it was considering reforming the grant without infringing EU state aid rules. Is the Minister committed to finding a way of supporting increased take-up of support for coastal shipping? To back coastal shipping, will a new grant scheme be in place from next year, when the current scheme must be replaced? When it is replaced, will there be something better in its place, and will the sector be able to access that successor scheme?

The Government must also address concerns about planning. It was clear to us during our inquiry that there are major questions about the complexity of the current planning system, which was described to us as complex, flawed and unduly time-consuming. It was suggested that planning law over-emphasised environmental concerns at the expense of economic growth. The Department told the Committee that it understood those concerns and continues actively to seek ways to streamline procedures for applicants and other interested parties. Will the Minister give some examples of how the Department will make the planning system more positive for ports and clarify it?

Our ports are a vital part of our nation’s economic infrastructure. If the UK’s container ports are not competitive, container ports from Asia will not stop here. We will be reliant on secondary trade from European ports such as Rotterdam and Hamburg, adding to import and export costs and costing the UK jobs. Inadequate inland road and rail connections too often restrict development. I recognise the positive changes that the Department has made in recent times, but it could more actively engage with ports and remove constraints on development caused by inadequate transport infrastructure. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that those issues are at the heart of the Department’s strategy.

The Committee will maintain its interest in all those issues during the next few months, beginning next Monday in our imminent inquiry into the Government’s draft national policy statement on national networks. Ports are important to our national and regional economy. I hope that the Minister can tell us what further leadership he will display to ensure that improved connectivity boosts ports’ contribution to our economic activity, whether that be for the country as a whole or for our regions across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. The importance of the issue has been shown by the well-informed contributions of so many hon. Members, including reference to the significance of Felixstowe and smaller ports such as Fleetwood and to the need to promote ports right across the UK.

The Minister’s apology is fully accepted. I thank him for his full response. Essentially, the issue is about leadership and about recognising the importance of connectivity to ports, to enable them to maximise their economic potential for the country and for the region in which they are located. Today’s debate has contributed, but it will be an ongoing discussion.

Question put and agreed to.

Local Authority Parking Enforcement

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the Select Committee on Transport report “Local Authority Parking Enforcement”, along with the Government response. The topic was chosen following requests from members of the public, who are regularly invited to suggest subjects for the Committee’s inquiries. In January 2013, we launched a call for evidence seeking views on the adequacy of current arrangements for parking enforcement. We published our report in October 2013 and received the Government response last January. Public interest in the subject is strong, and today’s debate is timely.

Parking policy is a crucial element of transport strategy and an important part of transport management. In 2011-12, Aberystwyth spent a year without parking enforcement, which provided an alarming insight into what life would be like in our town and city centres if there were no wardens. NCP stated that in that year, Aberystwyth became

“the worst place in the country to find a parking space”,

and Aberystwyth’s chamber of commerce observed:

“It has been chaotic, especially for people with disabilities or delivery drivers. On balance, shoppers and the public generally will welcome the re-introduction of wardens.”

Although parking policy is important in its own right, it should be integrated with broader transport planning. Local authorities must balance the needs of different road users according to local circumstances, and parking enforcement is one tool to achieve that objective. It must be linked with providing good public transport. Joined-up transport planning involves striking a balance between tackling congestion and maintaining the accessibility of town and city centres. Particular concerns have been raised about the impact of parking policies on local shopping. Innovative measures to address it could include allowing free parking for limited times at certain times of the day, providing discount vouchers for customers who pay for parking and enabling local businesses to validate parking tickets so that customers get some money off parking. Those are just some of the suggestions that the Committee made in addressing the issue.

The response to our inquiry highlighted a deep rooted public perception—it is not necessarily the reality—that parking enforcement is used as a cash cow by local authorities. Taken together, in 2012-13, local authorities in England made a surplus of £594 million from parking activities. However, those surpluses were not evenly distributed. Seven of the 10 highest surpluses were in London; the largest profit, £39.7 million, was in Westminster. There are also more than 50 local authorities that operate parking services at a loss. Using parking charges and fines for the express purpose of raising revenue is neither acceptable nor legal. Any surplus created must be applied to transport purposes, which can include traffic management or investing in public transport.

How can the issue be addressed? First, more transparency is required. All local authorities should issue annual reports showing income from both parking charges and penalties, along with how any surpluses were applied. In addition, local authorities should show the criteria that they use in assessing their penalty charge system. There is sometimes a suspicion that targets for penalty charge notices have been set in order to maximise income. In response to our recommendations, the Government response stated:

“The Government supports greater transparency in local authority parking accounts. Local authorities should collect and publish data on revenue collected”

from parking meters and enforcement notices.

The Department added:

“The revised code of transparency for local government states that local authorities must place a link on their website”

to data showing

“revenue collected from on-street and off-street parking and parking enforcement notices.”

Is the Minister confident that all local authorities are now following the revised code of transparency for local government by providing that link?

In addition to our recommendations on transparency, we made two proposals on enforcement. First, we concluded that parking enforcement should attempt to minimise the number of penalty charge notices issued to motorists who have made honest mistakes, for example due to unclear signage. We asked local authorities to pay special attention to people who have simply made a mistake. In addition, we recommended changes. We suggested that the Department for Transport statutory guidance should stipulate that local authorities should implement a five-minute grace period after the expiry of paid-for time. The Government described this proposal as “worthy of consideration” and included it in the consultation paper on local authority parking.

The consultation closed on 14 February. I hope that the Minister will update Members on the consultation response to our recommendation of a five-minute grace period and set out how he intends to proceed in that regard. The Committee also called for the end of the routine use of CCTV to impose fines. The blanket use of CCTV does not always show the full picture. For example, it does not always show whether a vehicle is being loaded or whether a motorist has a permit to park where they have stopped.

The Committee also recommended significant changes on penalty charge discounts. Currently, fines paid within the first 14 days receive a 50% discount. If a motorist appeals and loses the appeal, there is no discount. We proposed a 25% discount for motorists who pay within seven days of losing an appeal to a tribunal. In the Government response, the Department stated that the suggestion was “worth wider consideration” and included it in the local parking enforcement consultation. Will the Minister update Members on the consultation response to our recommendation of a 25% discount and set out how he intends to take the matter forward?

The Committee noted that some local authority parking enforcement regimes effectively force some companies required to make deliveries at given times to incur penalty charge notices that can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, simply for operating their businesses. We even heard of a millionaires’ club of companies that accept that they will have to pay more than £1 million a year in charges due to penalty charge notices that they cannot avoid. We concluded that that is unacceptable and asked the Government to convene a round table discussion with road hauliers and local authorities to identify ways to address the problem. In response, the Government stated:

“We agree that a round table discussion might be useful and DFT will talk to local authorities and the freight industry to see how this might be organised.”

Again, will the Minister update us on the progress in setting up such a discussion, and does he have any other proposals for alleviating that particular burden on business?

Finally, I would like to discuss an outstanding issue: the enforcement of penalty charges on non-UK vehicles. We recommended that

“the Government initiate discussions at a European level on the feasibility of introducing EU-wide powers for the cross-border enforcement of parking penalty charges”.

The Department responded by saying that

“many Member States have reservations about data sharing and the general security of individual citizen’s data across international borders for non-criminal contraventions.”

The UK is apparently one of those member states. For example, the Government response highlighted that it

“would not opt in to a European Directive facilitating cross-border enforcement in the field of road safety…which would not be in the UK’s interests.”

I am somewhat puzzled by that. Does the Minister believe that cross-border enforcement of parking charges is a desirable objective? What discussions have taken place at an EU level? What are the Government’s objections to proceeding? If there is no action at a European level or if the UK will not be part of any action that other European countries are proposing to be involved in, is it possible to achieve the same objective without engaging with other European countries?

Parking policy will always arouse strong emotions. Motorists faced with what is perceived to be unduly high charges or unfair penalties will feel unjustly treated. However, parking management is required to reconcile the competing demands of different road users and to prevent congestion. I hope that the report and its recommendations contribute to making parking policies fair to all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

We have had a good, informed debate, helped by the experience of my hon. Friends who have contributed greatly to the discussion. I thank the Minister for his constructive responses. These are important issues that affect people every day and there are not always simple answers. I look forward to hearing more about the Department’s position and about what progress can be made on these recommendations in this important area.

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

That concludes the debate on local authority parking enforcement. The next debate, on access to ports, cannot begin until the Minister has arrived, so regrettably, I have to suspend the sitting. I point out to officials from the Department for Transport that Ministers should be here for the start of a debate. That this has happened is irregular, and I ask for the matter to be taken up with those who organise the Minister’s diary.

High-speed Rail

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

May I first put on the record my appreciation for the contribution my right hon. Friend made to this project? He was also the last Minister to meet Hitachi in Japan and so might have had a great influence on its decision to move its rail headquarters to the UK. I congratulate him on that. He is absolutely right: some £38.5 billion will be invested in the rail network over the next five years, excluding the money being spent on HS2. It is absolutely essential that we make that long-term investment in our railways.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

The reports from Sir David Higgins and the taskforce are very important documents. However, following the question from the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), how can the Secretary of State demonstrate that investment in High Speed 2 will go together with investment in the existing classic line so that the whole network benefits?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Lady, as Chair of the Transport Committee, has spent a lot of time looking at that, and indeed has taken evidence from me, Network Rail and Sir David Higgins over recent months. She will know that there is huge investment. In her city, for example, in May this year we will see the first express train running from Liverpool to Manchester, which I welcome. It is part of the northern hub, with over £500 million of investment linking Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and, eventually, Hull.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am very glad that car parking charges have been ruled out, despite some people’s claims that they would be introduced. It was partly my hon. Friend’s vigorous campaign that led to that decision. He is absolutely right about the huge amount of electrification taking place on our railways—over 800 miles, compared with the 9 miles electrified during Labour’s 13 years in government.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

The planned investment is very welcome, but what will the Secretary of State do to ensure that the correct rolling stock is available when electrification is completed so that we do not have a repeat of the current fiasco with TransPennine Express?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think that it is absolutely right that we get rolling stock. I am sure that the hon. Lady, and indeed the whole House, will join me in welcoming the announcement made by Hitachi overnight that it will base its world headquarters for rail development in this country. That is incredibly good news and I am sure it will be welcomed by all. The point she makes about rolling stock overall is important. It shows the kind of development that is needed in railway rolling stock orders.

Rolling Stock (North of England)

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the debate so far has shown, rail in the north has long-standing problems that affect constituencies across the whole region. The problems include the rolling stock: in the north, the average age is 24 years compared with London Overground, whose rolling stock is, on average, 2.8 years old, and with C2C—the London to Essex line—where the average is 12 years. Those figures tell quite a tale. As hon. Members have mentioned, another issue is the availability of appropriate rolling stock after the welcome electrification, on which there is still no clarity.

In the short time available I want to focus on the key issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), which is the totally unacceptable situation of First TransPennine Express, which serves people across the north with an already overcrowded service, being set to lose 13% of its fleet to Chiltern Railways. It is a consequence of the west coast main line debacle and the way that franchises were changed and decisions were made for directly negotiated extensions of existing franchises. It appears that the interests of the leasing company, Porterbrook, rests with moving the trains to Chiltern Railways, rather than leaving them for the 10-month extension that has been awarded to First TransPennine Express.

That issue has been raised at the Select Committee, which has already written to the Secretary of State to ask several important questions. I want to focus on two of them. First, did Ministers know what was happening? We understand that they did. If they did not, they should have known that something so important was going on. Secondly, what will Ministers do about the situation? It cannot be right that the interests of a leasing company are put above those of passengers. There are other, more general issues about how rolling stock and franchises are organised, but that is the nub of the problem. The interests of the leasing company appear to be in moving these much needed carriages from the north to the south, because it can get a better financial deal.

[David Mowat]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on mentioning Porterbrook, because its role is crucial. I will be interested to hear from the Minister why Porterbrook has taken this decision. I understand that it was offered only a 10-month extension, but it is and has been customary for leasers to give trains to the next company that takes over the lease. Porterbrook was not at risk had it persevered with the 10-month extension and it really does seem an odd decision. Has the Transport Committee had any sight of the commercial terms of the earlier deal with First TransPennine Express?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

The Transport Committee has not yet seen the deal; it is just asking questions at this stage. Everyone here today—or certainly everyone on the Committee—just wants to know what is going to be done. We have not yet received a response from the Minister to our questions, but one may be in the post at this very moment. What did Ministers know about the matter? If they did not know about it, why not? More importantly, what are they going to do about it for the interests of the travelling public right across the north?

Disabled People (Access to Transport)

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate the Select Committee on Transport report, “Access to Transport for Disabled People”, which we published in September last year. The topic was suggested to us by members of the public. It is a vital issue in relation to equality of opportunity for disabled people and their ability to access employment, education and health and social amenities, for example. Without appropriate transport, that is not possible, and people may suffer isolation.

Our report is wide-ranging. It identifies problems such as the availability of information on planning disabled-friendly journeys, the physical accessibility of transport, spaces for wheelchairs on buses and the training of transport staff, and stresses the importance of interdepartmental working.

There are 11.5 million disabled people in the UK, one fifth of whom report difficulty with transport. The number of disabled people will grow as the population ages, and most people will face some type of disability at some time in their lives. We started our inquiry in the aftermath of the successful Olympic and Paralympic games and as the Government published their accessibility action plan, which contained a number of encouraging proposals for improvement. However, a year after the Paralympics, we were concerned that some of its schemes were falling by the wayside.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

One of the most valuable parts of the inquiry for me, as a fellow member of the Transport Committee, was the opportunity to travel on public transport in my constituency and learn exactly how difficult it can be. Does the hon. Lady agree that one good thing that came out of it was that the Diamond Bus Company in Redditch went to Disability Action to discuss how things could be improved locally?

[Mrs Ellman]

The hon. Lady is a very active member of the Transport Committee, and I agree with the point she makes. It is important to experience the problems at first hand in order to understand fully what they are and what the solutions might be.

We were concerned that some of the schemes in the Government’s plan were falling by the wayside. For example, the Department planned to review the 2005 inclusive mobility guidance for pedestrian and transport infrastructure to take account of changes in design and the lessons learned from the transport provided during the Paralympics. The issue is important, as was shown earlier this week when the Committee viewed a film made by Sarah Gayton of the Sea of Change campaign about the problem that shared space presents for many disabled people. It requires urgent attention. Can the Minister tell us when the review of the 2005 provisions will take place?

In relation to rail, the response to our report was encouraging in some respects. The Office of Rail Regulation has now taken over the monitoring and enforcement of train operators’ disabled people’s protection policies. The Government told us that the ORR will raise awareness of existing provisions. One prime candidate for action must be making known more widely the requirement for an operator responsible for an inaccessible station to provide a free accessible taxi for a passenger to the nearest accessible station. I wonder how many people are aware of that right. If a greater number made use of it, train operators might invest more in making stations disabled-friendly. Can the Minister give us any information about how the ORR is progressing with that important work?

We raised the important issue of staff availability at stations, against the background of anticipated ticket office closures and general concerns about possible reductions in staffing on trains. The Government responded that future changes to ticket office opening hours should mean no overall reduction in—and, in some cases, an improvement to—the services provided to disabled passengers. It was good to read that, but we need a clear explanation from the Government of exactly what that means and how it will be carried out. The information from the Department argues that the service provided by staff in future on the station concourse will be an improvement on that offered by those in ticket offices. Will the Minister clarify what that means? Is it really the case that any change in ticket office staff will not reduce the overall level of trained staff at the station? The issue is important, and it is creating a lot of anxiety among travellers, particularly disabled people, but also many other members of the public with safety issues.

We raised concerns in our report about the requirement to book ahead to receive assistance when travelling by train. I was pleased to receive a letter following our inquiry from the Association of Train Operating Companies stating that ATOC would produce clearer guidance for disabled travellers booking assistance. It also stated that in London, ATOC is identifying point-to-point routes where staff are available to provide assistance for disabled people who want to turn up and go, rather than pre-booking help. I welcome that initiative, but I want to know more about it, including how it will work in London and how many routes will be available in that way, so that people need not book ahead. I would also like to know what will happen outside London. Is this a pilot scheme that will start in London and then be extended? I would be pleased if the Minister gave us some more information on that point.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I apologise for being late, Madam Chairman, but the lift was not working, which happens all too frequently in transport. Did the Select Committee take evidence from people who do not book ahead with train companies, but discover that they sometimes get a better service than those who do? My experience is that very often booking ahead does not ensure that help is in place, but a lot of the train companies are much better these days if I just turn up. That suggests that it can be done on an arrive-and-help basis, rather than requiring booking ahead.

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend makes some important comments. We received evidence during our inquiry from people who had tried the pre-booking service, some of whom had complaints about it. The points she makes are important in looking ahead to how policy might be developed.

I have mentioned some positive signs, but we need guarantees on other issues relating to rail. In particular, we need guarantees that future rail infrastructure will be designed to provide step-free access from street to train, in order to give more independence to those with physical impairments. Can the Minister give us that commitment? Can he tell us specifically what is planned in that regard for Crossrail and High Speed 2, for example?

The response to our concerns about buses was simply not good enough. I was disappointed that the Department rejected our recommendation that bus and coach drivers should be required to have disability awareness training.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Like many colleagues, I have been written to by the excellent charity Whizz-Kidz in strong support for the Select Committee’s recommendations in the report. Does she accept that there are examples of good practice within the bus industry? The First bus company in my constituency took part in the “Swap with me” initiative piloted by Sight Concern and the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which involved taking the place of blind people by going blindfolded, as I did in Worcester, to see what it is like to use a bus in those circumstances. Does she commend those examples of good practice and support their extension more widely?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We did indeed hear from Whizz-Kidz, which gave us valuable evidence. I commend the initiative that he mentioned. It is important for good examples to be given and for local initiative to be used, but what matters is that that initiative and those examples are then widened out across the whole network.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

Leamington is home to a Guide Dogs training school. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), I am pleased to have accepted the challenge of travelling on a bus with a blindfold and being guided by a hugely intelligent dog. I recognise that buses without audiovisual systems can make missed hospital appointments, job opportunities and family occasions something of a routine. The costs of social isolation are well known, and helping older and disabled people to get around seems to make great sense.

[Mrs Ellman]

The hon. Gentleman raises important issues, to which I will refer shortly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, people who are registered blind or nearly blind get free bus passes. In April 2013, nine out of 10 people who were registered blind or nearly blind expressed concern that there were no announcements on bus routes and requested an audio system. The needs of blind and nearly-blind people are relevant not only to England, but to the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady agree that those nine out of 10 people deserve to have audio systems fitted in transport systems across the whole of the United Kingdom?

[Mrs Ellman]

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. I will speak specifically about audiovisual systems shortly, reinforcing the point he has raised.

On training, one issue that has been raised with me is whether the content of training is adequate. There is also the issue of whether training takes place. It was disappointing that the Department rejected our recommendation that bus and coach drivers should be required to have disability awareness training. Instead, the Department defended its decision, taken last year, to opt out of the EU requirement for such training. Will the Minister think again about this issue and discuss it with his colleagues?

I have listened with interest to hon. Members’ comments today. They have all referred to practical examples of difficulties that occur because the right facilities are not in place. I joined campaigners from the Royal National Institute of Blind People on a local bus journey in Liverpool. They showed me how important it is to receive information, at the right time, about the numbers of the buses that are operating, the routes being run and, indeed, where the buses have stopped. It was clear that the lack of practical information deters many people from travelling, including people with sight impairments, learning difficulties or mental health problems, and undermines people’s confidence to undertake journeys and lead independent lives. Drivers play an important part in providing information, so it is important that they are given disability awareness training so that they have the confidence to do so. I cannot emphasise too much that training should be adequate, available and compulsory.

Hon. Members have raised the issue of audiovisual systems, which are vital. In May last year, of the 46,300 buses in the UK, only 8,500 were equipped with audiovisual equipment. Most of those are in London.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

People who use buses in London soon get to know that audiovisual systems work. It seems odd that the rest of the country does not get to benefit as fully as London does from those systems. It is not just blind and partially sighted people who benefit, but tourists, visitors and people who do not know an area. Especially in rural areas, knowing where a stop is plays an important part in informing people, so that they can make the best use of their bus journey.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I have noted a number of instances where facilities that are available on buses in London are sadly lacking in other parts of the country. Considering why that might be the case could take us off in another direction, but he raises another important point, namely that facilities required by people with impairments of some sort are also required by many others. Those facilities make journeys easier and give people more confidence in using public transport, so both his points are extremely relevant.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Given that, is it not disappointing that the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s recommendation was that there was no economic case for audiovisual systems? As my hon. Friend has pointed out, it is not just disabled people but tourists and those who are unfamiliar with a bus route who benefit from the speaking buses that we enjoy here in London.

[Mrs Ellman]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The report focuses on the needs of disabled people in accessing public transport, but many of its recommendations would make travel better for everybody and are extremely important.

In the report, the Committee called for audiovisual information systems to be phased in on all new buses now and on all buses over a decade. That is a modest objective that would help bus users concerned about missing stops or those who are travelling in unfamiliar areas. As hon. Members have said, it would give all passengers, disabled or not, more confidence to use buses more often. Such equipment is surely essential, yet our very modest proposal was rejected. Will the Minister look at it again? Although implementing it might require consultation with colleagues, our proposal was extremely modest, but extremely important.

Our report also called for fines to be imposed when buses are misleadingly advertised as being accessible but in fact are not. Again, that recommendation was not accepted by the Department.

Many improvements to transport for disabled people are devised and implemented at a local level. I saw an example in Liverpool: I made a journey with a young woman with learning difficulties and was shown a travel training scheme. These are local schemes that aim to support disabled people who might otherwise rely on door-to-door transport. A successful scheme can provide the disabled person with more independence and reduce the cost of door-to-door services for the local authority. Will the Minister offer us an assurance that travel training schemes will be supported by the Government, at least with their initial set-up costs?

I want to raise one more important issue, concerning the ability of disabled people to claim their rights. The Equality Act 2010 is a piece of civil law. In practice, making sure that transport operators comply with Government requirements for equal access to transport has too often required individuals to pursue civil court actions. Disabled users of transport are rarely wealthy enough to pay the legal fees of their solicitors and risk funding those of the transport operator should they lose their case. Most challenges to transport operators under the Equality Act are undertaken as pro bono work by solicitors, who take out insurance to cover the costs if the case is lost. However, the civil justice reforms enacted last year will change that. As a result, cases might not be pursued and transport operators might not believe that breaches will be challenged in court. Is the Minister aware of these concerns, and will he raise them with colleagues in other Departments? Does he have any suggestions for mediation that could prevent legal action?

The list I have given is not exhaustive. I have used the time available to point to the main areas covered in the report, but there are other important issues, including concerns that the change from the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment might deprive many disabled people of transport mobility.

The Transport Committee conducted this inquiry to highlight the importance of transport to disabled people as an equality issue. Departments must work together and with local government, transport operators and campaigners. It is important to remember that improvements that help disabled people help all passengers. The response we have received to our inquiry has confirmed that this is a vital area where much more needs to be done. Will the Minister assure me that he will continue to pursue the issues that the report raises, so that transport barriers that prevent disabled people from participating fully in society can be removed? Doing so will benefit everybody.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

The debate has reinforced the importance of this issue and the importance of the Committee’s conducting its report, securing its reply and debating this further with the Minister. I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate and contributed to it.

Will the Minister write to us with more information on the availability of staff at stations to assist passengers? I was a little bit concerned when he stated that the Government had no plans for cuts and that this was to do with the operators. I should like more information on that. Could there be more urgency in addressing some of these issues, particularly the installation of audiovisual systems? Smartphones are not an alternative to audiovisual systems. Step-free access to trains and training require more urgent attention.

I am sure that all these issues will continue to be debated and that campaigning on all of them will continue. I thank everybody who has brought us to this point. I advise and, indeed, warn the Minister that I am sure that there will be more to come. I thank him for his replies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

At this time, I clearly would not want to be the beadle Mr Bumble and put Oliver out in the cold, so I will consult the taskforce to see whether there is a possibility of adding that to the list for its consideration.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the Minister explain how accountability for extending rail electrification could be affected by the basic change in the status of Network Rail announced by the Government earlier this week?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that there will be no change in accountability as a result of the status.

Transport Infrastructure

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

Not only will I try to get bipartisan agreement, I will try to get tripartisan agreement. I shall not just look at any two parties. I hope that that is the way in which we can move forward. My right hon. Friend has huge experience of this issue and has often made the case for protecting Stansted airport.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Davies commission report includes a shortlist that has on it the recommendation of the Transport Committee for expanding Heathrow, and confirms the importance of connecting the economy of this country with the emerging economies in India, Brazil and China. Does the Secretary of State agree that taking no action means that this country continues to lose out? When does he think the decision should be made?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sorry; I missed the last bit of the hon. Lady’s question. [Hon. Members: “When do you think the decision should be made?”] I know that the Transport Committee will be seeing Sir Howard at one of its meetings in the early part of January. I agree with the hon. Lady; we will be responding early next year to the recommendations on which Sir Howard has asked us to come to a view.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, who wastes no opportunity to raise this case for electrification with me. He has been a doughty campaigner for it. We have received a copy of the business case for the electrification of the Leeds, Harrogate and York line. The case looks promising and I am more than happy to discuss it further with him.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Plans for electrification are very welcome, but when will rolling stock be available for the electrified lines in the north, now that that there has been such a delay in the procurement for the Thameslink project?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I hope that that delay, on which there was a Public Accounts Committee report recently, will not lead to long-term delay. I am confident that once we have done the electrification the rolling stock will be ready to fulfil the needs we all want it to fulfil.