High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

I will come to the direct costs in a moment, but my hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has told me that land prices have gone up threefold in the past decade. Not many households have been compensated so far, but the House of Commons Library informs me that 32 homes have been compensated to date—a very modest sample—and that the average cost per home has been £500,000. I do not know what the cost will be in north London, but I suspect that London house prices are going up quite quickly.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I would not wish to compete with my hon. Friend’s clear expertise in this matter, but has he considered reducing the budget for HS2 by using Old Oak Common as a terminus, thereby avoiding any of the activity in the Camden area that appears to be causing concern financially? That would fit with many European models, in which the terminus is situated outside the city centre and connected to the high-speed and cross-borough links. Has my hon. Friend considered that possibility as part of his investigation?

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend is a fellow Lancastrian, and he is a great champion for his constituents. Surely one of the difficulties with opting for out-of-town stations is that it would take people longer to get to where they needed to be. The clue is in the name: high-speed rail. If they travelled to an out-of-town station, they would still need to get into the city centre to complete their door-to-door journey.

[Paul Maynard]

This is a good opportunity to remind Members that the point of HS2 is to allow people to get to the areas of greatest economic activity, and those are not necessarily within five minutes of Euston station. The benefit of a terminus at Old Oak Common would be an ability to transfer quickly to the City, where the bulk of the economic activity takes place. This is the clear message from all high-speed rail networks around the world.

[Stephen Barclay]

Of course there is a debate around Old Oak Common, but I must point out the lack of clarity. Clearing a similar site for the Olympics cost £1 billion. Where is the figure for clearing and regenerating the site around Old Oak Common? Transport for London is putting in requests, stating that it is possible to leverage HS2 with better connectivity using Old Oak Common, and I think it is right to do so, but where is that proposal reflected in the figures?

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a clear statement on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday. He did not say that the project would be delivered for £42 billion; he said that it would be delivered for less. That was the promise he made. Now we are talking about a cap of £50 billion, so an extra £7 billion has appeared in the space of a few days. In today’s debate, Members are adding their own wish-lists, which will add further to the costs.

High Speed Rail

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman needs to look at the two documents we have published, but I have made it very clear that today is the start of the process and I expect him to make representations, as he has just done. I know Stoke-on-Trent and the surrounding area incredibly well. We have made improvements to its road infrastructure, but they have been very controversial over many years.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, not least as a demonstration of our party’s commitment to the north of England. Although Blackpool will not be getting a high-speed station—I will not stand here today and demand one—will he none the less explain when Network Rail will be able to make an assessment of how much capacity the HS2 project will free up on the west coast main line?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend asks a reasonable question. I think I can best answer it by saying that we will have a better indication of exactly what capacity will be freed up once the line is confirmed and Network Rail is asked to start the work on the consequences of building the line.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

In 1948, the very same county plan for Lancashire—under a Labour Government, I duly note—recommended a new A585 trunk road to improve links to both Fleetwood and the northern parts of my constituency. This remains a key local priority, but what guidance has the Department issued to the local enterprise partnerships to ensure that when decisions about regional structural priorities are taken, they are evidence based rather than based on economic fashion?

[Stephen Hammond]

We have encouraged local enterprise partnerships to involve themselves with other local groups in order to ensure that suggestions, plans and designs for new routes take economic potential into account. Many LEPS throughout the country have taken that on board, and I trust that the one in Lancashire will do the same.

West Coast Rail Franchise

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I know her Committee will see Mr Laidlaw and no doubt others during their deliberations on this subject. There are a number of lessons not just for Ministers but for the civil service as a whole and on closer reading of the report they become apparent. I hope that this sort of episode will not happen again to any Government.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will be unsurprised to hear me welcome the news about direct services to Blackpool. Does he agree that any infrastructure investment is only as good as the economic planning by local stakeholders? Will he encourage local councils and the local enterprise partnership to meet local MPs urgently to discuss how to take advantage of that announcement and not wait until December 2013 to decide what to do about it?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, particularly for the way in which he has campaigned for this service. I know that he will be pleased by the intention I have announced today. As I have said, it is an intention and is not absolutely tied down as there are a few processes to go through. Given the way in which he has shown leadership, I very much hope that he gets that message across to the stakeholders involved so that we can make progress.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right: a fatality not only causes huge damage and a dramatic situation for the family involved in that tragedy, but there is also cost to the health service and other services. There has been no diminution in the desire of the Department for Transport to improve road safety, and there will not be while I am Secretary of State.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

The Secretary of State may be aware that road traffic deaths in the east midlands are double those in the north east per capita. As I learned from the Transport Committee inquiry into road safety, national targets allow underperforming local authorities to shelter behind the excellent performance of other local authorities, Blackpool included. Does the Secretary of State agree that national targets actually lead to more traffic deaths in some parts of the country because we are not targeting underperformance?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he makes an interesting point. Whenever serious or fatal accidents take place I want a proper investigation to be conducted, the results of which can be carried across to provide experience to other local authorities throughout the United Kingdom.

Disabled Access (Aviation Industry)

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke, and to take part in this important debate and respond to the all-party group meeting held last week on the report. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on securing the debate.

Chairing the all-party parliamentary group on young disabled people is one of the most fulfilling parts of the job that I do here in the House. It is odd, in a way, because it does not involve much work from me. It is a rather unique all-party group, in that the less the Members of Parliament say, the happier I am, because I want the young people—the Trailblazers—to play the key role. They write the reports, so it is only right that, when we have a gathering of witnesses, they, not the MPs, do the cross-examining. The less the MPs say, the better—a welcome change that we might bring into other aspects of parliamentary life, perhaps.

I pay tribute to all the Trailblazers who played their part in writing the excellent report that we are discussing, which raises a wide range of issues. I pay particular tribute to a lady named Hayleigh Barclay, who has been doing sterling work, trying to influence plane manufacturers in Europe, so that they think about how they design planes in future. She has been struggling and must feel occasionally that she is hitting her head on a brick wall. I have tried to help, as well, by writing to companies, but I do not get any replies either. She has really dedicated herself to this cause.

Rather than rehearse the report’s contents for a third time, I would rather focus on what we discussed during the all-party group meeting last week, when we had evidence from a range of representatives from airlines and plane manufacturers. I took from that the incredibly great difficulty that disabled passengers have in maintaining the simple, basic human dignities that so many of us take for granted when travelling by air. Airlines always get a kicking in this regard, because they are the ones that we see when we travel. We think everything—every stretch of our journey—is to do with the airline, but of course it is not. The booking system can be any internet site going and might even not be based in this country; the airport operator controls the physical infrastructure; and bags or whatever else passengers need to check in goes to the ground handler, which is contracted partly to the airline and partly to the airport operator. Who is pulling whose strings? It is a complex passenger journey, which is one reason why we have lower level of passenger service than is now seen in rail and bus travel. Rail and bus are by no means perfect—do not get me wrong—but they are further down the track, if hon. Members will excuse the pun, than with air travel.

There are also jurisdictional issues. We can legislate all we like for UK planes and give the CAA as many powers as we choose to, but we cannot control what happens in a third country, particularly if it is outside the EU. Trying to use powers that the House could have to mandate change is difficult. That is why I have been focusing on working out why the industry has these disconnects in how it speaks to itself. Why cannot an airport consultative committee put disabled passengers’ needs at the forefront of what they do and redesign their systems to ensure that even simple stuff can be done, such as considering whether a powered wheelchair can be broken down and stored safely and not damaged? Why is that so difficult?

That takes me back to how we build airports. Sir Howard Davies has an awful lot to consider in the coming years and I am loth to add more to his task, but I hope that any new airport, should he choose to build a new one, is built on a slightly different model, where the needs of the passenger come first, rather than just getting people in and out as quickly and simply as possible. I was staggered to hear some witnesses talk about how difficult it is to get a wheelchair from the gate to the aircraft hold, without having to check it in about four hours beforehand, when they first arrive at the airport. Why should making that connection, which is no more than 25 yards away, be so difficult? Is it beyond the wit of man to devise a solution? I understand the need for security, which must be uppermost, and the need to separate incoming and departing passengers for immigration reasons, but those things surely cannot be allowed to stop a wheelchair simply being moved 25 yards. I fail to understand why that is so difficult.

So much of what we discussed last week was about passenger information from one actor in the process to another. The number of gaps that accurate information disappears down is mind-boggling. When booking a ticket, for example, people go into their local branch of Thomas Cook on the high street, if they are lucky enough to still have a branch there, and book the ticket with the travel agent, who notices if they have a wheelchair. The travel agent applies a code, although no one is ever sure whether the codes are all the same, which somehow goes down the wires to wherever it needs to go, but at no point is there any adequate consideration of whether a passenger will use their own chair. Will they need a different chair when at the airport? Will they need to check in their wheelchair at the gate or check-in desk? Is it a powered wheelchair? How big is it? What are the weight limits? Although the passenger booking the ticket might think that the great god of Thomas Cook— the all-knowing one—or the travel agent will somehow ensure that it is all right, that cannot be guaranteed. They might not have dealt with someone in a wheelchair before and might not know what the systems are. We place a great deal of confidence in a process that is not necessarily delivering for the passenger.

Until last week, I did not realise that anyone can try to reserve a seat on an aircraft. We can all put in a request for a bulkhead seat. They are popular. People get to stretch their legs out if they are able to and have more space, so those seats are particularly desired. However, so broad is the definition of a person of reduced mobility, that the severity of their need cannot be taken into account. Someone with a stiff leg might need a bulkhead seat, whereas another person may have a complex bulky powered wheelchair and quite severe mobility issues. The airline cannot decide how to allocate those seats until the last minute, when it knows who is trying to board the plane.

There are great difficulties in ironing out the flaws in this process, but I detect willingness to improve. It would be unfair to paint a uniformly bleak picture, and I always try not to do that in every report produced by the all-party group. There are always positives to focus on, and I think that we should do so. The airlines are keen to do more and to do better, but I sometimes feel that specific innovations are occasionally a shock factor, with the response being, “We don’t normally do it that way, so I’m not going to do it that way in future.” However, innovation is going on. The all-party group heard about some interesting and innovative proposals regarding replacing hoists, for example, with a new form of seat, which would ensure greater dignity for passengers. Boeing showed us a revolutionary new form of lavatory that was truly accessible. That might be a point for the Minister to consider.

The case that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned of the young man who had to urinate into a coffee pot occurred because that person thought that the toilet was accessible and only found out when he got on the plane that it was not. The definition of accessible for an aircraft is not the same as for a bus or a train. It is no use putting a nice, shiny, chirpy blue symbol on the door and thinking that a lavatory is wheelchair accessible. That is not the case. I was surprised to hear one example of an accessible toilet at the bottom of a spiral staircase. I am not sure that even I could cope with that at 30,000 ft in the air and still think that that was accessible.

As I said, things are improving. We should celebrate the fact that, as the CAA confirmed last week, all UK airlines will voluntarily fully fund any replacement costs for any damaged wheelchair. We are unique in the world in making that commitment, which demonstrates to me that we do not always need stringent legislation. We need to get the industry to agree that something is worth doing and is in their interests, and they will do it.

I am acutely conscious that airport operators, ground-handling agents, travel agents, plane manufacturers, airlines and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all almost need to be dragooned in a room and made to understand what is required. That is why I continue to lament the loss of the disabled persons transport advisory committee, which I hope is still offering views somewhere in the ether, and I would appreciate a verdict on where that is now occurring in the Department for Transport.

What gave me even more hope, however, was that, regardless of what the Department said, the Trailblazers are coming up with their own solution. Charlene Kane, the director of customer services at Monarch Airlines—I have probably got her title wrong—volunteered at the end of the all-party group’s session to host a working group of all the bodies that I mentioned, so that they can listen to what the Trailblazers and the industry have to say and try to come up with solutions. Those solutions would start when someone is at their computer trying to book their flight and end when they get back home, with their wheelchair undamaged and in one piece, having had the holiday or business trip that they wanted and having had their human dignity protected, rather than compromised, at every stage of their journey. That cannot be too much to ask. “Turn up and go” might be a utopia, but it should be a human right.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on introducing the debate and setting out his stall most effectively. It has been a good debate, with a large number of constructive comments from all the Members who have contributed. I assure Members that I take the issue seriously, as does the Department for Transport and the Government generally. I shall respond to the points made as best I can.

To be clear from the start, the Government agrees that it is important for airlines and airports to be sensitive to the needs of disabled people. As a minimum, they must comply with the European regulation that has been enacted to protect the interests of people with disabilities, though that in itself is not enough. I very much agree with the comments made by a number of Members today, including the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), that while we have seen significant improvements under successive Governments in bus and rail travel—I am not pretending everything is perfect, but a lot of improvements have been made—what is happening with the airlines is lagging behind. That is the biggest challenge for travellers with disabilities.

Let me set out the legal position. Aviation is an international business. Almost all the issues that arise are common throughout the world, and a substantial body of international law, whether created by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the European Union or individual member states, exists to support and help aviation passengers. For those people who are disabled or have reduced mobility, from whatever cause, European regulation 1107/2006 establishes their rights. The regulation is fully supported by the UK Government and has applicability in UK law under a statutory instrument, S.I. 2007, No. 1895.

The European regulation concerns the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air. It gives rights to disabled air travellers, including the right to assistance at airports and on board planes, and imposes legal obligations on airports, airlines and their agents or tour operators in respect of the service that they provide to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility. To guarantee such assistance, passengers are required to provide notification to the airline of their needs at least 48 hours in advance. If no notification is given, airports and airlines are required to make all reasonable efforts to provide assistance. Forty-eight hours is a long time, and people obviously want to be as spontaneous as they can, so that is a challenge. The rail industry, for example, has done a great deal to reduce the time of pre-notification, so I hope that that issue might be improved in future.

The regulation is directly applicable in UK law and the Civil Aviation Authority has powers to enforce the regulation in the UK. Any company found to be in breach of its obligations could be subject to prosecution. On disability, it is fair to say that the EU and the USA are further advanced with legislative measures to secure rights to access and help for disabled air passengers.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation has also taken an interest in this area in its guidance, and we are engaging with it to share best practice, although even best practice leaves questions to be answered.

To help the UK air transport industry to comply with its obligations, the Department for Transport produced a code of practice, “Access to Air Travel for Disabled Persons and Persons with Reduced Mobility”, along with a passenger booklet, “Your Rights to Fly—What you need to know”. The code incorporates the legal requirements and recommendations—for example, offering best practice as a way forward—but the Government expects the industry to adopt the recommendations unless there are practical reasons that make it unreasonable to do so. Interpretive guidance is available on the regulation from the European Commission.

We want all disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility to experience as pleasant a flight as possible. To achieve that, we must always be alert to upcoming issues and try to identify them quickly. We must certainly persuade and cajole the industry to follow our guidance, and we must enforce that when necessary. All those involved in transporting disabled passengers should be sensitive and aware. I appreciate that that may not always be the case. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that he was disgusted by the attitude of some airlines. I hope that that is not a general experience, but I accept that there may sometimes be insensitivity that could be improved on.

The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough referred to training and process, and there has been a great deal of work on that in other transport modes such as rail and buses. The airlines may be marginally lagging behind on that front. All customer-facing staff should be well trained, and use kindness and common sense. We must be aware of when dignity might be compromised, and minimise that as far as possible. We must also be realistic and pragmatic about the limitations and difficulties facing airlines that may not apply to other forms of transport.

Airlines can refuse a booking only if accepting it would break safety rules or the size of the plane or its doors makes boarding or carriage physically impossible. Paragraph 1(a) of article 4 of the regulation authorises air carriers to derogate from the principle of non-discrimination and to refuse to accept a reservation from or to embark a person with reduced mobility, or require that person to be accompanied by another person to meet applicable safety requirements. That is a sensitive point for some, but whether we like it or not—I do not—there may be tension between disability rights and safety requirements, and we must accept that. Our efforts must be to try to minimise that as far as possible. The CAA has the task of enforcing the regulation and works hard to ensure that airlines deliver both safety and individuals’ right to travel as freely as possible.

Various tensions must be managed. Electric mobility devices can catch fire on board. In an emergency, it must be possible to evacuate an aircraft quickly. Personal wheelchairs would not be crash resistant to sit in during flight, so they cannot be used at present. There may be steps that could be taken to secure them adequately, but that has not yet been achieved. That is why we must consider a combination of pragmatism affecting disability rights and safety requirements.

There are physical limitations of aircraft type, and it has been noted that aircraft are purchased and constructed to last a long time. Some of the requirements that we want on an aircraft now may not have been thought of when it was built. There have been problems with rail vehicles, and that is the case even more with planes. The regulation provides a specific derogation and allows a carrier, its agent or a tour operator not to accept a reservation from a disabled person if that would not comply with the nature of the plane.

The CAA is the UK’s aviation regulator for all European Union aviation consumer protection law and the enforcer of EU regulation 1107/2006. This summer, the CAA took over responsibility for handling disabled passenger complaints and offers advice about all issues concerning disability travel. The aviation health unit at the CAA gives advice to GPs and to members of the public who may have questions about whether they are fit to fly.

The CAA is continuing to develop its capacity to help and to support passengers. It is actively engaged with airlines and airports in seeking to improve service levels and is conducting its own inquiries into those areas where further improvements are needed. It has set up a new consumer advisory panel to act as a critical friend of the regulator as it moves forward to putting the consumer at the heart of its regulatory efforts.

Hon. Members may know that the CAA announced in April that the chair of the new panel will be Keith Richards, and he is now in post. Mr Richards—he is not the Rolling Stone—has considerable experience of disabled air passenger issues, having been chair of the aviation working group at the disabled persons transport advisory committee for many years, as well as being a former head of consumer affairs at the Association of British Travel Agents. In the autumn, the full panel of nine members was appointed, and the new body has already held its first meeting.

The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) asked about DPTAC. There has been consultation about its future, and we have now received the responses, which are being analysed in the Department. We will make a statement in due course. No decisions have been made at this point, other than to have consultation, which I think has been completed.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who is no longer in her place, asked whether the CAA should be required to produce an annual report. The proposed powers in the Civil Aviation Bill will enable it to facilitate comparisons across airlines. It will have a clear role in sharing and encouraging best practice. It has plans in place to share complaint data with disability groups to facilitate development of best practice. What we are doing in the Bill will be useful in taking forward the steps that right hon. and hon. Members rightly want.

I draw attention to the new CAA functions on information about aviation services in clauses 83 to 93 of the Bill. New publication powers are also crucial in putting the environmental concerns of passengers and the public at the forefront of the CAA’s core business. Without the provisions in the Bill, the CAA can publish guidance and advice only about its or the Secretary of State’s functions. Some operators may already publish data on their services, but many use varying and incompatible measures. Others choose to do less. The Bill, which is being debated in the other place today, will for the first time give the CAA a duty to publish performance and environmental data that are transparent, objective and consistent. That will allow consumers easily to compare operators and to fill gaps when the industry has not provided information. That is a useful tool to drive up performance.

A number of issues were raised that I will try to address. Some hon. Members asked about passengers’ dignity. We accept absolutely that that is important. On the matter raised by the hon. Member for Strangford, we are not aware of regular requirements for strip searches being a problem. If such a search is necessary, it should certainly be done discreetly in a private area. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about a particular airport or airline, he is welcome to let us know and we will pass it on to the CAA to take forward. We would not want that to become a problem unnecessarily.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East asked whether passengers could be met at car parks. Pre-notification is the key, as always, but passengers should be able to be met and supported as needed. Pre-notification makes that possible, but again if right hon. and hon. Members believe that good practice is not being followed, they should let the Department or the CAA know and we will pursue individual matters as they are brought to our attention.

The hon. Member for Strangford also said that airlines could do some simple things if they had a bit of compassion. I hope that they do not lack compassion—I am sure that most do not—but I agree entirely that some simple steps could be taken to improve matters. Often, they can be done by changing a process, which may not even be costly. If he has suggestions, I am happy to pass them on.

The Department is certainly open to that and to making suggestions to the industry when they are brought to our attention. Indeed, some of the best comments have come from organisations such as Trailblazers, and I was pleased with its useful report. Frankly, some of the statistics that it referred to are rather disturbing, and the industry needs to respond sensibly to those. I know that the CAA has that in its sights and will look at what might be done, within its powers, to take that matter forward. For example, there is no reason or excuse for the number of wheelchairs apparently being damaged in transit, as hon. Members mentioned. The fact that British airlines have a better record on compensating passengers is a good point, but it is no substitute for wheelchairs being damaged in the first place. Steps can be taken, and ICAO technical instructions relate to wheelchairs and to medical and health equipment being carried. There is, of course, a remedy for wheelchairs being damaged, but as I said, that is not a substitute for them being carried properly in the first place.

I agree that airlines and airports need to do more to try and avoid unnecessary obstacles to seamless travel for individual passengers, in so far as that can be achieved. It is not good enough if people have to wait four hours for a wheelchair to be moved 25 yards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) pointed out in a very passionate and useful contribution. I take his point that there is a need to look at the definition of accessible, so that people can understand what it means. That is an important point.

On what the Government is doing generally, I add that we are in the process of producing a transport accessibility strategy, which will cover all modes of transport. It will build on the work of successive previous Governments—both the Government that introduced the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the previous Government, which did good work in this area. As hon. Members have said, this is not a party issue. All Members feel strongly about it, and we want to get the best results that we can. The strategy will appear in the not-too-distant future.

I am sorry, by the way, that my hon. Friend is leaving the Select Committee on Transport. Is that right?

[Paul Maynard]

I am afraid so.

[Norman Baker]

That is a great pity, because my hon. Friend’s contributions to that Committee have been very useful. I have no idea whose decision that was—if it was the Whips’, I think that it is the wrong one—but I thank him for his work.

An issue was raised about an aircraft on which an accessible toilet was down a spiral staircase. I should put it on record that although there is a toilet down the spiral staircase, there is another, more accessible toilet on that type of plane. It is some distance away at the other end of the cabin, but it is actually on the same flight level—to put the record straight on that point.

The hon. Member for Wigan asked about accessibility of public transport generally, and I hope that I have dealt with that matter. If she has particular issues about rail or bus travel, she can draw them to my attention, but we are making progress. We have kept the targets for replacing vehicles on the railways and buses, to make sure they are fully accessible. Those targets have not been changed and we are making good progress towards achieving them. We have also put further moneys into the Access for All programme—£100 million for the next control period for the railways—to ensure that further improvements are made to the railway station infrastructure in this country, so that fewer people encounter problems getting through stations, which I am afraid can be an issue.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who said that in his view, what benefits the disabled traveller benefits all travellers. That is exactly the right analysis, whether it applies to information on buses and trains or to physical access. Until I became a father and had to cart a buggy up and down stairs, I had never realised how many stairs there were at underground stations, nor had I realised how inaccessible some of them are. If we are able-bodied, we do not necessarily understand or appreciate the difficulties that some of our fellow citizens face. Putting the disabled person centre stage, as far as we can, is a sensible strategy to take forward, and I hope that we will do that in our general accessibility strategy.

I hope that I have answered most of the points that hon. Members have made in today’s debate, and I thank them again for their comments. I hope that it is clear from what I have said that no one is complacent, that the UK is fully engaged with these issues and that the CAA is doing an increasingly effective job in developing its consumer support function. There is, of course, always more that can be done. Pre-notification of requirements is key. Airlines need to know what disabled customers’ needs are, so that they can prepare for them, but having been notified of them, we would expect airlines to deliver on those requirements as far as possible. The CAA and ABTA have done good work in highlighting that need. It is much better to have pre-notification than to leave matters to best endeavours on the day.

I am pleased that the CAA is taking forward work in a number of other areas. For example, it has helped in the introduction of the Medical Engineering Resource Unit TravelChair, which is a specialist seat for disabled children that fits into a normal aircraft, and in discussing the introduction of a British Standards Institution standard for air travel for wheelchair users. Those are important extra steps towards making the air journeys of disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility more pleasant.

I thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale again for securing the debate, as well as all Members who have contributed today.

West Coast Main Line

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My predecessor, like me, was given firm assurances at the Department that the competition was sound. That proved not to be the case. Once I knew and had the full facts, I made the statement that I made.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I used the west coast main line today and my train was early, for which I thank the Secretary of State. Can he assure me that when making decisions about the new franchises, he will take every opportunity to incorporate both quality metrics and performance satisfaction ratings from customers?

Rail Investment

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I welcome with inexplicable joy the announcement on the northern hub, which I have waited to see for so many years. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the amount of investment in the north-west, Yorkshire and the north-east puts to bed any notion whatsoever that the north does not get its fair share of Government funding?

[Justine Greening]

I absolutely think that. As someone who was born and bred in Yorkshire, I think that the sort of investment now going up to the north of our country is absolutely critical. There is so much talent up there; we just need to make sure we invest to unlock it.

Aviation

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mark Reckless]

I agree. There is huge scope for what my hon. Friend describes. It would hugely benefit not just the Medway towns and the south-east region, but the country as a whole.

I want to talk about one other area where the lobbyists have a certain position. I received a document yesterday from the Mayor of London, who tells me that he is delighted that I am having this debate. He says:

“France’s hub airport, Paris Charles de Gaulle (56 departures per week), has better connections to Brazil than Heathrow (27 departures per week).”

The reason is that we have a bilateral treaty with Brazil, with a current limit of 35 passenger services a week between the two countries. Again, that is vastly to the benefit of BA, which routes flights to Latin America, including Brazil in particular, through the joint hub that it now has in Madrid, through Iberia following the merger. We do not get pressure from BA to change that, because it hugely benefits its profits, but BA’s market capitalisation is in the low billions. The idea that our whole airline policy and the network of treaties negotiated by the previous Government should restrict those flights and prevent Brazilian or Chinese airlines from flying into our large cities is a huge mistake.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Even if we were to rip up every treaty that my hon. Friend has identified as a block, does he seriously believe that there is sufficient capacity at our hub airport? Will a hub airport alone sustain newly developing point-to-point routes? Does he seriously argue that Heathrow could suddenly accommodate more routes to developing countries?

[Mark Reckless]

Yes, I do argue that. The limit on Heathrow’s routes to developing countries is largely because of the fact that those who have the slots find it most profitable to put on vast numbers of flights to New York and almost as large numbers to Hong Kong. It would benefit the country as a whole much more if there were a wider network of routes, rather than just what happens to benefit British Airways and maximise its profits. To get to what my hon. Friend suggests, the treaty we need to rip up is the treaty of Rome, because it is under European directives—[Interruption.] The reason why the slots are organised as they are is that they have been capitalised into property rights for the airlines that historically happen to have used them, and it is because of European legislation that that has been allowed to happen. If we want a more effective route network for our country as a whole, within the existing constraints of Heathrow—of course, others will argue that it needs to be bigger or we need a hub somewhere else and so on—European legislation prevents us from having that. Anyone who wants to set up a marginal route to an emerging market needs to buy out, at vast expense, one of the existing airlines, particularly BA, which has a near monopoly power. They have to give BA a huge amount of money to take the slots they need for those routes. The reason why they cannot do that is cost, yet we have treaties that restrict the amount of access that overseas airlines have into the UK. They could otherwise be flying into Gatwick, Stansted or Birmingham as city pairs, but the routes and slots are at Heathrow, and the regulation creates that monopoly power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. In four minutes, I will speedily go through some of the points that I want to raise. First, may I mention the passengers? We did not hear my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) say much about them. It is almost as if they are a pain in the neck for wanting to travel. I happen to regard leisure travel as a good thing—rather liberating, in fact. May I also say—I did not hear my hon. Friend say this—well done to the Government? The Minister might be shocked by that remark, given my track record on aviation.

The South East Airports Taskforce has effectively sweated our assets in the south-east, increasing throughput at all major airports. Like the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), I speak as a northern MP. Most of my constituents and businesses stopped using Heathrow as a hub long ago, which is one reason why Heathrow is already in decline. For the north of England, the hub is Amsterdam or Paris, which is a major national problem.

I congratulate the Government on their recognition, earlier this year, that we need a hub airport in the UK, and that we need only one hub airport. If I had more than four minutes, I could give a lecture on the economics of hub dynamics. There is no such thing as a twin hub; it is a contradiction in terms. I could tear out my hair in frustration every time I see that idea printed, or hear it being discussed. If we tried to make Heathrow and Gatwick a joint hub airport, all we would do is guarantee their obsolescence within a decade and the downgrading of the UK. It would be an absolute national disaster.

We have heard a lot about China. Some people say mainland China, while others say China, which allows us to accommodate Hong Kong into our calculations. Let me talk specifically about Wuhan, which has been of interest to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Air France has just launched a service to Wuhan to facilitate PSA Peugeot Citroën’s joint venture with Dongfeng Motor Corporation. Despite labouring under the heavy burden of the treaty of Rome, France has somehow managed to put its economic interests ahead of the interests of Brussels. How it managed it I would love to know, because we could then replicate it here. Clearly, it has put economic interests ahead of narrow, petty interests.

I am fascinated to note that COMAC—the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, a new Chinese aircraft manufacturer—is basing itself in Europe not in London but in Paris. I wonder why that is. Could it be because France has better links to China? Could it be because France is where China is getting inward investment from? Surely not.

If I had had more time this morning, I would also have mentioned air passenger duty. I realise that it is a controversial issue, but I make this plea: will the Department for Transport try to encourage the Treasury to conduct an independent economic assessment, bringing in all relevant factors, of the overall cost of APD to the UK economy? If I had more time, I would go on to talk about Chinese tourism. I know that it has been the subject of what might be called civil war in higher echelons in the Government, but it crystallises the problem that we face in this country. The problem is not that we have APD per se; it is the scale of our APD, compared to that charged by our competitors, that is a real problem.

We have heard lots of discussion about south-east airport capacity and about where airports should or should not be sited. We have also heard mention of New York, which has found what I would describe as a “string of pearls” solution—a number of sizeable airports, all of which act as international gateways, but none of which actually act as hubs. There is a perfectly logical and coherent argument to be put forward to say that that is what the UK might need. I would disagree with that argument, but it would be a rational argument to make.

Interestingly, in the Mayor of London’s submission, ahead of this debate, I could find no mention of Boris island. Can the Minister confirm that that option has been officially removed from the table? I looked very carefully; perhaps it was my eyesight, but I just could not see it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

If the hon. Gentleman’s proposal is that one should not be able to speak to any organisation that gives money to one’s party, it will certainly free up a lot of time in the Labour party’s diary. Labour Members could cut out all those union meetings. The bottom line is that this Government and my predecessor and I have always approached all our meetings with absolute propriety, and that is the case on this matter, too.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

T4. The Minister will be aware from her answers to my written parliamentary questions that the Labour party spent no money and completed no track work for the northern hub during its time in government. I am sure that the House welcomes the Ordsall Chord as the down payment on the northern hub, but can she assist those in the Chamber who might be frustrated by the lack of progress on how the new infrastructure projects, such as electrification, impact on the delivery of the northern hub?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

It is right that the Government are making considerable progress on the northern hub, in contrast to our predecessors—not just the Ordsall Chord but north trans-Pennine electrification, improving the Hope Valley line and other improvements that will benefit Manchester, Sheffield, Bolton, Preston, Rochdale, Halifax and Bradford. I acknowledge that there is more to do, and the remaining elements of the northern hub will be carefully and seriously considered when we make our decisions on the next high-level output specification railway control period.