Oral Answers to Questions

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

1. What assessment she has made of recent trends in the level of bus fares in England; and if she will make a statement.

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

As I set out in the recent paper “Green Light for Better Buses”, bus fares outside London fell by 4% in real terms between March 2009 and March 2011—the most recent figures available. Bus fares are set by local bus companies or in some cases by local councils, so they vary across the country.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

In my constituency, bus fares have jumped by a minimum of 10p since the Government subsidy cut. A basic return journey from Saltburn to Guisborough is now £5.10 for an 8-mile journey. Will the Minister explain why on ConservativeHome this week, a Lib Dem special adviser argued for means-testing free bus passes, as well increasing the age at which a pensioner would receive that bus pass? Are we to take it that that is now Government policy?

[Norman Baker]

I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. That is not Government policy and it is not Lib Dem policy either. I am sorry that he seeks to make a political point about something as serious as bus fares. I hope he will take some comfort from the answer I gave, which was that bus fares have fallen in real terms by 4%—unlike under the previous Government, when between 1997 and 2009, bus fares increased by 24%.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that in addition to the free off-peak bus pass, Milton Keynes council has introduced a discounted peak bus fare for pensioners?

[Norman Baker]

I was not aware of that development, but I am interested to hear of it. It is becoming clear that under the new localism and devolution proposals advanced by the Government, different approaches are being adopted by local government. Some councils are responding sensibly and creatively to their new freedoms, while others are responding less well.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Inside London, bus fares have gone up under Boris Johnson. This is a tax on people’s jobs, as constituents like mine who have to travel long distances to work now have to face this additional daily cost. Ken Livingstone, the Labour candidate for the mayoral elections, has identified a recurring £330 million sum in Transport for London’s budget; should that not go back to those hard-working people through a reduction in their daily bus fares?

[Norman Baker]

These matters are devolved in London. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not get involved in some sort of beauty contest between Boris and Ken.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

2. What steps she is taking to encourage local authorities to improve local bus provision and services.

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

Bus services are an important part of our plans to help create growth and cut carbon, and they provide a lifeline to essential services for many people. The recent paper, “Green Light for Better Buses” sets out a comprehensive and balanced set of measures to help local authorities play their part in providing better, greener and more innovative bus services—new funding, better regulations, revised guidance and reformed subsidy arrangements. These proposals have been carefully formulated to attract more people on to buses, to ensure better value for the taxpayer and to give local transport authorities more influence over their local bus networks.

[Gavin Williamson]

South Staffordshire district council and Staffordshire county council are shortly to launch South Staffordshire Connect, which will provide local transport for people to get to bus routes in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is the type of initiative that we need to promote right across the country?

[Norman Baker]

I do agree. That is the sort of initiative that I am pleased to see some councils adopting, given the freedom that the Government are providing. Buses are a lifeline for people who do not have access to a car. I would be delighted to help my hon. Friend launch this scheme on 13 June.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

One of the biggest problems with the bus cuts is their impact on young people. This week, I received an e-mail from a young constituent saying that back in 2010, his bus fare to school was £7.50, but it has now become, in his words, “a huge £12”. Cuts to local authorities and bus grants are having a disproportionate effect on young people, so what are the Government doing to help young people by ensuring that they have access to affordable transport?

[Norman Baker]

I accept that there is an issue for young people, which is why I have taken steps to ensure that young people came along to talk to the operators and local authorities at the bus forum I hold on a six-monthly basis. It is also why I discussed the matter with the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which is now taking steps to try to get a better deal for young people. I have had discussions with the confederation about that very matter.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Minister will be aware of a recent report from scientists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which estimated that combustion exhausts cause 5,000 premature deaths in the UK each year. What steps is he taking to make sure that local bus provision is with more efficient buses, and that old buses are retrofitted to improve air quality standards?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to say that we have recently announced the winners of the third round of the green bus fund. Because of our prudent financial management as a Department, we were able to increase it from £20 million to £31 million. We have also provided money to retrofit buses in London to deal with the air pollution problem there. That is a demonstration of the fact that we are committed to bus travel—both to help create growth and to cut carbon.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The Minister’s new funding pots are like an attempt to use sticking plasters to cover a gaping wound—the wound inflicted by his decision to cut support for buses by half a billion pounds, which has resulted in not improved but disappearing services. “The picture is bleak.” Those are not my words, but the words of the boss of Arriva. Page after page reveals the effect of the Government’s cuts: “frequency reduced”, “evening and Sunday service withdrawn”, “cancelled owing to lack of funding”. Why does the Minister not admit that his policies have been a disaster for bus users?

[Norman Baker]

I will not admit it because it is entirely untrue. In fact, those policies have been a success. Recent figures from local authorities show that the average bus mileage is relatively unchanged, which suggests that there have not been the cuts that the Opposition are so keen to talk up. The industry itself has congratulated the Government on their new bus policy, as, indeed, have local authorities. Perhaps the hon. Lady should pay more attention to what the industry and users say, which, by and large, is supportive of what the Government are doing.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

According to the Department’s own figures, traffic volumes will increase by 40% by 2035. Is not the simple, plain fact of the matter that unless we ensure that more people travel on buses, the country will be gridlocked?

[Norman Baker]

It is true that we must have a balanced transport policy, and part of that involves maximising the use of public transport. That is why we have invested more in rail travel than any Government since Victorian times, and why we are now investing massively in buses as well. For instance, £70 million has been invested in better bus areas, £41 million in the green bus fund, £560 million in the local sustainable transport fund, £20 million in community bus services, and £15 million in smart ticketing technology. If I go on much longer, Mr Speaker, you will tell me to curtail my remarks.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

3. If she will ensure that her response to the Competition Commission's recommendations on the market for local buses is published by May 2012.

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

You wait ages for a question on buses, and then three come along at the same time.

The Government’s response to the recommendations from the Competition Commission’s report on the supply of local bus services in the UK—excluding Northern Ireland and London—was published on 26 March.

[Natascha Engel]

I must explain that I tabled my question three days before the Minister responded to the report.

I am mainly interested in rural bus services. As the Minister knows, there are bus wars on the lucrative routes between towns, and greatly reduced or no services in the more isolated rural communities where elderly and young people depend on buses. What is he doing to ensure that services are more balanced in rural constituencies such as mine—and, when he talks to the commission, will he refer it to the Plain English Campaign, which would help the average bus user to understand what is in its excellent report?

[Norman Baker]

There were a lot of questions there.

I entirely accept that buses provide a lifeline for people in rural areas. That is why we intend to devolve funding for the bus service operators grant to local authorities for tendered services, which will give them more control over those services, and why we have taken steps to fund community transport with two tranches of £10 million to help rural areas. Following the commission’s recommendations, we are taking steps to deal with bus wars by ensuring that there is a code of conduct for operators, enforced by the traffic commissioner.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The commission’s report highlights various ways in which local bus markets are not working well enough throughout the United Kingdom and should be improved, but bus operators must be given enough time to prepare for the necessary changes. May I encourage my hon. Friend not to make the same mistake as the Scottish National party Government in Scotland, who have given operators just three months in which to prepare for major structural changes in funding and a 17.5% cut in the bus service operators grant? That is causing chaos in bus services in East Dunbartonshire and elsewhere.

[Norman Baker]

The industry tells me that it is very concerned about what is happening in Scotland and Wales. It is concerned about the short notice given by the Scottish Government, and about the even shorter notice given by the Welsh Assembly Government. We, on the other hand, gave 18 months’ notice of changes in the bus service operators grant. Representatives of the industry said at the time that, in view of the notice given and the type of BSOG changes involved, they expected to be able to deal with those changes without affecting services markedly.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Statements made by the hon. Gentleman before he was a Minister suggest that he must have been constrained in his enthusiasm for quality contracts by his Conservative colleagues in Government. If he cannot help local authorities to pursue such contracts, will he consider introducing a new bus regulator to deal with market failure—an Ofbus?

[Norman Baker]

The option for councils to pursue quality contracts remains on the statute book, although I think that any pragmatic council would choose to try to deal with bus companies in a collaborative way before reaching for the nuclear option. Some of the problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman will be dealt with by our responses to the Competition Commission’s recommendations, which pick up some of the unsatisfactory behaviour of bus companies.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to reduce congestion caused by roadworks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

9. What discussions her Department has had with local authorities on the devolution of funding for major local transport schemes.

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

My Department has held discussions with a number of local authorities before and during the consultation period on the devolution of funding for local major transport schemes. The formal consultation exercise closed on 2 April and we are now reviewing the responses. We will publish our firm proposals later in the year.

[Brandon Lewis]

Does the Minister agree that devolving funding for major local transport schemes, such as improvements to the A47 in Norfolk, will give local communities more say on what they need, particularly by using local enterprise partnerships and bringing together businesses and local authorities with a clear understanding and focus on what is needed to achieve economic growth from infrastructure investment?

[Norman Baker]

Yes, we agree that it is a good idea that local communities have more say in such matters, as my hon. Friend says. I am happy to say that my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), will shortly invite him, other local MPs and interested parties to discuss relative priorities for the A47.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Northumberland county council is again considering the reopening of the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne rail passenger link, which is essential for economic recovery and growth in south-east Northumberland. Will the Minister agree to meet me and other interested parties to discuss how we make sure that this necessity becomes a reality?

[Norman Baker]

We have the biggest rail investment programme since Victorian times, but we are always looking for schemes that are sensible and help local economies. I or the Minister of State will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

T2. I apologise for raising again the issue that I raised last month without getting an answer. Two years ago the Government inherited an in-principle agreement from the previous Government for the tram train pilot scheme in Sheffield. The scheme is not about rolling out multi-billion pound expansion across the country at this stage. A simple pilot could determine whether what works in other countries works here. When will we have a starting date?

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

We are very supportive of the concept of a tram train pilot, and I am in regular discussions with officials in the Department, Network Rail and colleagues elsewhere in Government such as the Treasury. We have to get this right because it is an important project. We have to get the specification right to ensure that it works. We inherited a position where not much work had been done, and we had to start from a very low base, but we are making progress and I hope to make a further statement shortly.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

T6. Officials in the Department are considering the Greater Bristol metro rail campaign’s four-track bid for high-level operating strategy funds. Does the Minister agree that, if successful, the four-track system at Filton bank would unlock an essential local railway line for more regular local trains serving popular residential and business locations?

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

T3. Will the local transport Minister give us an assurance today that, despite Government Members’ statements, there will be no planned changes to the concessionary fares scheme?

[Norman Baker]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has kicked me upstairs to the House of Lords, but I will try to give him an answer. There are no planned changes to the concessionary fares regime. It is in place and will be in place for the rest of this Parliament, and we are determined to ensure that pensioners benefit entirely from the arrangement.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

T7. Last summer, Network Rail closed the barrow crossing at Downham Market station and said it would consult local residents and councillors about the new crossing. A few weeks ago, I heard that a new crossing is to be built by July this year with no consultation with local councillors and residents. Will the Secretary of State look into this and secure a meeting with David Higgins for me and local councillors so that Network Rail can be held to account?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

T9. I am all for improvements in public transport, but the tram works in Broxtowe are causing widespread disruption to residents, and last weekend the Wilkinson store in Beeston closed, with no alternative premises. Does the Minister agree that when deciding routes, wherever they are in the country, it is imperative to work with local people and local businesses?

[Norman Baker]

I agree with that general proposition and am aware of my hon. Friend’s concern about the extension to the Nottingham tram route. Ultimately, especially these days, when we are looking to devolve more decision making to local authorities, it is for them to decide the best way forward, and I am sorry that she feels that the local authority has not taken account of all shades of opinion.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

T8. Do Ministers accept that when railway stations are left without staff, the travelling public, particularly women, feel insecure using them? Will they give an absolute guarantee that staff will not be taken out of stations when that would put the public at any kind of risk?

Railway Stations

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

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

It is nice to see you in the Chair, Mr Hood. I remember that in one of my first outings in this place, you were chairing a deeply worthy Committee on some European legislation, of which I was a member back in 1997. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) on securing this debate on an important issue for many passengers across the network. Nine Members have already contributed to this half-hour debate, which shows the enthusiasm and interest in this subject felt by Members across the House.

The Government understand that the quality of stations is important for passengers, and we are committed to facilitating investment in station improvements through reforms to how the railways are run. We are granting longer rail franchises in order to give train operators the incentive to invest in the improvements that passengers want, including better stations.

To pick up one of my hon. Friend’s questions and the repairing leases to which he referred, we are committed to giving train operators full responsibility for the management and operation of many stations, and we are starting that process now in stations covered by the shorter Greater Anglia franchise, and the West Coast Railways franchise—my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) will be particularly interested in that.

The comprehensive spending review secured funding for a range of major station improvements to be completed over the next few years, including at Reading, Birmingham New Street, Blackfriars and London Bridge. We are also continuing to fund other improvements through the national stations improvement programme, the Access for All programme, and the station commercial project facility. Further funding for station improvements for 2014-19 will be considered as part of the high-level output specification process, with an announcement about further investment expected in the summer.

Over the past two years we have seen record levels of investment in the rail industry; this is the biggest programme of investment since Victorian times, and it is set against the backdrop of a difficult economic situation, both for public finances and in the country more generally. As a rail enthusiast from the Lib-Dem Benches, I believe that this is the most pro-rail Government that this country has seen for decades.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage mentioned rail fares, and I hope he has noticed that the coalition Government have decided to retain the previous Government’s arrangement of RPI plus 1% this year, in recognition of the challenges that we face. A major programme of investment is taking place on the railways and it must be paid for. Part of the Government’s challenge is to drive down the cost of the railways to ensure that the public and the taxpayer get best value for money from investments across the network.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Baker]

I would like to make some progress and address the points raised by my hon. Friend, but if there is time at the end of the debate, I will give way to the hon. Lady. As my hon. Friend mentioned, Stevenage has already benefited from the national stations improvement programme, and almost £100,000 has been spent on new waiting shelters, seating and station signage. A further £150,000 is due to be spent on a full refurbishment of the concourse area, with work expected to commence later this year. Although Stevenage is already deemed to be accessible, as my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, we are ploughing in money from the Access for All programme to convert two of the goods lifts to passenger lifts, at a cost of £578,000. In addition, Access for All money has already been used to fund the installation of ticket office induction loops, a low-level, split-level ticket office counter, handrails to existing staircases and compliant “Meeting Point” signage.

Therefore, to pick up my hon. Friend’s point, I would not necessarily agree that the current system does not work. What I have outlined demonstrates that it does work. However, I would agree that transferring more responsibility to train companies is likely to improve matters even further. Network Rail, of course, has responsibility for some of the major stations in our country. It has done a fantastic job at King’s Cross and at St Pancras with Eurostar. We are now seeing the belief in railways restated. For a long time, stations were regarded as something to be embarrassed about by the railway industry. That was the case back in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s. Now, there is a new confidence about the railways. The way King’s Cross has been re-engineered demonstrates that. However, it is right that we should have that benefit translated across the network and not simply at the big stations. My hon. Friend is right to make that point.

It is planned to spend £100,000 of money from the national stations improvement programme to improve the waiting shelters at Knebworth station. My hon. Friend will know that some Access for All money was used to fund smaller-scale improvements to the staircase and signage there as well.

The national stations improvement programme is a good example of the members of the industry working together to deliver benefits for passengers. It is the case that £150 million has been made available over five years to improve passenger facilities at busy stations in England and Wales that the public have identified as not up to scratch. The choice of schemes has been managed at local level, with Network Rail and train companies working together to agree the most efficient way to deliver the upgrades. About £101 million of that money has been spent so far on improving stations, and about 100 projects have been completed so far, benefiting more than 240 stations. In addition, many schemes have attracted third-party contributions, whether from local authorities or other funding bodies. The £26 million of additional money has allowed us to provide even more improvements.

NSIP is also helping to fund an information zoning initiative at stations in England. The aim is to make it easier for passengers to find appropriate information in different parts of stations, including information about local transport facilities for onward travel. We regard the end-to-end journey concept as very important if we are to make rail travel work as well as it can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle will know, I hope, that £450,000 of NSIP money has been spent on improving Carlisle station, including renovating the waiting room on the London-bound platform, refurbishing the existing waiting room and constructing a new seated waiting area and gateway to the historic Settle-Carlisle line. As I also hope he knows, we plan to spend a further £1.8 million of Access for All money on providing a new accessible route, with two new lifts, at Carlisle station. Works are currently scheduled to start on site in October 2013.

I should say that the Access for All programme is delivered with DFT money. Therefore, that is not in the gift of Network Rail. The coalition Government have made it a priority to try to improve disabled access at stations. That is why we have continued with that programme.

[John Stevenson]

On that point, does the Minister agree that it is important that we encourage the franchisees to invest their money in the stations, in addition to the taxpayers’ money?

[Norman Baker]

Yes, indeed. We agree with that point, and in relation to all the transport funding that we have identified, whether for railways or elsewhere, we have tried as far as possible to drive down costs and get better value for money, but also to unlock match funding, whether from local authorities, transport operators or wherever. We have been successful at doing that. If people look at the development pool scheme and local authority schemes, for example, they will see that we have managed to proceed with a huge number of those that would not otherwise have gone ahead, because of those approaches, which have driven down costs and got extra funding from elsewhere. We entirely endorse that approach.

[Lilian Greenwood]

How can the Minister claim that this is a rail-friendly Government when fares are due to rise by RPI plus 3% for the rest of this Parliament and 675 category E stations face losing all their staff?

[Norman Baker]

I am sorry that I let the hon. Lady intervene to disrupt what was a unified approach to improving the railways. Nevertheless, let me say for the record that the RPI plus 1% arrangement, which is the one in place this year, was introduced by the previous Labour Government for about 10 years. Indeed, they reversed RPI minus 1% and made it RPI plus 1%, so Labour Members are probably not in a good position to argue about rail fares. In addition, I will say that no decisions have been taken on closing ticket offices. There is a recommendation in the McNulty report about ticket offices. No decisions have been taken on that yet. It does not help the railway to talk down the railway and make up scare stories about ticket offices in front of constituents.

With regard to the Access for All programme, we are taking steps, as I mentioned, to allow better access for disabled people. The £370 million programme is designed to provide an obstacle-free route at 153 priority stations by 2015, and more than 70 of those projects have already been completed. To get the best value for money, that funding has been targeted at the busiest stations, although about one third of the stations were selected to ensure a fair geographical spread across the country.

To ensure that local or less busy stations are not forgotten—category 3, 4 or 5 stations are very important—we also offer train operators an annual fund to deliver smaller-scale access improvements. Since 2006, the Department for Transport has offered more than £25 million towards a total investment of more than £70 million for smaller-scale, locally focused access improvements at stations. More than 1,000 stations have benefited so far from a variety of new facilities, including accessible toilets, customer information systems, new ticket hall features and better signage and lighting. In the past year alone under this Government, 74 projects delivered improvements at 136 different stations.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the Minister, with his officials, look at the proposals for relocating Oxford station that have been put forward by the Oxford Civic Society?

[Norman Baker]

I am certainly happy to look at those. We are increasingly devolving responsibility for transport matters down to local council level, and it is right to do that. People in Oxford are in a better position to know what is best for them than people in Westminster are, if I may say so. I would be interested in those proposals. There are, I think—I am speaking from memory—proposals to improve the situation at Oxford anyway by getting more trains running through it, and of course the electrification programme that the Government announced will hugely benefit Oxford and points west. We therefore have to ensure that we do not now spend money that will be rendered useless by further changes subsequently. However, I will be interested in proposals for Oxford. It is a station that I know quite well, not least because my mother-in-law lives there—not at the station, but nearby. [Laughter.] She is not the station mistress.

There is also the station commercial project facility, to which I referred. Up to £100 million of Network Rail funding has been set aside for commercially focused projects at stations through the station commercial project facility. That programme has been successful and a third and final tranche of bids are currently being considered for the fund. So far, the scheme has awarded about £82 million of funding to 38 individual schemes across the country, including improved car parking, better station retail and commercial facilities and new gate lines.

I should also mention perhaps the local sustainable transport fund, for which I am responsible. It is a brand-new fund that this Government created; £560 million is being distributed to improve local transport. That is an increase even above all the amalgamated pots of money that the previous Government had. It is an increase for local sustainable transport. Funding has been used across the country in certain locations where local councils have bid for it appropriately in order to improve rail facilities at local stations and, in at least one case, to reopen a station—at Stratford-on-Avon. That is another fund that is available for station improvements and it has been used for that purpose.

We are keen to improve cycle-rail integration—to improve cycle facilities at stations. That is important for the end-to-end journey. On 7 February, I announced £15 million of new funding for sustainable travel projects that will be hugely beneficial to communities and cyclists up and down England, helping to create jobs and reduce our carbon footprints while making cycling safer and more convenient.

As well as the £8 million for projects to enhance walking and cycling routes across England given to Sustrans, £7 million is being allocated through the cycle rail working group to improve integration between cycle and rail at stations. The position is that 30 cycle-rail schemes covering improvements at 141 stations will provide 7,500 new cycle spaces. Of that money, £145,000 is going to Letchworth, St Albans and Royston for almost 250 additional cycle spaces, and £500,000 is going towards a cycle hub at Cambridge with space for 3,000 bikes.

Network Rail has agreed to invest a further £7 million of the money that it has available in improving cycle facilities at stations, including safe routes and access. Part of that funding is being used to deliver innovative cycle hub schemes at Liverpool, Sheffield and York. The Department contributed £500,000 towards the first cycle hub, at Leeds, which incorporates secure cycle storage with cycle hire, retail and repair facilities. It is the first of its kind in the UK. In London, a hub at Waterloo will be completed before the Olympics, and Transport for London is working on plans for a similar scheme at London Victoria.

Train operating company accountability to passengers, which was the subject of the second question that my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage raised, is being considered by Ministers—notably, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, but also others—as part of the refranchising process. The discussions are ongoing, but the point that my hon. Friend made about ensuring that passengers are happy is well taken; it has been taken on board. It is something that we have also pursued in relation to community lines through the identification of community lines up and down the country.

Bus Policy, Regulation and Funding

Norman Baker Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing a series of reforms which I propose to make to improve the system of local bus subsidy and regulation in England. These are set out in the paper “Green Light for Better Buses”, copies of which I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

I am also pleased to announce today an extra £15 million in funding for increasing the uptake of smart ticketing equipment, particularly among small and medium-sized companies. This makes a total bus funding package of £115 million, if taken alongside last week’s announcement, Official Report, 23 March 2012, column 81WS, on Better Bus Areas (£70 million) and the Green Bus Fund (£31 million). This considerable sum underlines the coalition Government’s firm commitment to investment in transport infrastructure, tackling congestion, and decarbonising transport.

Over the past year, I have been discussing with bus companies, local transport authorities and passenger groups the need for reforms to the bus services operators grant which the Government pay to every company that runs local bus services. The system of subsidy we have inherited is poorly targeted. It does not distinguish between profitable services and those that require local council support. It does not take into account the differing public transport needs of urban and rural areas. And it does little to incentivise fuel-efficient buses.

The proposals I am announcing today have been carefully formulated to attract more people onto buses, to ensure better value for the taxpayer and to give local transport authorities more influence over their local bus networks. They also signal a move to break the link between fuel use and subsidy.

The Government have also responded today to the recommendations from the Competition Commission’s report into the supply of local bus services in the UK (excluding Northern Ireland and London). We have committed to introduce regulatory changes that will remove the barriers facing bus companies that attempt to engage in competition on new bus routes and in new bus markets.

We will also support and guide urban areas in their efforts to introduce new reasonably priced tickets that can be used on any bus, not just on those of a single company. And we will help local councils in their procurement of tendered bus services.

Additional Funding for Buses

Norman Baker Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2012 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing the winning bidders for the Better Bus Area and Green Bus Fund competitions, which we launched before Christmas 2011.

Taken together, this significant investment will get more people on buses, and so aid the Department’s overarching objectives of helping to create growth and cut carbon.

The quality of the bids for the Better Bus Area Fund and Green Bus Fund have been excellent and I am pleased to report that because of the prudent financial management of the Department’s funds by the Secretary of State and her ministerial team, I have been able to increase the allocations previously announced, from £20 million to £31 million in respect of the Green Bus Fund, and from £50 million to £70 million in respect of the Better Bus Area Fund.

Projects under these two funds will help drive forward our bus travel in England, helping buy, amongst other things:

439 low-carbon buses to forge the future of the low-carbon economy (we expect the majority of these to be manufactured in the UK);

the development of hop-on hop-off multi-operator tickets that put spontaneity back into the hands of the passenger;

real time information for bus passengers and for bus operators to cut down waiting time and prevent buses bunching up. No more waiting for a bus and then three come along at once;

smarter traffic lights that recognise buses and give them priority with barely an impact on other traffic.

Twenty-four lead local transport authorities across England will benefit from the £70m Better Bus Area Fund, right across the country. Five local transport authorities and 26 bus companies have been awarded £31 million of Green Bus funding.

Together this package will encourage people onto the bus, cutting congestion, promoting a low-carbon transport infrastructure and encouraging growth.

Documents listing the successful bidders under each competition have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and are being published on the DFT website.

I will be in a position to make a further statement on bus subsidy reform in the near future.

Mobility Scooter Safety

Norman Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) for securing this debate on an important matter that is of increasing interest to many people—mobility vehicle safety. She referred to the ten-minute rule Bill proposed yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). She will have noticed that he was arguing that, because these vehicles are a lifeline for many people, we should deregulate to some degree to give them the mobility and independence that we would agree in principle they should have. She argues that they should be safe and that we should take steps to ensure that people are properly trained to use them; everyone would agree with that in principle as well. That is the nub of the problem: both perspectives are valid, but they point in different directions. The Department for Transport is trying to deal with that problem, which is quite complicated, but let me try to give the hon. Lady reassurance about the steps we are taking to try to resolve it.

Officially, the UK has more than 10 million disabled people and our population is increasingly ageing, so mobility vehicles will in future have an even more important role to play in enabling disabled people to live independent lives. It is part of our policy, as it was the previous Government’s, to seek to improve access and safety for all people, including disabled and older people, to help to enhance their quality of life. We consider the issue of mobility scooters in that context.

By the way, if the hon. Lady looks at my written ministerial statement of 1 March, she will see that I indicated our intention to replace the legal term “invalid carriage” as soon as possible. Unfortunately, it is in primary legislation, so we will need a slot to deal with it, but we fully accept that it is an inappropriate term in this day and age.

Our aim is to balance the mobility needs of disabled people with their safety and that of others. The previous Government consulted formally in 2010, and on 1 March this year I published the Government response to that consultation. Let me take first the safety of particular scooter models that are available to buy.

The position on design standards for mobility vehicles sold in the UK is that before a manufacturer can offer a vehicle for sale, it must meet EU manufacturing standards. To obtain that mark in the UK, a manufacturer must first submit a technical file relating to the product to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. On imports, there is nothing to stop someone buying a mobility scooter from another country over the internet without taking advice. If the vehicles do not conform to European standards, trading standards officers have the authority to seize them, but I cannot imagine that that happens very often in practice. I think that many trading standards officers, if they came across such a vehicle, would be very reluctant to seize someone’s lifeline—the vehicle necessary for them to get from A to B.

There are challenges, but the straight answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that someone can bypass the regulations if they buy on the internet, and trading standards officers have the power to deal with that when they come across such vehicles. Part of the problem is that vehicles are not always bought from reputable dealers. They are often bought on the internet, or second hand, or by some other means where the control mechanism is not in place.

[Alison Seabeck]

There is a case for information to be passed on by GPs—who may recommend a vehicle to a patient—pensioners’ groups and Age Concern to ensure that proper advice is going out to those who are considering buying mobility scooters. It is about information getting to people before they take the step of going to the internet or somewhere else to buy such a vehicle.

[Norman Baker]

I agree that information is important, and I will come on to what we are doing, but it may not be a complete panacea.

One of the main concerns about the carriage of scooters on public transport is whether or not they can be safely secured. The design of the scooter may mean that it does not have appropriate anchorage points, so there is a danger that it may tip up and cause injury. There are international standards to which manufacturers can refer to determine how to secure wheelchairs and their occupants when travelling in a vehicle, but there are no such standards for mobility scooters. That is one of the issues that I want operators and manufacturers to consider when it comes to improving the design of scooters for carriage on public transport.

There are also concerns among public transport operators that people are being sold scooters that are inappropriate for public transport and yet they have an expectation that they can use them. There is a space designed for wheelchairs and some scooters will necessarily be designed at a level above that, so transport operators can legitimately say, “This vehicle is unsuitable for carriage on light rail, tram, train or bus.” I want to ensure that we get some consistency of approach from operators and some clarity for members of the public as to which vehicles can and cannot be carried on public transport. If we end up with vehicles that are heavier and bigger and do what my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase argued for yesterday, it will benefit users when they take them on the road, but not when they want to take them on public transport. These are very complicated issues to get right.

As the hon. Lady said, there are also safety concerns about the use of mobility scooters. There are reports of people being injured by them when they are used on pavements, and of users being hit by other vehicles when they are used on the road. Unfortunately, no accident statistics are available to demonstrate that the use of mobility vehicles represents a major public safety problem—the evidence is all anecdotal. However, I have raised the matter, and from 2013 the police will be able to record—I hope they do—whether a mobility vehicle has been involved in an accident on the public highway. Thus we will begin to gather more reputable and objective information than we have at the moment.

I recognise the concerns, however, which is why, in my written ministerial statement of 1 March, I indicated that I do not intend to change the maximum permitted speed of mobility vehicles. I agree that 8 mph does not sound very fast, but it certainly is fast on one of those scooters. I tried one out myself when I went to a scooter place in Rochford, and I was taken aback by its acceleration and speed—and I am someone who has been driving on the roads for some 30 years. I was also rather taken aback by the instability of the vehicle. I believe it is absolutely right not to increase their maximum speed. It is possible that some vehicles might be bought on the internet, without the controls of reputable dealers in this country, but the concerns about the reduced stability of vehicles at speed, and the more serious consequences of any collision if higher speeds are permitted, are such that I will not be increasing the speed at which those vehicles are permitted to travel.

I have also announced that there will be no change to the minimum age for using a class 3 vehicle. There would be safety concerns if a child under 14 years were permitted to take a vehicle on to the public carriageway. However, I have to balance that judgment against the legitimate health and independence benefits that such a vehicle can bring—these are difficult judgments to make—so I have decided to permit class 2 powered vehicles, which are restricted to the pavement, to weigh up to 150 kg unladen in order to help children with more acute clinical needs to have more equipment on their chairs. For reasons of public safety, I have also decided that the use of two-person mobility scooters should not be allowed on the public highway. Two-person scooters are likely to be heavier than the maximum legal weight limit—150 kg for class 3 vehicles. Some two-person models also exceed the maximum speed limit of 8 mph.

The consultation in 2010 considered whether the law is adequate or whether there should be a new means of tackling misuse of these vehicles. I have concluded that no new legislation is required—not even to make these vehicles more conspicuous—but I have asked officials to examine how current legislation could be better enforced. That does not mean that we are looking to prosecute more mobility scooter users. The laws relating to mobility vehicles are not the same as road traffic laws that apply to motor vehicles, but there is legislation dating from Victorian times that can be used to control reckless driving and we want this to be more widely publicised and better understood.

Issues remain around insurance, eyesight tests and training, which brings us on to the question of what we can do to help people who use these vehicles. There is currently no mandatory requirement to insure vehicles, although we strongly recommend that individuals take out insurance voluntarily, or to have eyesight tests, although my Department has for many years advised that people should be able to read a number plate at a distance of 40 feet. I want to look at how the test can be made more practical so that there is much greater take up. I have concluded that mandatory eyesight testing is not necessary for users of class 2 scooters, which are restricted to the pavement, but I am clear that the position in respect of class 3 scooters requires further consideration. I am talking about the vehicles that can travel at 8 mph as opposed to 4 mph and that can be allowed on the highway.

The consultation responses in 2010 emphasised real concerns that mandatory insurance and training could unfairly penalise a particularly vulnerable section of the community. However, we want to find ways to achieve greater take-up of insurance and training, which is why I have been talking to key stakeholders. I held a meeting only yesterday with the trade association, vehicle training organisations, the insurance industry and disabled charities and organisations to review the available evidence and options relating to insurance and the use of specialist training providers. My written statement on 1 March deliberately left open the questions of eyesight testing, insurance and training because I wanted to take advice from everyone concerned, including users, disabled charities and road safety people to try to get to a position that everybody finds comfortable. It was a useful meeting, and my officials have taken away the comments and will use them to take the next stage forward. As the hon. Lady rightly said, it would be helpful if more training was available.

Norfolk constabulary was represented at the meeting yesterday. The hon. Lady mentioned that county, where some really good work has been done—indeed I was in Norwich before coming to this debate. We can learn from Norfolk’s example. The trouble with Norfolk is not that it is not doing the right thing—it is—but that its practice is not emulated everywhere. We need to find a way of rolling that practice out right across England and Wales—I hope that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will forgive me, but England and Wales are my responsibility—to ensure that that training is available more widely. That is one of the issues that we are trying to address sensibly for the future.

There are clearly issues about basic training and about the safety of these vehicles, particularly ones that have slipped in under the net and do not meet European Union standards. I am not able to answer the hon. Lady’s question about whether models have been stopped from being brought into the country, but I will raise the matter with MHRA. Cross-departmental work on the issue is under way. We have been in touch with the Department of Health, and if she was in the Chamber yesterday, she will have seen that the Minister for Disabled People from the Department for Work and Pensions was with me on the Treasury Bench to listen to the ten-minute rule Bill. We are trying to work collaboratively across Departments.

[Alison Seabeck]

I acknowledge the work that is going on with all the groups that the Minister has mentioned, but use of these vehicles by people who are neither elderly nor disabled is increasing, and that is very worrying.

[Norman Baker]

That is a relatively new issue. I have not yet come across anyone going to play golf in a mobility scooter, although I have no doubt that it does happen; nor have I come across scooters that play “Land of Hope and Glory”. I am sure that whoever composed that particular tune did not have reversible scooters in mind. None the less, I take the hon. Lady’s word for it. If these scooters are now being used by groups for whom they are not designed, particularly if people are using them to avoid the requirements of road traffic legislation for other vehicles, that is a serious matter that I will take away to consider.

I hope that I have managed to convince the hon. Lady of two things: first, that we are seized of the need to make progress and we are trying to do so in a constructive and consensual way; and secondly, that this is not an easy issue. There are conflicting demands on us from different directions. Coming up with an answer that meets everybody’s aspirations will be difficult, but we will try.

Question put and agreed to.

Street Works Overrun Penalties

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Written Statements

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

Today I am announcing the coalition Government’s plans to increase the penalties that local authorities can impose where street works by utility companies and others overrun their agreed duration. This follows a consultation launched by the previous Government.

The maximum charge for the busiest streets will rise from £2,500 a day to £5,000 a day for the first three days of overrun and £10,000 a day thereafter, rather than the £25,000 per day planned by the previous administration. I consider that the new charge level will result in a decrease in the number of works which overrun their agreed period, and better reflect the congestion costs overrunning works impose on society.

I also intend to change the regulations such that works planned to be only of a short duration attract the same overrun charge as those of longer planned durations, in recognition of the fact that all these works cause equivalent disruption to the road user.

These changes are in line with the Government’s commitment to ensure regulatory proposals are proportionate, our desire to see congestion caused by roadworks reduce, and for utilities and others who work in our streets to be held accountable for that congestion.

The full consultation response can be found on the Department’s website.

To take forward these proposals, I will lay regulations before this House in the summer. It is my intention that the changes come into force in October of this year.

Rossendale Rail Link

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) on securing the debate, which is of considerable importance to his constituents who live in Rossendale. I know that he has been a strong advocate for his area on the issue for some time.

The coalition Government appreciate the economic benefits that investment in transport can bring to an area. Our priorities in the Department for Transport are economic growth and cutting carbon, so we welcome any proposals that address those issues. The need to encourage economic growth is particularly important in the north-west and, as my hon. Friend recognises, we have already taken steps to address that by announcing a series of rail investments.

My hon. Friend referred to High Speed 2 and the Todmorden curve. He might also have mentioned the electrification of the north-west triangle of lines between Manchester and Liverpool, Liverpool and Wigan, and Manchester and Blackpool; the go-ahead for the Ordsall curve, the first stage of the northern hub, which will help significantly to reduce journey times between Liverpool, Yorkshire and the north-east; the approval, subject to confirmation of the business case, of the electrification of the north trans-Pennine route between Manchester and York via Leeds; the approval of the Metrolink extensions in Manchester, which are being implemented by Transport for Greater Manchester; and our recent agreement with Northern Rail and First TransPennine Express for additional carriages to be provided in the north-west. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that in the short time we have been in government, we have already done a great deal to promote rail investment in the north-west, not least for the reasons he has cited.

We recognise that wage rates in Rossendale are estimated to be 10% lower than in Manchester, the north-west and the UK as a whole—an estimate to which my hon. Friend drew attention. Transport has a key role to play in improving the economic well-being of an area. We are therefore happy to support the efforts being made by local transport authorities to improve transport in their areas so as to improve access to jobs and attract new employment. In particular, I agree with my hon. Friend on his point about young people having access to major conurbations for jobs and employment, and for social reasons, too.

Rossendale was particularly unfortunate to have its railway line closed as a result of the Beeching cuts of the 1960s and 1970s. Dr Beeching was so keen on cuts that he even cut his own line in Sussex. Lines on either side of Rossendale—between Bolton and Blackburn, and between Rochdale and Todmorden—are thriving. They are being used by greater numbers of people travelling to work in Manchester, and that has led to longer trains being provided and requests for better off-peak frequencies.

The closure of the railway line was bad news for the area. However, had that not happened, we would not have witnessed the tremendous success of the heritage east Lancashire railway, to which my hon. Friend rightly paid tribute. It has brought hundreds of thousands of visitors to the area, as well as creating new jobs. It has given a tremendous boost to the local economy and put the area on the tourism map. I pay tribute to the many people involved in this and other heritage lines, not least the Bluebell railway in my constituency. Such lines have succeeded in making heritage railways one of Britain’s great success stories in tourism towns.

Despite that success, I appreciate that the lack of a regular rail service can put an area at a disadvantage, particularly as regards providing access to a major employment centre such as Manchester. As a Transport Minister in the coalition Government, and also as a Liberal Democrat, I support fully the reopening of railway lines as a means of improving accessibility to places—subject, of course, to there being a satisfactory business case.

[Graham Jones]

Does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need for public transport investment? I caught the bus to Manchester and it took me two hours to get into the city centre. As the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) pointed out, the M66 is choked up.

[Norman Baker]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. I was about to refer to access to the A56, the M66, the M60 and the M62. They are used by express bus services, but they suffer from peak-period congestion—there is no getting away from that, and that has to form part of considerations—which makes commuting into Manchester by bus relatively unattractive. I understand why the local authority believes that the area is not benefitting from the growth in jobs and average wage rates experienced by other areas, including local areas.

The Department understands that local authorities and Transport for Greater Manchester are working together to see how their transport problems can be addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen referred to the 2008 Greater Manchester passenger transport executive study, which investigated the scope for using the east Lancashire railway to provide a commuter service from towns in the Rossendale valley to Manchester. The study looked at a number of options, including an extension of Metrolink and a new heavy rail service.

The estimated capital cost of adapting the heritage line to accommodate regular heavy rail services was estimated at between £22 million and £30 million. The study was very sensitive to the requirements of the heritage railway and came up with a series of proposals that enabled both types of service to operate at different times of the day, and days of the week. Personally, I think that the proposal for joint working could be a strength rather than a weakness. It also calculated the operating and maintenance costs of the various service options, suggesting that they would be approximately £1.5 million to £2 million per year.

At the time, the Department suggested that the PTE and local authorities follow up the study with some demand forecasting work, so that an estimate of passenger income could be made and a business case calculated for the scheme. The Department understands that this work was carried out, but we have not seen the results. However, we understand from the local authorities that they were unhappy with the assumptions used to forecast future demand, which has led to the conclusion that the business case for this scheme is not strong. Since that work was done, the Department has produced a guidance note on demand forecasting. It is available on our website; my hon. Friend might like to draw that to the attention of the local authorities.

We are aware that the line was one of many that the Association of Train Operating Companies looked at in its “Connecting Communities” report. Its very high level piece of work suggested it might have a business case of 1.8 at best. That in itself might encourage the local authorities to look again at the scheme in greater depth, with the help and support of train operators.

As for the next steps, it seems crucial for the local authorities to get together and look again at forecasts of demand, and to confirm whether there is a business case. If there is a good business case for a rail scheme and that still appears to be the best way of meeting local transport needs, further development work will be necessary, especially given the necessity of linking the scheme with the heritage railway. The promoters will need to weigh up the costs and benefits, and estimate the need for long-term subsidy. Transport for Greater Manchester and the local authorities will have to make the difficult decision of how high a priority to give the scheme, given the number of competing priorities that we are aware of, both in Lancashire and in Greater Manchester.

The Government can help. In addition to the advice that we are prepared to offer any promoter of a rail scheme, we provide capital funds toward transport schemes. We are currently consulting on the funding process for the major local transport schemes, which will come into effect from April 2015. We have made it clear that local authorities and local enterprise partnerships can use that to fund rail schemes, as well as other public transport schemes and highway schemes. That gives local bodies genuine choice over the best way to meet their local transport needs. We are moving away from the idea that local authorities simply deal with roads, and we are giving them the opportunity to consider road and rail—what is best for their areas. As the scheme will address primarily local needs, this would not be a project that the rail industry would be looking to fund in a future control period such as, say, 2019 to 2026.

We will shortly consult on rail decentralisation, with a view to giving greater responsibility for specification of rail services to local authorities and PTEs. Transport for Greater Manchester appears to be very enthusiastic about taking on such responsibilities as part of a larger consortium. The local enthusiasm for transport is probably more advanced in the Manchester area than elsewhere in England—a good development from my hon. Friend’s point of view. A new service to Rossendale is just the sort of service that could be included in a network of services that could be devolved.

In conclusion, I encourage the local authorities and Transport for Greater Manchester to complete the demand forecasting work to establish whether there is a business case, and to continue to consider alternative ways of addressing the issues raised in the debate. Both Lancashire county council and Transport for Greater Manchester are experienced in considering such projects, but the Department is happy to provide advice and guidance if that is needed. I am happy to arrange a meeting with officials, local representatives and my hon. Friend, if that would be helpful in taking the matter forward.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on his succinct contribution, which demonstrates that it is possible to get a large number of points across eloquently within a short period of time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on moving the Second Reading of this private Bill and welcome the opportunity of this debate.

I want to make it clear from the start that the Government do not oppose the principle behind the Bill. However, we have some reservations about some of the powers set out in the Bill as currently drafted. Officials from the Department for Transport are currently in discussions with TfL on these provisions, and I look forward to a more detailed examination of them in Committee.

As the hon. Member for Harrow East set out, the Bill would confer a variety of powers on TfL and London local authorities, the promoters. For example, they could provide electric vehicle charging points and recover costs from developers for damage to highways following remedial works. The Government have already notified the promoters of some clauses that could be improved or altered by minor amendments, particularly those relating to the attaching of street furniture, such as lamps and traffic signs, to buildings and the terms of usage of electric vehicle charging points.

Pedicabs were discussed, and it might be useful for the House to know that I asked the Law Commission to carry out a review of the rather convoluted and confused legislation relating to taxis and private hire vehicles, which it has agreed to do. As part of that review, it will also consider the law in respect of pedicabs, so there will be national consideration of the matter.

[Mr Chope]

Can the Minister tell the House the approximate time scale within which he expects the Law Commission to report on that important subject?

[Norman Baker]

The Law Commission is currently holding an open consultation, to which the hon. Gentleman and others can doubtless contribute if they wish, and it will come forward with recommendations later in this Parliament on what in the way of legislation the Government should take forward.

We should also like to ensure that the financial and resource burdens that the new provisions might create for the justice system are properly assessed. The Government will in preparation for Committee seek to reach agreement on amendments with the Bill’s promoters.

[Philip Davies]

Will the Minister set out why the Government are so much in support of the Bill, given that they are keeping all their Members here late into the night unnecessarily in order to vote for it? If its provisions are so popular with the Government, why are they not bringing forward legislation to introduce those measures throughout the country?

[Norman Baker]

With respect, it is not the Government who are keeping Members here late this evening.

May I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East again for his introduction? As I have said, the Government have their reservations, which we will explain in more detail in Committee, but with that I welcome his bringing the Bill forward.

Mobility Scooters / Powered Wheelchairs

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Written Statements

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

In 2010, the Department for Transport undertook a consultation into possible reforms of the use on the highway of mobility scooters and powered wheelchairs (referred to in legislation as “invalid carriages”).

I am today publishing the Department’s response to the consultation. A summary of the results of the consultation is also attached to that document.

I have concluded that no changes should be made regarding the following issues, which formed part of the consultation:

speed limits and maximum permitted speeds;

the minimum age for using a class 3 vehicle; and

the law relating to the use of a mobility scooter by only one person.

I do not, at this stage, propose that there should be an alternative to the current arrangements for registering class 3 vehicles or any additional requirements for making vehicles conspicuous, such as adding reflective strips to vehicles or a requirement on users to wear high-visibility jackets. I have decided that the maximum unladen weight of class 2 powered wheelchairs should be increased to 150 kgs, but that the class 2 mobility scooter should stay at the current maximum unladen weight of 113.4 kgs.

I have also decided that the legal term “invalid carriage” should be replaced with a more suitable and contemporary term, and have asked officials to consider how this might be achieved, recognising that unfortunately, the term is set by primary legislation.

I indicated in parliamentary answers last autumn (26 October 2011, Official Report, column 249W and 27 October 2011, Official Report, column 284W) that I was considering the case for mandatory eyesight testing. I have concluded that this is not necessary for users of class 2 vehicles, but in response to points made by respondents to the consultation, I believe the position in respect of class 3 scooters requires further consideration. To that end, I intend to convene a meeting of interested parties to review the available evidence and options, including matters relating to insurance and the use of specialist training providers. I am conscious of the crucial role such vehicles play in some people’s lives and that will be an important factor in deciding what further actions, if any, to take.

From 2013, the police will be able to record whether a vehicle has been involved in an accident on the public highway, but I have also asked officials to examine how current legislation aimed at reducing accidents could be better enforced.

The Transport Select Committee invited the Department to look into the carriage of mobility scooters on public transport. The Confederation of Passenger Transport has produced a code of practice regarding carriage on buses, while train operators have their own individual arrangements. I have asked my Department to work with transport operators and the industry to develop a kite marking scheme for public transport, which would enable a disabled person to have more confidence that they can travel with their mobility scooter—this work is currently underway. I have also asked officials to work with the industry on suitable designs for public transport. I will report back on this work as soon as possible.

I am also publishing today improved guidance and information for mobility vehicle users.

Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Vehicles

Norman Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) for raising this important subject of taxi and private hire vehicle safety, and for securing the time to allow us to debate the issues. This debate comes at a time when there have been a number of very serious alleged assaults on and by taxi drivers, and that is a matter of great concern.

Licensing authorities will do their best, I am sure, but the unfortunate fact remains that taxis and private hire vehicles can never be perfectly safe. They are often hired from isolated places at night; drivers carry cash; and, self-evidently, taking a taxi or private hire vehicle generally involves getting into a car with a stranger. That combination of factors makes drivers and passengers particularly vulnerable to violence, and it is important that we take what steps we can to minimise the risks.

In looking at safety, we normally focus on the passenger’s perspective, but my hon. Friend quite rightly refers to the dangers that exist for drivers as well. A report from the Department in 2007 found that on average three drivers a year are killed unlawfully. Each crime is of course unacceptable, but it is worth putting into context the fact that journeys in taxis and private hire vehicles account for just over 1% of all journeys per person per year, and that is 700 million journeys or 3.5 billion miles per year. That, of course, is of no comfort to those who are subject to the unwarranted and unprovoked attacks to which my hon. Friend referred.

Let me look at how we might make the experience safer for the passenger and driver, starting with the passenger. First, local authorities, as licensing authorities, are obliged to ensure that only those who are “fit and proper”—the term in law—should be licensed as taxi or private hire vehicle drivers, and it falls to individual councils to ensure that that is the case.

The Criminal Records Bureau check is a central element of that assessment process. A number of organisations have raised with me their concerns that some taxi drivers have only a standard criminal record check because the law does not allow for all of them to have enhanced checks. Enhanced criminal record checks include any relevant local police information, in addition to a record of previous criminal convictions, cautions and warnings, but those checks have, in law, been restricted to drivers who work regularly with vulnerable adults or with children.

I agree that licensing authorities should be able to see enhanced criminal record checks in respect of all taxi and private hire vehicle driver licence applicants, regardless of the type of work that they intend to undertake once licensed, and I have been working closely with colleagues in the Home Office and, in particular, with my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities, who announced in January that all taxi and private hire vehicle drivers will be entitled to enhanced criminal record checks. The necessary legislative change has now been made by the Home Office, and today I can confirm that it will come into force on 26 March.

The Minister for Equalities also announced that licensing authorities will be entitled to check whether any applicant is barred from working with children or with vulnerable adults under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. That is a good example of the Government listening to the experts and acting accordingly. Licensing officers have told us that they need to be able to see enhanced criminal record checks in order to make a proper assessment of applicants’ suitability, and we are responding by providing them with the tools that they need to carry out that vital task.

There is also a growing need for information about licensed vehicles, a point that my hon. Friend helpfully made in his lucid comments. That information enables the public to verify immediately whether a given vehicle is licensed, and it helps with the “traceability” trail. There is a difficulty when it involves personal information relating to individuals, but that is a matter for local authorities to weigh up against their wider obligations and considerations, including, under the Data Protection Act 1998, the protection of personal information.

I am happy to say, however, that I am aware of Transport for London’s vehicle-checker facility, which enables the public to input a vehicle registration plate and discover whether the vehicle is actually licensed as a private hire vehicle. That is a helpful facility, and I for one cannot see why licensing authorities should hold back on providing such information. As I was aware that my hon. Friend might raise that matter, I spoke to a leading national licensing organisation just yesterday and said that I thought it ought to respond positively to requests for vehicle licensing information, if not proactively put it on its website. It agreed, and said that it would disseminate that message to its member authorities.

I move on to the hugely important issue of drivers’ personal safety. I was very sorry to learn of the incidents in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I extend my sympathies and those of the Government to those who have been subject to serious assaults there and elsewhere, and perhaps particularly to the family of the 61-year-old grandfather to whom he referred. I was particularly horrified by my hon. Friend’s description of the range of weapons that are sometimes used against drivers who are simply going about their lawful business. It is intolerable that they should be subject to attacks such as he described. The lack of respect to which he referred is clearly an important factor to be taken into account.

I turn to the questions that my hon. Friend asked. I agree with him that there is a problem of perception. We will examine the parallel position of doormen, to which he referred, to see whether there are lessons that might be sensibly transferred across.

My hon. Friend asked about statistics. Because licensing is largely a local function—it has been since 1847 or before—there is not the depth of national statistics that he or I might like. However, we will talk to the statisticians to see what is available, and I will write to him to let him know. We will also consider whether the statistics that are available in different places might be accumulated to give us a better picture of what is happening. Of course, local authorities may hold information, and I will ask my officials to talk to the national body of licensing officers to see whether it has information that might throw a light on the matter and what else might usefully be done. If there is information such as he mentioned, I will happily share it with the Prime Minister’s team that is examining the alcohol strategy and with the Home Office more generally in respect of the crime statistics that it collects. I certainly agree that it might be useful to track criminal attacks on private hire vehicle and taxi drivers more formally.

I am familiar with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, because I was on the Bill Committee when it was taken through Parliament. It was a useful Act. I am not aware that it has been applied directly in cases such as we are discussing, but I am happy to ensure that my colleagues at the Home Office are made aware of my hon. Friend’s comments and concerns on that matter and others affecting them. I will write to the relevant Minister to make him or her aware of the contents of today’s debate and my hon. Friend’s comments, including those relating to the Act.

My hon. Friend mentioned CCTV. Any decision to install it in cabs or elsewhere must of course involve clarity about the purpose of doing so. It is important to consider carefully its potential contribution towards achieving that purpose, the costs and whether the intrusion into individual privacy is appropriate and proportionate. CCTV in taxis and private hire vehicles is by its nature intrusive, putting law-abiding people under surveillance and recording their movements, although it might be argued that individuals accept that by flagging down a taxi or booking a private hire vehicle.

CCTV can be effective in both preventing and detecting crime and antisocial behaviour, and owners and drivers of vehicles understandably often want to install security measures to protect the driver. However, there is a balance to be struck, not least given the Data Protection Act’s provisions on the processing of personal data. Nevertheless, the personal security of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers and staff clearly needs to be considered as well.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires local authorities and others to consider crime and disorder reduction while exercising all their duties. The Department’s best practice guidance suggests that the installation and use of appropriate safety measures is best left to the judgment of the owners and drivers themselves, but we would encourage licensing authorities to look sympathetically on, or actively encourage, measures that protect drivers.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Protection of Freedoms Bill is being considered in another place. The Bill includes provisions further to regulate CCTV and other surveillance camera systems. Those provisions include the introduction of a statutory surveillance camera systems code of practice and the appointment of a surveillance camera commissioner to encourage compliance, provide advice and information, and monitor the code’s effectiveness. I will maintain an interest in the development of the code to ensure that CCTV associated with public transport, including taxis, is addressed appropriately.

Drivers can use a range of other security measures to improve their personal safety, including conflict avoidance training. The Department has issued guidance for taxi and PHV drivers about how best to protect themselves, and that is on the Department’s website.

Clearly, enforcement is a hot topic. I commend Transport for London’s Safer Travel at Night campaign, which aims to reduce the number of cab-related sexual offences by raising awareness of the dangers of using unbooked minicabs, also known as touts, and illegal cabs. It also involves targeted police and enforcement activity to identify, disrupt and deter illegal cab activity. Transport for London has, through a sustained effort, made great strides in reducing cab-related sexual offences and instances of touting, although I accept that there remains an outstanding concern relating to pedicabs, which are outwith the PHV and taxi licensing system.

More generally, I am pleased that, as my hon. Friend said, the Law Commission has agreed to undertake a comprehensive review of the law governing taxis and PHVs. The fact that taxis outside London are licensed under an Act of 1847, and those inside London under an Act dating from 1869, speaks volumes. The Law Commission is a body dedicated to, and expert in, unravelling complex and archaic legislation and replacing it with modern, simplified legislation, and I hope that it will take on board issues relating to safety as part of its work. The commission embarked on the review in July 2011, it will be consulting in the spring, and it will provide us with a report and draft Bill in November 2013.

I hope that that is helpful in taking forward the genuine and proper concerns that my hon. Friend has raised.

Question put and agreed to.