| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
London Taxicard Scheme
5. Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to secure the future of the London taxicard scheme; and what measures he will take to promote the adoption of similar schemes by local authorities elsewhere. [565]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Bowis): I recognise the value of the London taxicard scheme and other such schemes. The establishment and management of such schemes are a matter, in London, for the London boroughs and, outside London, for other local authorities.
The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee--the Department's statutory adviser on disability issues--has produced guidelines for local authorities on the establishment of taxicard schemes. Copies have been distributed to licensing authorities throughout the country.
Mr. Jones:
The Minister will be aware of how well received the taxicard scheme is in parts of London, where it is a great asset to disabled people. When is it likely to be extended to other major cities and even to towns in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Bowis:
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the successful London scheme, which carries some 60,000 trips a month. Other schemes are starting throughout the country. It is entirely a matter for the local authorities concerned whether they start schemes, but we are trying to encourage that by setting up the guidelines through the DPTAC. I hope that he will find that helpful in persuading perhaps Clwyd county council to consider starting such a scheme because I understand that, as yet, it is not moving in that direction.
Mr. Bendall:
Is the Minister aware that the taxicard is being reviewed and that the review body is liable to recommend that more money be spent on policy, not on management? That is causing great concern to voluntary organisations in London and to the 50,000 users of the taxicard scheme. Is he also aware that this suggestion is being made by a Labour party member of my local authority?
Mr. Bowis:
I am not aware of the last point, but I am certainly aware of the London Committee on Accessible Transport's review of the accessible transport unit and of the committee's view that the unit could be downsized. It is entirely a matter for the London boroughs what sort
Mr. Tom Clarke:
Does the Minister agree that the Government's Disability Discrimination Act 1995 does not outlaw all discrimination on all forms of public transport? Does he accept that, because the Government have reneged on their funding promises, the London taxicard scheme is being presented with difficulties? How do the Government intend to respond to people's expectation from the Government that disabled people will be assured of access to mini-cabs and unregulated taxis? How do the Government intend to deal with people who use wheelchairs and people with guide dogs and hearing dogs? Surely this Minister, coming from London as he does, views this as a splendid opportunity to build best practice as a beacon for the rest of Britain.
Mr. Bowis:
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's reference to my experience of London and of its transport needs, including the needs of disabled people in London. I know and recognise their needs and shall seek to further their interests. There are many ways in which that can be done. The taxicard scheme is part of that. The dial-a-ride scheme transports some 1 million people a year. The discrimination Act will not only bring in accessible taxis--as the hon. Gentleman knows, in London, that will be required by 1 January 2000--but is making great progress in terms of accessible buses and trains, and even in terms of access to the underground, so we have progress. I shall seek to ensure that that progress is furthered.
6. Mr. Bennett:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects contracts to be let for the last stage of the M66; and when he expects the section of M66 from Denton to Middleton to be open. [567]
Mr. Watts:
Invitation of tenders will be subject to the availability of resources.
Mr. Bennett:
The Minister will realise that many of my constituents, who have suffered from the traffic spilling out at the Denton roundabout for many years, will be disappointed that the date for the scheme's completion appears to have slipped from 1998 to possibly 1999. Unless the last contract can be let, much public money will be wasted because the first four contracts have put bridges and flyovers into place, but there is not yet a linking road between them. Surely the Minister will now guarantee that that linking road will be built quickly and that the motorway will open as soon as possible to relieve the problems that my constituents face?
Mr. Watts:
There is no doubt about our commitment to completing the project, which is extremely important to Greater Manchester, but I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman today when we shall be in a position to invite tenders for the final contract. It is our intention to take it forward as rapidly as the availability of resources permits.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
When my hon. Friend the Minister eventually lets that contract, will he include
Mr. Watts:
We always try to use the quietest materials available, commensurate with traffic levels. Typically, porous asphalt is not as hard wearing as conventional dressings. As to the M6 scheme, more than 1,200 properties will be fitted with secondary glazing to mitigate the effects of noise.
7. Mr. Miller:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the potential proceeds of privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. [582]
Sir George Young:
I have made no estimate of potential proceeds from privatising National Air Traffic Services.
Mr. Miller:
It was interesting that the Minister, in an earlier reply, did not respond to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) about the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Air Force. When the right hon. Gentleman considers the proposal's financial benefits, will he carefully examine the practical ways in which civil air traffic control and the Ministry interrelate? It would be ludicrous to create a charging policy that would work in those circumstances. Does the Minister not realise that the majority of people are totally against that crass privatisation?
Sir George Young:
A number of representations were in favour of it. The reply that I gave on Friday was on behalf of the whole Government, so of course the Ministry of Defence agrees with the strategy that I have outlined, and its needs will be met under the new strategy of a privatised NATS.
Sir Alan Haselhurst:
Is not the most obvious benefit to be derived from privatising National Air Traffic Services that it would provide the best guarantee that moneys would be forthcoming for NATS's huge investment programme?
Sir George Young:
My hon. Friend has succinctly summarised the best argument for privatisation, which will free management investment decisions from public sector constraints.
Mr. Foulkes:
I am sorry that I was not present for Question 3, but I was delayed--not by air traffic control but by the appalling London underground system. Irrespective of the arguments for and against privatisation, will the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that the Government will continue to support the two-centre strategy that is vital for the future of those of my constituents who are among the 650 workers at Prestwick? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing with the two private funding initiative bids that he received some months ago?
Sir George Young:
The Oceanic bid is proceeding. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not in his place
Mr. Fabricant:
When the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) flies down from Scotland and finds that his aircraft is circling above Heathrow airport, he may not be aware that his plane is unable to land because the UK has only half the density of aircraft in the air as the United States. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason for that lack of air traffic density is that the UK does not have the latest computers in air traffic control? Would not privatisation be the best way to provide the funds that would allow greater air traffic density and less in-air delays?
Sir George Young:
Density is a slightly different issue from the best form of air traffic control. We are building at Swanwick a modern en route centre that will have the latest technology. My hon. Friend is right in thinking that the ability to access funds without the constraints of public expenditure requirements is the main reason for privatising NATS.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |