Transport
The Secretary of State was asked—
Track Renewals
The Government have allocated some £15 billion to the railways over the next five years. This is part of a total of £26.7 billion that Network Rail has to manage and improve the network over that period. We do not allocate funding specifically for track renewals. It is for Network Rail to decide the level of expenditure on track renewals given its overall funding, which is determined by the Office of Rail Regulation.
The Government are right to invest in transport infrastructure during the economic downturn, but despite having more money, Network Rail this year cut its spending on track renewals, and Jarvis plc, a York-based company that does such work, had to make 450 people redundant. Would it not be better for the Government’s money to be used to improve the railway, not to make redundancy payments? Will the Secretary of State press Network Rail to sign next year’s contracts as soon as possible, so that some of these men can go back to work?
My hon. Friend has consistently and conscientiously raised the position of his constituents, and I well understand why he does so. I appreciate the arguments that he puts forward, and I was grateful to him for coming to see me and raising these matters directly. I emphasise that Network Rail’s total output will remain as previously planned. One reason for rephasing the work is to allow what is essentially new technology to be available in the form of modular sets of points and new equipment that will allow the work to be done more efficiently and effectively. I repeat that the total amount of work will be unchanged by the rephasing.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the condition of the track, and particularly the points system, goes to the heart of the issues concerning the Potters Bar rail crash, which now took place more than seven years ago? I appreciate the personal interest that he has taken in this case, but does he agree that seven years is far too long to have to wait for an inquiry into these important issues?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which I have taken seriously in the time that I have been in this position. I recognise the anxiety of those most directly affected by the terrible tragedy that took place, and it is important that we resolve that as soon as possible by an appropriate form of inquiry.
I welcome the investment in Network Rail, but is it not time that some urgency was shown in improving Network Rail’s efficiency, so that major parts of the network are not closed down on bank holidays, stopping people being able to travel around the country and forcing more cars on to the roads?
I have regular meetings with Network Rail and I can assure my hon. Friend that that is something that we regularly discuss. Network Rail is in no doubt of the importance of achieving greater efficiency in the work that it does and it recognises the problems that the kinds of stoppages she describes cause to an increasing number of passengers at weekends, when our railway is increasingly busy, so I hope Network Rail will address the matter.
Braintree has seen tremendous growth in the past 10 years, yet there is only a single track between Witham and Braintree. Is the Minister aware of any progress that has been made on what is known locally as the Cressing loop, which is dualling the track between Witham and Braintree?
I am not specifically aware of the particular piece of track, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman once an appropriate answer is available. What I can say to him is that I recognise that there are capacity questions right across our network, which is entirely the result of the remarkable success of our railways in recent years. We now carry more passengers than at any time since 1946, which necessarily means that there are capacity questions, and this Government are addressing them.
The fact is that track renewals under privatisation cost many times what they cost under British Rail, and the work is certainly done no better. Has my right hon. Friend investigated why that is the case, and does it not argue strongly in favour of public ownership as opposed to privatisation?
On every occasion that I do Transport questions, I need to say that I come from a railway family. Since both my parents and my grandfather worked for the railway and were involved in British Rail, I have a natural predisposition to what my hon. Friend suggests. Unfortunately, however, the evidence is against him, and I suspect that if he examined the costs of British Rail he would not find much support for his contention.
Perhaps I should declare an interest as a former employee of British Rail. Network Rail promised a year ago to move towards a seven-day railway, yet we have seen no progress. For example, in Lewes, between 1 January and the end of March, on 11 weekends there were rail replacement buses instead of a proper train service, which is simply unacceptable. Is it not time to give Network Rail an incentive to move towards a seven-day railway, and would it not be a good idea to reduce ticket prices by, say, a third, when there are rail replacement buses?
I am sure that British Rail regretted the loss of the hon. Gentleman’s service, and I hope that he can make a contribution to the future of the railways in his current position. I accept that it is important that we move towards a seven-day railway, and that, as I said in answering the previous question, we find ways to co-operate with Network Rail on weekend journeys, because so many more passengers are using the railway at weekends. That means looking at innovative ways of attracting passengers on to the railway. Weekend and off-peak prices are very competitive these days, but I am confident that his suggestions will be looked at seriously by the train operating companies.
Cyclist Safety
While local highway authorities are directly responsible for assessing the effectiveness of cycle safety measures, the Department for Transport is strongly involved in promoting the safety of cyclists. The Department has commissioned a cycle safety research project that will assess the effectiveness of various measures, including road user safety and cycling data, cycling infrastructure, attitudes and behaviour, and cycle helmets.
I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that I used to be the chairman of the all-party cycling group—until I was deposed in a very new Labour putsch in 1997, which installed the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), as an excellent chairman. I think I am still the vice-chairman, but I am not sure.
The Secretary of State may know of the Cyclists’ Touring Club “Safety in numbers” campaign, which makes the valid prognosis that cycling becomes safer when more people do it, not only because motorists have to slow down, but because cyclists like me know when driving a car how dangerous cycling is. In his project, will he ensure that local authorities realise that the more cyclists there are, the safer cycling becomes, and that they should not simply try to get cyclists out of the way?
I am sorry that 12 years on, the hon. Gentleman still feels such personal resentment about the operation of democracy in the House, but it is a clear testament to his commitment to cycling. I hope that every day when he thinks about that terrible injustice, he will nevertheless reflect on the great success of the all-party cycling group in promoting cycling. No doubt, he will continue to play a part in that.
More seriously, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is important that we continue to encourage cycling and, indeed, walking, and that they should be done safely and securely. I strongly support his suggestion and I take a keen interest in this area of Government activity. We want to promote cycling and we want more people to take advantage of it—safely.
As a fellow cyclist, I commend the CTC campaign. At the same time, last week an important National Audit Office report drew attention to the threat to cyclists and pedestrians. I have always worked on the basis that one out of 10 motorists does not behave safely with regard to cyclists, and that one in 10 of those is a homicidal maniac. Is it time, particularly in rural areas, that we trained motorists to be far more responsible in their treatment of cyclists? Surely the Department could take that up.
My hon. Friend makes some important points. We welcome the findings of the NAO report and will carefully consider its contents. Concern has been expressed about the apparent recent increase in the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured, but over the trend period, the reduction is clear: cycling is becoming safer. The reasons for the very recent increase are not entirely clear to us, but we are looking into it.
It is important that we continue to promote safe cycling. We invest significant sums of public money in cycling training, which we are expanding across schools. We need to continue to support that work, so that we have safe cyclists in future.
The Secretary of State will understand that an increase in cycling can lead to a lower risk for each cyclist but a greater number of casualties among cyclists—that is one of the consequences of modal shift.
Will the Secretary of State ensure that his study, when it is published, shows both that crashes are a consequence of conflict, and that secondary protection makes a difference?
Will the Secretary of State ensure that a comparison is made between the Netherlands, where cyclists tend not to wear energy-absorbing helmets, and this country, where cyclists do tend to wear them, even though the CTC has not got around to recommending it?
The hon. Gentleman makes some good points and I will certainly take them into account when the report is published. I would like to spend a little more time studying the success of cycling in the Netherlands. Safety is clearly important, and I believe that we should campaign to encourage people to wear cycle helmets, which can help in especially serious conflicts between cyclists and motor vehicles.
As a heavy-goods driver and a cyclist, I understand all too well the hazard caused to cyclists from the rear wheels of large vehicles, particularly at junctions. Does the Secretary of State think that the proposal from our brilliant Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to allow cyclists to turn left on red and thus get out of the way before the lights change might improve matters?
I am grateful for that suggestion from the multi-talented Front Bencher. I shall certainly carefully consider the proposal, although there are some concerns about the safety implications of such a relaxation. As one who has lived and worked in the United States, where turning on red lights is routine for motor vehicles, I know that the idea has been considered for motor vehicles generally in the UK. What is important is that we put the safety criteria first—we have to assess whether it can be done safely. If it can, I would certainly take a positive view of it.
Unadopted Roads (Former Coalfield Areas)
Local Authorities have available to them a number of funding sources that they could use to bring unadopted roads up to the standards for adoption. They include revenue support grant, prudential borrowing, capital receipts, local transport plan funding and the neighbourhood renewal fund. It is a matter for local authorities to prioritise how their funds are allocated.
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but as he knows, unadopted roads are a legacy of mining, and it is both unfair and unaffordable for many local authorities to bring such roads up to adoptable standards. Many of those roads are in such a state of disrepair that they are becoming quite dangerous. Will he look into providing some national ring-fenced money for local authorities covering ex-mining areas to deal with the problem?
I recognise that there is a problem in coalfield communities. The matter has been considered by the coalfields forum, which is led by my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, and by the coalfield alliance. A number of regeneration programmes have worked in former coalfield communities to look at the possibilities. Essentially, the matter is one for local authorities, but I am always ready to engage in dialogue and to listen, and I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the subject.
Given the demands on local authorities to prioritise, has the Department made any estimate of: first, the number of unadopted roads, and secondly, how much it would cost to make them adoptable? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) that they are a great problem in coalmining communities such as mine in Cynon Valley, where, right now, we are probably all out canvassing for the local authority or European elections. In my 25 years as a Member, the issue has been the one constant about which people who live in areas with unadopted roads have been really aggrieved. I hope that we will have some answers for them on this occasion.
The assessment that was undertaken back in the 1980s found some 40,000 unadopted roads throughout the country. The estimate is that, at today’s prices, it would cost £3 billion to bring them all up to adopted standards. However, I must point out to right hon. and hon. Members that, excluding London funding, £2.1 billion has been allocated up to 2010-11 for capital expenditure programmes. We must recognise the demands in a given area, and that is why it is best left to local authorities to make the decision about which roads should be adopted and considered.
This is an issue not just in mining areas, however. There are thousands of miles of unadopted roads in Lancashire. They are often damaged by heavy vehicles such as council rubbish trucks, and the responsibility for repairing the road falls not on the council but on the people who have the misfortune to live in houses alongside the road. What more can be done? It is not good enough for the Minister to say that local authorities must prioritise. Surely we need ring-fenced funds, along the lines that my friend from Derbyshire suggested.
My hon. Friend will be aware that our general thrust has been to ensure that local authorities have substantial funds in several areas, but that they should be able to prioritise, meeting and consulting the people whom they represent and on whose behalf they work. I reiterate that we have provided generous funds over the three years to 2011, with more than £2 billion, excluding London funding, for capital provision. The matter must be dealt with in respect of all priorities and an assessment of all needs in local authority areas.
Variable Speed Limits
No recent assessment of the effects on road safety of variable speed limits has been undertaken by the Department on local roads or by the Highways Agency on the strategic road network. However, the monitoring of safety on the active traffic management section of the M42 shows the benefits that have resulted from a package of measures which includes the use of variable speed limits.
Does the Minister not agree that our roads are safer if the speed limits in force are appropriate and therefore respected? Is he aware that a number of local authorities, some of them second rate, refuse to consider the introduction of variable speed limits, simply on the ground of the extra cost of the necessary signage? Will he therefore consider instructing or at least advising local authorities that they always reflect on whether a variable speed limit is the more appropriate answer? What is wrong with having a 20 mph speed limit outside a school only when that school is in use?
The right hon. Gentleman has a point to make. As he knows, we are consulting on our post-2010 road safety strategy, and we know that 20 mph limits are popular in many areas. They are a relatively new phenomenon and we are gathering evidence on the success that has clearly resulted from the introduction of 20 mph limits or zones. He also has a point in that those local authorities that have tried variable speed limits ought to be able to supply us with data so that we can incorporate them into the consultation, because we intend to issue new, stronger guidance both on 20 mph limits and, for local authorities where there is a 60 mph limit, on dangerous rural single carriageways. It is appropriate to have them revisit the issue, and variable speed limits, looking after the motorist and promoting safety, may very well be another way forward.
Most of the main roads in Skelmersdale do not have pavements, so people are forced to use underpasses—or often to cross the roads. In particular, there are two major secondary schools with 1,500 pupils, who, when discharged, are supposed to go through underpasses or take the back way. In reality, however, they cross the main road. A child has died, yet the local authority says—to the horror of the head teacher, the rest of the school and the parents—that because the road is a main road it cannot support a reduction in the speed limit. Can my hon. Friend’s officials suggest anything to help us with traffic calming measures?
As I mentioned to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) a moment ago, we are going to issue new, stronger guidance on the use of 20 mph limits and on appropriate speed limits for other roads. Clearly, I am concerned to hear my hon. Friend’s description of roads without pavements and the vulnerable situation of many pupils. I hope that the Department’s guidance will be of use to the head teacher and parents. However, we have devolved to local authorities the decision to determine the speed limits on roads because they know their roads far better than we do at the Department. However, I hope that the guidance that is to be issued will assist my hon. Friend and her community.
Is the Minister aware that in my constituency, which covers a very large area, there is strong support for strict enforcement of low speed limits in the villages, but real concern at the idea that 50 mph might become the default speed limit, given that it would apply to every road in the constituency, including large parts of the A1?
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. We have clarified as best we can that we are not proposing a blanket ban or reduction from 60 mph to 50 mph on single rural carriageways. However, given that 62 per cent. of fatalities occur on roads with only 40 per cent. of the traffic, we clearly believe that the 60 mph limit is inappropriate for some roads. In the consultation document that we have issued, we propose to produce annual reports on the performance of roads, indicating where there are greater dangers.
We will issue stronger guidance to say to local authorities that there is no national 60 mph limit and that there can be 50 mph limits if appropriate. Many villages on these routes would certainly want 20 mph and 30 mph limits. I go back to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman in the original question: we need flexibility to make sure that motorists are able to get from A to B as efficiently as possible. However, we also need to make sure that they do that safely, and that the communities through which they travel are protected.
Will the Minister condemn unequivocally those local authorities that adopt a policy of reducing speed by not repairing pot holes, thereby deliberately contributing to an increase in road danger and costing local authority council tax payers £53 million a year in compensation?
I have heard and read reports of pot holes being used as a device to reduce speed, but I cannot believe that a deliberate decision by local authorities is involved. Pot holes endanger road users because vehicles may have to veer to avoid them; furthermore, they may damage vehicles’ braking and steering systems. Clearly, pot holes ought to be repaired where possible. The Government give local authorities generous grants to make sure that such matters are addressed. I do not want local authorities to use pot holes as a way of slowing down traffic.
Speed Limits
“A Safer Way”, our road safety consultation published on 21 April, which I mentioned a moment ago, aims to reduce road deaths by a third by 2020. We make a range of proposals, two of which are carefully targeted to reduce speed. The first is that local authorities should reduce limits to 20 mph on roads of a primarily residential nature and around schools, and the second is that highway authorities should reduce limits from 60 mph on the more dangerous rural single carriageways, when the evidence supports that. We have started receiving representations. The closing date for the consultation is 14 July.
Does the Minister accept that such worthy policy objectives bring into play the law of unintended consequences? Does he agree that this will increase journey times, which will increase congestion, with a knock-on effect on pollution? Is he aware that the Institution of Chemical Engineers has said that in areas where the speed limit is reduced to 20 mph, there will be a 15 per cent. increase in CO2 emissions and a 50 per cent. increase in nitrous oxide? What impact will that have on meeting his Government’s emissions targets?
We are conscious of the question of emissions, and I am sure that that will be examined as part of the consultation and monitored closely by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. However, variable speeds have been shown to be able to assist in managing and reducing congestion. The consequence that we are trying to achieve as a result of the consultation document is further to progress the improvements that we have seen in road safety. Between 2002 and 2007, there was a reduction of some 36 per cent. in people killed or seriously injured on our roads. In the longer term, our ambition is to achieve the safest roads in the world. We are looking to have a further reduction of one third in casualties by the end of the next 10-year strategy. Speed reductions are part of that, because inappropriate speeds and people breaking the speed limits cause some 700 deaths and 20,000 injuries in an average year.
The consultation has caused confusion in the minds of some. In a rural constituency such as mine, which has three single carriageway trunk roads, there is concern that the aim is to reduce the speed limit from 60 mph to 50 mph. Can the Minister give a guarantee to my constituents that major single carriageway trunk roads will not have that reduction imposed?
As I have been trying to outline, I cannot guarantee that there will not be reductions from 60 mph to 50 mph on some roads. We are trying to achieve a reduction in speed on roads where people are being killed and seriously injured in disproportionate numbers because the quality of the road is not as good as that of most of the A roads in the country. We are looking to make an assessment, we will produce the data, and it will then be for local authorities and highway authorities to make a determination as to the appropriate speed limit for the roads concerned. We are not proposing to introduce a blanket reduction across the country: this is targeted for best effect to ensure that vehicular traffic can get from A to B as efficiently as possible, but also safely.
As of this morning, a petition against the Government’s A road speed limit proposal is ranked No. 2 on the Downing street website, beaten only by one entitled with the single word, “Resign”. So it is official: Labour’s speed limit policy is the most unpopular thing in the country apart from the Prime Minister, though admittedly he is ahead by a comfortable margin of 30,000.
Everything that the Minister has said this morning has signalled a major retreat on the briefing on this issue given to journalists in March. Why does not he go the whole way and drop the Government proposals that are on the table?
With the greatest respect to journalists, there was no briefing to say that we were reducing the speed limit on single carriageways from 60 mph to 50 mph across the country. We signalled a clear intention to issue new guidance based on data that we will collect on an annual basis on the performance of roads to identify those that are most dangerous—where more people are being killed. As I mentioned earlier, the clear statistic in all this is that 62 per cent. of people are dying on those roads, which carry only 40 per cent. of the traffic. There is a disconnect in this regard. We need to ensure that we can assess the more dangerous roads and that they then have an appropriate speed limit. There is no retreat; the proposal has never been for a blanket ban. We are targeting where the 50 mph limit should be introduced, and we will produce guidance for local authorities, not an instruction or a blanket reduction.
But will the Minister not recognise that the flaw in reducing the default speed limit, which is what he is proposing to do, is that it will hit all motorists with a collective punishment for the actions of the irresponsible few, rather than target high-risk, problem drivers? Why are the Government failing on these problem drivers? Why, after a decade in charge of our roads, are they still using a test for drug-drivers that is no more sophisticated than asking them to walk in a straight line? Why is the average fine for uninsured rogue drivers less than £200, and will he admit that reduced speed limits and more speed cameras will not tackle either of those—
I shall try to deal with the main elements of the hon. Lady’s questions. First, we think that we are making progress. The road safety strategy for 2000-10 targeted a 40 per cent. reduction in deaths and serious injuries. Up to 2007, it was 36 per cent., so we should reach that. We had the lowest number of such deaths in recorded history in 2007, at 2,946. That is progress, and it is to the great credit of the police, local authorities, road safety officers and everybody else who is campaigning on road safety.
On the direction of travel, we want a further reduction and we want Britain’s roads to be the safest in the world again, as they were previously. On dealing with those who are transgressing against our laws, we are dealing with uninsured drivers and those who do not have road tax. The numbers are the lowest they ever have been. We had a consultation suggesting that those who recklessly and dangerously speed should get double points on their licence, because that will bring them to book. We are ensuring that the sensible, decent, ordinary, courteous motorists are the ones whom we are trying to protect, and we believe they are on the side of stronger legislation and guidance. We want safer roads, and we want those who transgress against the laws dealt with.
Topical Questions
On 16 April, together with my noble and right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, I announced the Government’s plans to promote ultra low-carbon vehicles. That will include financial help for those who wish to purchase low-carbon cars. During the Easter parliamentary recess, my noble Friend the Minister of State, who has responsibility for rail, made a six-day, highly successful rail tour of the United Kingdom. He travelled 2,200 miles on local and national services, and has since announced the appointment of two station champions to suggest ways in which station facilities could be improved.
On 21 April, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), announced the publication of the Government’s new wide-ranging road safety proposals, aimed at making Britain’s roads the safest in the world. Yesterday I was in Manchester to welcome an accelerated transport package for Greater Manchester, including plans for new Metrolink lines from Chorlton to East Didsbury and from Droylsden to Ashton-under-Lyne. These extensions, along with those already under way, will result in Manchester’s tram network being twice the size that it is today.
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark), invited English cities to bid for up to £29 million in funding to be the country’s first sustainable travel city. That follows the success of the country’s three sustainable travel towns.
Order. May I say that I try to use topical questions for the benefit of the Back Benchers? That should be borne in mind.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for his response.
At a time when we are encouraging more people to travel by train, is the Secretary of State not concerned about the problems faced by disabled people in endeavouring to access some station platforms? In particular, may I draw his attention to the lack of disabled access to Crayford station in my constituency, operated by Southeastern, and ask him what he can to do assist with the problem and its solution?
This is a concern for the Government and we are addressing it. I anticipate that there will be some modest funds available to improve access for the disabled. It is important that we ensure that all our citizens, able-bodied and disabled alike, have access to the railway network.
Should the Government really be putting billions of pounds into Network Rail when, as a result of employment practices by a director of human resources, a man who called one of his staff a black effing b—, who kissed another member of staff on the cheek when she was on the phone, who asked to see the “white bits” of a member of staff as he asked her to take her top off when she came back from holiday, and who—
Order. I have always said right at the beginning of every Session that we must be careful as to how we use parliamentary privilege. I do not wish that the Minister should respond to this matter.
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman had a useful meeting with officials, and we will always endeavour to assist in that way. He will be aware of the complications involved in the programming, together with the hard-shoulder widening in the M1 programme. We are considering various issues arising from those discussions. Work is continuing, and we will push ahead as soon as possible.
I reassure the House that we are proud of our decisions in 2001, 2006 and 2008 to give some 11 million people access to free local bus services across the country. The current consultation is examining an improved administrative system and is looking at raising it from district authorities to county councils. I encourage all concerned to contribute to that review, but we are emphatic about keeping the facility and the provision in place.
I have to say that I am not entirely sure, but we will seriously investigate the matter.
The hon. Gentleman is right. I have recently looked at Spain’s high-speed network proposals, and part of its avowed intention in allowing people to travel at high speed across the whole of Spain is to pull the country together. It seems to me important that the ambition for this country should be to achieve the same.
Will the stations champion have responsibility for defending the legitimate rights of train-spotters? There is a serious civil liberties issue, as train enthusiasts have been impeded by station staff and prevented from pursuing an interest that is at least harmless, and at best can add to the security of a station.
There has been much over-writing about the modest changes that are likely to occur as a result of extra security in our stations. We would all welcome that extra security, and it is important that people should be free to go about their legitimate enjoyment of their private time. I know how keen some hon. Members, particularly on the Liberal Democrat Benches, are on train-spotting. I would not want enhanced facilities for security to inhibit in any way my hon. Friend’s pursuit of his leisure-time activities.
I am quite confident that the programmes to which the Government have committed of improving our highways, railways and capacity across our transport network can be delivered within the profile of spending that has been allowed by this Government. I am much less confident that that would be the case if the Conservative party were elected and imposed serious cuts on our transport network, including by failing to commit to Crossrail.
Will my right hon. Friend give a brief update on a matter of concern to me and many others regarding the rumour about the renegotiation of the franchise on the east coast main line with National Express?
There will be no renegotiation of franchises.
We take seriously, obviously, the accessibility of public transport for all concerned, in particular for those with disabilities. That is why there are end dates for all buses to be Disability Discrimination Act compliant by a rolling programme of 2015-16, and that is the case for railway stock as well. Programmes such as access for all, which allow people to move on to station platforms and across from one platform to another, are equally important. Those are the programmes in which the Government are investing money to ensure that we make life much simpler for those with disabilities.
Women and Equality
The Minister for Women and Equality was asked—
Flexible Working Arrangements
We have been running a campaign since April to increase awareness among parents and carers of the right to request flexible working. This media campaign has been focused on regional radio, newspapers, parenting and lifestyle magazines and websites. We will evaluate the campaign and assess awareness in the light of its results.
Flexible working is both family friendly and business friendly. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those requests should always fall on open ears?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It helps families if parents of young children, or family members who care for an elderly or disabled relative, can continue to go out to work and choose their working hours, or the days of the week on which they work, to suit their caring responsibilities. She is right that it is important that employers respond positively to such requests when they are made.
I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that when such requests are made, employers respond positively to them. I have just looked at the figures that relate to her question. For people who care for an elderly or disabled relative, 96 per cent. of requests for flexible working are agreed. For working parents with young children, 95 per cent. of requests for flexible working are agreed. The problem is that people do not make the request because they do not know their rights. Only 10 per cent. of carers knew they had the right to flexible working. That is why most of them do not make a request. Only 19 per cent. of parents with children under six know that they have the right. The problem is not employers complying; it is that people do not know they have the right, so they do not ask.
While welcoming the campaign that the right hon. and learned Lady mentioned, and the very positive response from employers, is it not the case that an enlightened employer will not only have to agree to his statutory obligations, but within the flexible working time he has agreed, he will need to be additionally flexible because, unpredictably, those people will need to leave within the flexible hours that have been agreed? Employers will need to go beyond their statutory responsibilities if they are to give the entitlement referred to in the question.
That is true. However, once employers and managers move from a strict “everyone working nine to five, five days a week” system and start responding to such requests, they find it much easier to comply with them that they thought, and that they can be even more accommodating than the law requires them to be.
Over the next two decades the number of people over 85 is expected to double, and the care given to them by their families will be every bit as important as—if not more important than—the care provided by social services departments and health authorities. We do not want loads of people to have to give up their work because they are providing that important family care, so the question of their ability to work and employers’ ability to respond flexibly is a huge one for the future.
My right hon. and learned Friend knows as well as I do that we owe a big debt to carers, who lift the burden from the NHS and social services. She has rightly drawn attention to the number of carers who are not aware of their rights. How can we help them to become aware of those rights, and also help employers through difficult times so that they do not punish carers?
My hon. Friend has raised many times in the House the question of what happens if people are made to work short time. There are a number of reasons why working practices are changing. According to recent research I have seen, most people who work part time—the majority of whom are women—would prefer to work full time. The position has changed. We have tended to assume in the past that women work part time because that suits them and their family responsibilities, but now most part-time work is involuntary: people would work full time if they could. Increasingly, employers are trying to make people work part time or short time in order to manage until the economy picks up. In that context, awareness of the availability of tax credits is essential. It is also essential for employers to know that they can defer payment of tax to help them with their cash flow.
Gender Reassignment (Equality Bill)
Yes, the Bill provides an amended definition of gender reassignment which removes the reference to a person’s being under medical supervision that exists in the current anti-discrimination law. In the Bill, the protected characteristic of gender reassignment covers transsexual people who take steps to enable them to live permanently in the opposite gender to the one assigned to them at birth. There is no requirement for them to seek medical advice or undergo any surgery or other medical intervention.
Some transgendered people seek gender reassignment while others do not, but they all face a potential risk of discrimination at work or elsewhere. The Bill makes clear that protection is given to transsexuals, but do the Government intend all transgendered people, including those who do not seek gender reassignment, to be protected?
You do not need preservation.
Once again, the Tory party has shown how up to date and understanding it is.
One way or another, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) has made a good point. We will find that most people in that position are protected. As well as the protection I have already described, there is protection by association or by perception, which applies to gender reassignment as well and should cover the people to whom my hon. Friend has referred. I think that the cover is reasonably comprehensive.
Is the Minister aware that transsexuals face an NHS lottery? There are heavy restrictions in, for instance, Oxfordshire, where they can only get part of what they need done. That is akin to the position in the 1960s, when people were forced to go to Morocco or the Netherlands for surgery. Does the Minister agree that that is an appalling situation for them to find themselves in, and will she commit herself to lobbying the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that people who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria need not face such dreadful circumstances?
As the hon. Lady says, that is really a matter for the Department of Health. However, the Equality Bill places a duty on all public sector bodies to ensure that they end discrimination and promote the well-being of all the protected strands. That will be a useful weapon, and will help to ensure that services are spread more evenly across the country.
Cohabitation Bill
I am happy to do so, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this to my attention. The intention behind the Bill is to provide financial obligations to support children on the breakdown of cohabiting relationships. The Government have considered the financial recommendations of the Law Commission’s 2007 report and are considering further what the best approach is for England and Wales.
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. She will be aware that there are more than 2 million cohabiting couples in the UK, and in 2006 a fifth of all children were born to people in a cohabiting relationship. Does she agree that the part of the Bill that states that on the breakdown of a cohabiting relationship, a judge should be able to decide what is a fair outcome and allocate support to the ex-partner for up to three years in order to seek child care and enable that person to get back into work, provides useful measures? The Government could use them to ensure that we prevent women and their children—it is usually women—from falling into homelessness and poverty when a cohabiting relationship breaks down.
My hon. Friend is again asking me to assess the merits of the Bill’s provisions, and I have said that I will do so; I will certainly have a look. The Law Commission proposals were about addressing hardship. There is legislation in Scotland—the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006—which looks more at compensating parties for losses incurred as a result of cohabitation. There are many different approaches to trying to deal with this problem. The Government are considering the matter but have not yet come to a final decision on the best way forward for England and Wales. I am, however, happy to discuss this matter further with my hon. Friend.
As you will know, Mr. Speaker, common law in Scotland has always recognised a man and woman living together as having a common-law marriage. Will the Minister look carefully at the Scottish situation to see what we in England and Wales can learn from it?
Indeed, we will. One reason why we have not yet come to a final conclusion in assessing the different approaches to what we accept is an important issue is that the Scottish legislation came into force in 2006 and there is ongoing research on its impact; it will be useful to have some of the research’s conclusions before coming to a final decision on the best way forward. The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of the myths associated with what is often known as common-law marriage, which, of course, does not carry any rights at all beyond the ordinary property rights and rights within law. While we are coming to a conclusion about whether legislation is appropriate in this respect, it is important that we continue to provide advice to cohabiting couples—there are 2.3 million such couples in the UK—about what the current rights are, and, perhaps more importantly, are not.
Public Sector Employment
We have made some progress in increasing the number of women in key senior public sector positions; for example, women now fill 32 per cent. of senior civil service posts and 20 per cent. of local authority chief executive posts. Those are increases of 17 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively compared with the situation in 1997, but there is still a lot more work to do. The Equality Bill will introduce positive action provisions allowing public authorities, as employers, to address this under-representation at senior levels if they choose to do so.
I thank my hon. Friend for that response and in particular for her reference to the civil service, but is she aware that over the last three years there has actually been a decline in the number of women appointed to the most senior positions in the civil service? In 2007-08, 24 per cent. of the top 105 senior appointments were filled by women; that was down on the year before, which was down on the previous year. Therefore, there appears to be a decline in the very top civil service positions. What can we do about that?
If we look across a number of public sector organisations—of course, the position is worse in the private sector—we see a general pattern of advance, then stalling and now a slight slipping back. It is therefore clear that we need to do more and take further steps to improve the situation. May I also just emphasise that this is not all about arithmetical equality, but about using properly the talent of all our people in the top jobs in this country? It is not, therefore, about trying to get the numbers right; it is about trying to facilitate proper opportunities for talented people. We need to persuade as well as enable, and lead by example as well as exhort, and that is what we seek to do.
I am very encouraged by what the Minister says. Does she agree that, where there is a male in a top job and a talented female deputy has been in place for a considerable time, done a very good job and has stood in, at times, for the boss, she should automatically get the next job? Can the Minister think of anyone close to her to whom that might apply?
I think I know what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, and I do not wish to get drawn into the individual circumstances in particular workplaces—he is inviting me to walk down a very difficult path. We need to do better overall in order to use the talents of all our people, including the women.
First, Mr. Speaker, may I apologise unreservedly to both you and the whole House for having been a little late in arriving for women and equality questions?
In some departments there is very much a glass ceiling for women, but another issue that women face in state institutions and departments is the gender pay gap. In some public sector institutions men are being paid 25 per cent. more than women, the national average being 17 per cent. The Equality Bill specifically does not include the public sector in the provisions the Government are proposing on gender pay audits. The Minister for Women and Equality is very keen to accuse the private sector of problems regarding the gender pay gap, but what are the Government proposing to do to end the gap in the public sector?
I am glad that the right hon. Lady is, like Labour Members, concerned about the gender pay gap. The Equality Bill will put an obligation on the public sector, and a more onerous obligation where there are 150 or more employees, to produce more information than we will be asking the private sector to produce. The public sector will therefore be leading by example, and it is important that we ensure that we do. Perhaps she was a couple of minutes late into the Chamber because she was reading the Bill—the provision is in there. We will make sure that we place this obligation on the public sector. May I remind the House that the public sector generally does better than the private sector? However, having transparency—seeing what the position is in a meaningful way—is the real way, as we have all discovered over the past couple of weeks, to find out what is going on.