Gideon Amos
MP for Taunton and Wellington · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“My hon. Friend makes a very important point. He reminds me that, frankly, I struggle with the fact that such a momentous and significant policy instrument is going through Parliament without a vote.”
“Together, the existing and proposed frameworks begin to look like a greenfield-first approach. The golden rules, which would rightly require more affordable and social housing where green belt is released, are absolutely right. But the Government have consulted on allowing viability assessments to potentially undermine that.”
“Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills put across very well, the 75,000 new dwellings will come as a surprise in terms of population growth compared with what has ever been achieved in the past. Urban areas where regeneration is needed have seen their targets reduced.”
“The proposed framework comes off the back of the recent regulations and direction that mean that decisions, both small and large, are now removed from local councillors, so that they have no power or control over those decisions.”
“Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills pointed out, policy F5, paragraph 2(b)(ii), would create a new exemption from the sequential test for sites at risk of surface water flooding. As my hon.”
“The same instinct runs through proposals on the weight to be given to different policy considerations, giving the same weight to housing, economic development, and heritage and landscape, leaving Historic England to raise concerns about how those will be balanced.”
The complete record
Every one of 604 lines we hold for Gideon Amos, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) on bringing this important and overdue consideration of CIL to Westminster Hall. We have heard some powerful contributions, and it is clear that there is a widespread and serious problem. Families are facing bills of £40,000 to £70,000—in some cases over £200,000—for what often amounts to a missing form. That is an awful and unacceptable situation, and it can be life-ruining for those involved. The lack of appeal, the mounting interest and the threat of people losing their homes are all real injustices. The system is broken and needs to be changed. The Liberal Democrats agree with much of the substance of what has been said, but I must be direct with the right hon.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes the excellent suggestion that not only should we have guidance, but the regulations themselves need to be changed, in many of the ways that other hon. Members have already mentioned.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government should do that. There have been opportunities to do something about this; there are opportunities to change the law. He seems to have read the later part of my speech, and is quite right to mention our hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), who not only made that point in respect of that Bill but brought it to the attention of the Select Committee last year. Liberal Democrats in Parliament have been trying to get resolution and a change in the rules. In Waverley, the council has gone further than the law requires. It has set up a discretionary review process, opening a few weeks from now in June, for householders who believe they have been wrongly charged. That is the right thing to do, acting within the limits of what the law allows it to do.”
“The Minister is reportedly looking at the levy again; I urge him to be ambitious and make the changes we are arguing for. Patching the exemption rules is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The injustice that constituents are facing is real—we agree on that—but the schedule put in place by previous parties is what has guided Waverley’s actions. The council is doing what it lawfully can to address the issue, but the Government need to do the rest.”
“I confess that back in the 2000s when the measure was being put forward, I was part of a lively debate with bodies such as the British Property Federation, arguing that the levy should relate to the level of land value uplift. In some parts of the country, where we have clear viability challenges, there is very little land value uplift. The same level is charged as on a site with a massive land level uplift, where there is no viability problem. The state is missing out on land value uplift in places and the CIL is affecting viability in other places. We would suggest that the Government move towards a levy that relates to the land value increase that the landowner is gaining. That is necessary to fund schools, surgeries, GPs, roads, and all the rest of it.”
“I am grateful that the Minister has indicated in previous discussions that the Government will act, but we need to see action. While on the subject of CIL, we should be honest about the wider problem. All the Members who have spoken—I think they have all been hon. Gentlemen—were right that it is necessary to fund infrastructure, so the rationale behind CIL is worth while. As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) pointed out, the CIL funds do need to be spent on delivering infrastructure. The levy is a flat rate per square metre and bears no relation to the level of the uplift in land value before and after planning permission is granted.”
“He has named the Liberal Democrat authority in West Berkshire as a good example of exercising discretion where the law allows that to be done, but naming good examples is not enough, and we need to do more. We need three things from the Government on this issue, and we need them in this Parliament. We need a statutory definition of what constitutes a minor administrative error, so that homeowners are not penalised by tens of thousands of pounds for a missed form. We need a statutory right of appeal against CIL charges, with clear limits for resolution, and a clear lawful basis on which councils can waive or refund charges in cases of genuine homeowner error. Currently, that option can be exercised only in certain cases, depending on the nature of the error involved.”
“The amount of flexibility that can be exercised depends on the nature of the error in the process that is being discussed, so not every council can operate the same redress in the same situation. The hon. Gentleman confirms that it was a Conservative administration that drew up the CIL charging schedule, the forms and all the processes that underlie and guide—in fact, not just guide but narrowly dictate—how the council exercises control over CIL. Where the hon. Gentleman is right is that the rules need to change. The best way to change them would be to change the regulations in this place. That brings me to the Minister and the Government. The Minister has said, including when my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury raised the issue, that CIL was never intended to be applied in this way, and I believe he is right.”
“The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that residents need redress. I will simply place on the record again that the nature of the errors or mistakes in charging can be different from one authority to another, which was very much the case with West Berkshire, where the nature of the charges being made wrongly was a different procedural error and therefore a different remedy could be applied. I hope that, in the spirit of being non-tribal with which he began this debate, he will accept that that is actually a fact.”
“They move it closer to what devolution should be—rooted in local consent and accountable to local communities. We are glad that the Government have taken heed of the priorities that the Liberal Democrats have put forward, and we will continue to work constructively to ensure decisions are made with local people and not done to them.”
“Although I accept the Minister’s argument that some flexibility is needed to meet housing demand, if it results in greenfield and green spaces becoming the default, we will have failed and got the balance fundamentally wrong. Green spaces are essential to community wellbeing. They support mental and physical health, provide space for recreation and contribute to the identity of local places. Once lost, they cannot be replaced. If brownfield land is not properly prioritised, development pressure will fall on those spaces. We therefore welcome this step in the right direction by the Minister, but we will continue to ask the Government to go further on prioritising brownfield. When taken together, the three amendments do not frustrate the Bill, but improve it.”
“If local government is to have real autonomy, consent must be meaningful and Parliament must retain its proper role. We will continue to work constructively with the Government on that. On Lords amendments 89B and 89C, we strongly support the prioritisation of brownfield development. The Liberal Democrats are grateful to the Government for listening to calls for better protection of greenfield land, and for taking steps through the Bill to encourage the prioritisation of brownfield. That will help to ensure that development is happening in the right places, on land that needs to be developed on, and in consultation with the communities that surround it. This is not about opposing growth; it is about delivering that growth sustainably and making the best use of land that has been developed before.”
“We will always fight to ensure that communities have a genuine say in how their areas are run, and that decisions are not handed down from Whitehall. If consistency comes at the cost of local voices, we are not strengthening devolution; we are narrowing it. Let me turn to Lords amendment 98. The Liberal Democrats believe that placing limits on powers over structural changes is vital if local democracy is to have genuine autonomy. I thank the Minister for what she said about that. Likewise, we have sought to remove powers that would allow Ministers to direct the creation or expansion of combined authorities, including the imposition of mayors, without meaningful local consent. Members on both sides of the House agree that meaningful devolution cannot mean structures delivered and sent from Whitehall with limited local input.”
“In Sheffield, decisions to fell thousands of healthy street trees were driven through by a small group without the scrutiny of a wider number. In Sheffield, there is now a plaque that says: “In recognition of the courageous campaigners who saved thousands of street trees from wrongful felling by Sheffield City Council, and as a reminder to all that such failures of leadership must never happen again.” That is a stark warning of what can go wrong when power and authority are too concentrated in the hands of too few. The Liberal Democrats will continue to challenge the Government on this matter, because we are a party that believes in real community representation and local governance decided by local people.”
“I thank the Minister for concessions that she has made in relation to Liberal Democrat amendments; we are grateful that the Government have taken note of the importance of communities having the right to choose their own governance, and ensured that choice is better protected. We have already seen why flexibility for local authorities matters. In Sheffield, the council moved away from the leader and cabinet model to a committee system following real concerns about transparency, accountability and council overreach. That change was driven locally by councillors responding to their communities. As my noble Friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley set out in the other place, the consequences of concentration of power in a small executive can be profound.”
“I will be brief, as most of the arguments have already been well stated. We acknowledge the Minister’s argument yesterday that this Bill represents a step forward, not the final destination, and that consistency is needed to make the system function, but it is important that, in seeking that consistency, we do not lose the very flexibility that makes devolution truly meaningful. We remain supportive of our Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Lords and their efforts to strengthen the Bill. I place on record our continued backing for a number of those amendments. Lords amendment 36 addresses our central point. It is not devolution to mandate a single model of governance from the centre. Local areas must retain the ability to choose what works for them.”
“In responding to the debate, the Minister will no doubt remind us that the carefully regulated use of animals in research remains necessary for medical reasons, but that is not enough of an answer to the petition, and it does not answer the questions this debate puts before us. There is no reason why the regulator should be funded by those it regulates, there is no reason why our targets should not be on a statutory footing, and there is no reason why dogs—the obvious first candidate for replacement—should still be used in repeat dose toxicity testing up to 2030. Those are reasonable, meaningful and achievable changes that the Government could make, and they should be taking action now.”
“That is a structural conflict of interest that we should not accept, as my noble Friend the Lib Dem peer Lord Clement-Jones has said in the other place. Will the Minister put the strategy’s targets on a statutory footing, with binding milestones, so that a 35% target by 2030 cannot slip into something entirely different? Secondly, will he make the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods ambitious from day one, properly funded, independent and able to validate methods at pace? Thirdly, will he arrange an independent review of the regulator, the ASRU, and address its funding conflicts of interest? The regulator should not be paid by those it regulates.”
“We should also be willing to lead on alternative methods, and to do that we need the alternative methods to be validated. Following Brexit, we lost access to European testing, and it has taken five years to establish a new UK centre for the validation of alternative methods. The new centre is welcome, but it is five years overdue. We need to be ambitious from day one; naming a new centre will not be enough on its own. Last year, the Animals in Science Regulation Unit found 146 confirmed cases of non-compliance across 45 establishments, of which 43% related to inadequate care in respect of issues such as food, water or suitable facilities. The regulator is funded by the very establishments that it is supposed to regulate.”
“Our country wrote the world’s first animal welfare law back in 1822. The UK has a long tradition of being ahead on animal welfare, and we should be ahead now. The Government’s strategy, published in November, sets a welcome headline target of a 35% reduction in the number of dogs and primates used in pharmacokinetic studies by 2030, but a 35% reduction five years away is not ambitious enough, and it has not been put on a statutory footing. Like the petitioners, I am concerned that none of the strategy’s targets are in statute. They are ambitions in a policy document with no binding mechanism to ensure they are met. A 35% target for 2030 could become a 25% target in 2032 or 2035. There is nothing in the strategy to prevent that from happening. If we are serious about leading, we should be willing to put our targets into law.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate and for her ongoing commitment to this issue. I thank the petitioners —including 201 from Taunton and Wellington—for raising it, and other Members for their speeches, which have shown the sincerity on this issue across parties. The petitioners are right that the current system is failing on welfare, on science and on the pace of change, but it would be wrong to make out that all the science is resolved. Although there are certainly areas where animal testing cannot yet be replaced, we could, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, be doing a lot more. Animal testing should be ended as soon as possible and this debate should spur the Government into doing a lot more.”
“The hon. Gentleman is doing right by his constituents, if I may say so; I am sure they will appreciate the account that he is giving. Would he agree that some of the issues with maternity departments can sometimes be much more mundane? For example, at Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton, water is coming through the ceilings and there are temperatures of 30°C in the summer. Given that the Secretary of State said, when speaking about Musgrove Park hospital, “if I can bring forward the timetables of these schemes…we will”, must the Government not do everything they can to hasten their hospitals programme so that maternity services, and the conditions in which mums give birth and staff work, can be improved as quickly as possible?”
“I would welcome further discussion with the Minister on that matter in any meeting that is granted. Young people are not asking for much; they simply want the same chances that previous generations took for granted. They deserve a new generation of council and social rent homes—150,000 a year—and low-cost rent to own, which is an affordable route to home ownership, and that is what the Liberal Democrats in government would deliver.”
“That means a serious, funded social house building programme, including tenures specifically designed for young people, and capping rent rises in the way that we proposed during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, so that young people can actually save—for example, for a deposit on a new home of their own. Finally, there is another quick win sitting right in front of the Government. Lib Dem councils such as Somerset want to build more, but their borrowing is maxed out. If the Government will not increase the £3.9 billion a year for council and social housing to the £6 billion a year that we would like to see, will they look at writing off part of the decades-old housing revenue account debt? If they did so, my Liberal Democrat Somerset councillor colleagues could build at least another 630 new council houses.”
“We need a different approach, and I encourage the Government to make further use of the powers that the Conservatives, to give them credit, put on the statute book, which the current Government have extended to town and parish councils, to acquire land at existing use value, and to ensure that it is raising sufficient funding from levies on development to increase the delivery of homes that young people can afford. After all, it is for our environment and communities that we want new homes to be built, and the voices of people and nature should therefore not be excluded from the process. Young people need an affordable route out of private renting.”
“It also likely drove prices higher by fuelling a sellers’ market with extra cash. Imagine if that money had been invested in social housing instead. The Liberal Democrats do not just imagine that; our manifesto set out a commitment to 150,000 social homes per year, with an extra £6 billion per year in funding to roll them out, or £30 billion over the Parliament. This is what we need to bring about: housing that young people can genuinely afford. In addition to social and council rental homes, we would develop a new generation of rent to own. Instead of removing the rights of local communities and councillors, we would take a different approach to secure affordable homes to buy. Our approach would prioritise essential infrastructure first, such as GPs, so that it came before new homes—no doctors, no development.”
“It is time to abolish residential leasehold and cap unfair and unreasonable service and management charges. I hope that the forthcoming Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill will do so. The previous Conservative Government had its chance. Their answer was right to buy, which stripped over 1.5 million council houses from the stock since 1980. We would give councils the power to end right to buy in their areas. The Conservatives’ other approach was Help to Buy, through which they spent £25 billion on an equity loan scheme. What did we get in return? The Institute for Fiscal Studies published research this week showing that Help to Buy made a very limited difference to affordability for first-time buyers, and the mortgage guarantee scheme only really made a difference to the maximum house price for the highest incomes.”
“That pushes people out of education and work, and into a cycle that is hard to escape. Crisis found that 58% of employers are less likely to hire someone experiencing homelessness, and the welfare system is not helping. Under-35s are only eligible for the shared accommodation rate—a lower housing benefit entitlement to cover shared accommodation, at a time when the number of houses in multiple occupation has fallen by 10% since 2019. The shared accommodation rate is a false economy. Our manifesto committed to abolishing it in its application to homeless people. They should not be penalised for being homeless. Many leaseholders who have bought are facing potential negative equity as the cost of remediation or unfair and mounting service charges and ground rents accumulate.”
“Saving for a deposit in the first place has never been harder, because rents are higher than ever both in real terms and as a percentage of income, as we have heard from other hon. Members. Nearly half of 24-year-olds are now living at home with their parents, up from just over a third a decade ago. As one of my constituents put it, he has paid more in rent over the last 20 years than the value of a house, yet he does not own one breeze block and has little hope of his three children getting a home of their own. For the most vulnerable young people, the consequences go further than deferred aspiration. Last year, an estimated 124,000 young people approached their local authority because they were homeless or at risk of homelessness—a 6% rise on the previous year. One young person is facing homelessness every four minutes.”
“While pragmatic improvements to the planning system are always welcome, the Government’s planning changes, which are focused on printing permissions for private sector housebuilders at the expense of locally elected councillors and communities having their say, will not bring the lower house prices that young people desperately need. That never has, and it never will. We need an approach that will not only deliver lower rents but help a new generation get the chance to buy a home of their own. That was an aspiration that felt achievable for my generation, but for too many younger people, seems like a fantasy. It is an injustice that we need to address. Average deposits have more than doubled as a share of income in almost every region of the country compared with 30 years ago, and that is even higher in London.”
“That is why it was a Liberal Government who invented council housing and rolled it out. Liberals such as William Beveridge identified poor housing as the chief cause of squalor—one of the giants that any progressive Government would want to overcome. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to the £3.9 billion per year for social and affordable housing, but we urge them to go further and faster; I will return to how my party would do that. We also campaigned for an end to no-fault evictions and therefore supported the Renters’ Rights Act. Ending no-fault evictions was long overdue; the Conservatives failed to deliver on that.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Butler. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) was the driving force behind securing this debate, the application for which I supported, and I congratulate her on doing so. I should declare an interest as a social landlord. I thank all other Members who have taken part in this important debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who restated the excellent case for planning controls on second homes. I support that proposal because at its heart, housing is the single biggest issue affecting young people’s lives. Whether owning or renting, housing dominates their futures. A decent and affordable home is fundamental and the starting point for all other freedoms.”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that the key issue, as raised by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), is accountability to this House for these contracts? Big contracts can be signed replete with assurances about protecting the public and protecting patients’ data only to morph into an entirely different kind of contract, relationship and company in the future.”
“Anyone who attended the national emergency briefing on 27 November, as I did, could not help being captivated by the international expertise on show about the effects of the climate and nature crisis on everything from food security and national security to all other aspects of British life. Is it not time that the Prime Minister responded to the cross-party call for a nationally televised national emergency briefing? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made by the Prime Minister in this House to accept the need for the public to really understand and hear about the genuine effects of the climate and nature crisis?”
“Will the Minister confirm for the record that the ban on mobile phones in schools will not extend to alternative and augmentative communication devices? Laura in Taunton has put those devices to use for her son. That has transformed his life; it provides an autistic child with an alternative means of communication in school. I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating Laura on her work.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work on this issue. She is right that age classifications that tackle the social media companies, rather than going after children and their rights, are what matters. Recent research by PISA—the programme for international student assessment—on seven internet activities by 15-year-olds in 47 countries found conclusive evidence that life satisfaction is lower at higher rates of social media use by 15-year-olds. Does that not make acting on this issue now even more urgent?”
“The hon. Gentleman speaks to the language delays that are created by these apps. Does he agree that the fact that these additional needs are going to come into the system on top of reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities system—which parents are already worried about—will create extra anxiety and extra pressures, and is going to store up problems for the future if they are not tackled now?”
“I am delighted at the action taken locally in Taunton. I support Lords amendment 333 and I do not really understand why the Government oppose it. Action could be taken and they should take it. Councils and police are too often operating with one hand tied behind their backs. There should be immediate closure where that is needed. Town centre businesses in Taunton and Wellington should not be forced to compete with criminal activity, and I will continue to push the case for stronger powers to stamp that out.”
“I am therefore pressing for section 80 to be amended so that closure notices could be served on the authority of a superintendent or local authority chief executive and be effective for up to 14 days, but, crucially, without the requirement to apply to the courts. To ensure a just approach to retailers, exercising such a power would have to be dependent on evidence of unlawful or illegal trading, such as the sale of stolen goods. The Association of Convenience Stores found that 25% of retailers identified stolen goods being sold locally in their areas, including the under-age sale of alcohol, tobacco, vapes or counterfeit goods, such as cigarettes. Enabling a rapid response of this kind would also help to tackle phoenixing, whereby new ventures open a new company just a few doors down from their closed premises.”
“Behind too many illegal shops are complicit landlords cashing in on the rent from illegal activity, and right now they face no consequences at all. As well as supporting Lords amendment 333, the main change I am pressing for, following my visit with police officers around Taunton, is to address their frustration with the reality of tackling illegal sales at one end of the counter while trading continues at the other end of the counter in the shops they are tackling. I understand why the law requires that any closure notice must be followed up, under section 80 of the 2014 Act, with an application to the courts for a closure order. Frankly, however, that requirement is a hugely onerous demand on the time of hard-pressed officers, which too often discourages closure notices being served when they are needed.”
“The Chartered Trading Standards Institute has pointed out that we need properly resourced trading standards services, which means tackling the local government funding crisis, particularly the social care funding crisis that is the main burden under which councils are struggling. Somerset councillors to whom I have spoken about this also want civil penalties against landlords who knowingly let their premises be used for illegal trading, and that has also raised by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. Those fines should be given to the council both to support trading standards work and to clean up the town centre environment. I believe that repeat offenders among landlords should forfeit their retail property to the council to allow its reuse or regeneration.”
“I would like to pay tribute to police officers like Andy, the trading standards officers and my Lib Dem Somerset councillor colleagues, such as Mike Rigby, overseeing the work that has led to a number of really high-profile closures. Taunton Market, Mr Taunton and Top Market have rightly been closed down, following just the kind of crackdown that was needed. I have a message for anyone else considering that kind of activity in Taunton and Wellington: “Illegal trading isn’t welcome, you will be closed down and you will be prosecuted.” We need to go further, though.”
“We campaigned during the general election for a return to proper community policing and to safer high streets and town centres, and ending the scourge of illegal trading must be part of that. Extending the period over which closure notices may be served by police inspectors or local authority chief executives under section 77 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to seven days, as set out in Lords amendment 333, would be a move in the right direction. I therefore oppose the Government’s motion to strike out that amendment. Thanks to local publicans in my Taunton constituency who came forward with vital information, I raised illegal trading in Taunton with Somerset council and the local police about a year ago.”
“I rise to speak mainly about Lords amendment 333 on illegal trading, but I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) about the illiberal nature of the crackdown on protests. I never thought I would be entering into a world in which old ladies sitting down in protest would in effect be proscribed as terrorists. We are moving into some kind of Kafkaesque world, and the provisions of this Bill worry me in the same way. However, as I wish to focus on illegal trading, that is what I will do. I and the Liberal Democrats support Lords amendment 333, which would extend the length of closure notices.”
“It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I am forced to agree with the hon. Member for Orpington—it does not come easily—about the Reform party spokesperson. He was not just a junior member of the Reform party but its official housing spokesperson, and his commentary on the Grenfell disaster and on the measures—for which there is cross-party support across the House—that must necessarily be taken to improve building regulation—”
“That mismatch risks leaving serious defects unaddressed and standards must be aligned to ensure that all building safety risks are properly identified and remediated. We are also concerned that the building safety levy will not provide sufficient funding for remediation and to support the sector as a whole, particularly the social housing sector. Too many leaseholders therefore remain exposed to costs that they should not have to bear. The Government must ensure that all leaseholders are protected from remediation costs, not just leaseholders in buildings over 11 metres in height. Although we support the statutory instrument, much more needs to be done to ensure that the building safety system works effectively and delivers safe homes for all.”
“It is relevant because the regulations address the Grenfell tragedy. It is worth placing on record that the Reform spokesperson’s comment that, “everyone dies in the end”, is a totally unacceptable and monstrous response to the building safety tragedy and emergency that we face. The statutory instrument makes necessary technical corrections to the building safety regime. The Liberal Democrats support those changes, which will ensure that the system functions as intended. We must never let a tragedy like Grenfell happen again; all parties should agree on that. However, the SI sits within a wider framework that is still somewhat lacking. There remains a concerning mismatch between the Building Safety Act and the PAS 9980 fire safety standard.”
“That accessibility should not depend on luck, persistence or whether somebody remembered accessibility late in the process; it must be part of the plan from the start.”
“Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) of accompanying people on public transport. In those days, we relied on my mum being an indomitable character who would pressgang any available member of the public—family, porters, taxi drivers—to get her across the country. Before public transport accessibility, that involved planks of wood to ramp across the steps from our house into the taxi, or lifting her into the goods van, where she would rattle around with the mailbags from one end of the railway line to the other. On some of those journeys, it was less like being a helper and more like being an extra in “Around the World in 80 Days”. Those days have passed, however. Things have improved, and as the voices of disabled people have been heard more, there have been improvements in public transport accessibility.”
“We have also proposed amendments to Bills on accessible information and representation for passengers with access requirements, on bus accessibility and reporting, on extending support for disabled people, and on the rail passenger’s charter. How will the Government embed transport planning from the outset in future projects so that key decisions are made at the right stage, and how will they bring rail, buses, taxis and driving support together into a more coherent strategy for disabled people. If I may, I will end on a positive note, which I know is unusual in this place. In looking back on my experience, I have a confession: I was a pusher from my childhood to later in life, as my mum was a wheelchair user before the days of electric wheelchairs. I identify with the experience of the hon.”