Rail Strikes

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

It will come as no surprise to anyone that I completely disagree. We are unlikely to have strikes in Scotland, other than the Network Rail issues, which are entirely reserved to this place. I am not entirely sure why the hon. Gentleman does not want people to get a fair wage in this day and age when inflation, partly caused by his own Government, might run at near 10% by the end of this year. I think that 5% is a good deal for the workers and a good deal for ScotRail.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

What I am discerning from this debate is that where you have Tories you get strikes. That is the lesson from Scotland and Wales. It is always instructive to find out from the Tories about market forces. Market forces apply only when it comes to bankers; workers should just suck up the cost of living crisis and not use their force in the market to get themselves a decent wage. If this was about bankers’ bonuses, there would be no problems for Conservative Members whatsoever. They should be doing something about the inequality that is driving this. We saw yesterday from the SNP’s prospectus for independence that the UK has the greatest inequality of any of the north-western European countries. That lies at the doorstep of the Tory Government, and Transport Ministers and other Ministers do nothing about it.

[Gavin Newlands]

I could not agree more. I knew my hon. Friend would manage to shoehorn yesterday’s statements on independence into this debate on rail strikes, and I wholeheartedly agree.

I was talking about the difference in approach between the Tories in Scotland on the ScotRail issue as compared with the current issue. The Scottish Conservatives’ Twitter account said that the SNP Government

“must sort this mess out and address the travel misery facing commuters.”

Graham Simpson called for the Scottish Government to get involved and get round the table. Graham Simpson is a Scottish Conservative transport spokesperson in Holyrood. When he was on “Good Morning Scotland” on 20 May, he was asked seven times how he would resolve the rail dispute and he could not answer on any of those seven occasions. That is the difference in approach we get from the Conservatives in Scotland and the Scottish Conservatives in this place. It would be nice to think that the same energy and vim would be directed towards the Secretary of State and his Ministers for their role in the UK-wide dispute next week, but I somehow think that their social media output will instead absolve the Government of any blame, after throwing the kitchen sink at a Scottish Government only weeks after nationalisation.

Perhaps there is something to be said for real public control of our railways, because under the DFT’s fragmented and privatised system, next week will be catastrophic for our rail network. It would be churlish to point out, but I will anyway, that for years the Scottish Government have called for Network Rail to be devolved to Holyrood and come under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament so as to operate a fully integrated railway bringing together track and services. Indeed, former Rail Minister Tom Harris, now an HS2 Ltd board member, advised the Williams review that Network Rail should be devolved when he was a member of the expert challenge panel, but, as per, the Scottish Government, and the rail sector in Scotland, were ignored. Perhaps if that were the case, and given the likely resolution of the ScotRail dispute, we would have services operating next week in Scotland instead of an almost complete cessation of any rail operations across the country for a week.

At least ScotRail tried to give some certainty to passengers, despite the disruption to services, by publishing an emergency timetable outlining which services were running. As of today, we are promised an emergency timetable on Friday for the disruption starting next Tuesday, and that simply is not enough time for people to plan whatever trips they might have to take. This industrial action has been known about for weeks, yet passengers are waiting until days beforehand to find out what skeleton services will be in place. Whatever other lessons are learned by the DFT from this dispute, a key one will have to be that early information is crucial in allowing potential passengers to make informed decisions about how, where and when they can travel and what alternative arrangements they might need to make.

I was stunned to see the Secretary of State appear to call for an overtime ban for striking rail workers. The entire railway can only function on overtime. One thing that the ScotRail rest day and overtime issue has highlighted is the antiquated rostering system we have in rail systems across the UK. ScotRail has been working to phase that out. That job has been hindered by the pandemic and the impact it has had on driver training—130 new drivers would be in place on the network right now if covid had not hit. Training and recruitment is back on track, with those drivers now scheduled to finish training and be deployed over the next 18 months.

That will go hand in hand with the agreement that ASLEF is now recommending to its members, which will bring Sundays into the working week and put a truly seven-day railway in place over the coming years. That agreement also includes, as highlighted by my colleague on the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), revenue sharing for all ScotRail staff when revenue targets are met. That kind of initiative—giving workers a stake, not just in their job roles but across the service—should be considered across the industry and taken to the negotiating table by the Secretary of State.

Elsewhere in Parliament today, there is a debate on fire and rehire secured by the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I was keen to take part in that debate, but my Front-Bench duties have brought me here. One of the key points in the speech I would have made there is equally valid here: modern and progressive industrial relations must involve dialogue and collective working between management and the workforce. It is clear that the Secretary of State appears to have been doing everything possible to run far away from the very thought of even appearing progressive or modern. He suggested that striking rail workers should be banned from getting overtime, despite the reliance of the network on overtime and rest day working—a situation we are working on in Scotland.

The Secretary of State wrote a column for The Sun about “rapacious union barons”

and the RMT executive holding

“a gun to the industry’s head”,

while

“ministers are determined to ensure strikers cannot milk the system”.

He used veiled threats to bring in unqualified, untrained staff to bust strikes, which simply poured even more fuel on a fire of his own Department’s making. That might go down well around the Cabinet table or at the next meeting of the 1922 committee—at least when it is not trying to change the rules for the next leadership election—but that is not the way to show actual leadership, and it certainly is not the way to negotiate with workers who are at the end of their tether with a Department that has used rail to grab headlines when it suits, but quietly dumps the negative stories when it suits, too, whether that is HS2 to Leeds and Bradford, the Golborne link or the truncated Great Western electrification.

Passengers and rail workers all want to see a better railway that delivers efficiency, punctuality, value and convenience. The Government’s attempt to drive a wedge between those groups and their ambitions are as predictable as they are regressive. They are the behaviours of the past and of those with their heads in the sand. Ministers must meet transport workers and trade unions to resolve this dispute before mass disruption affects us all, and in doing so commit to no redundancies, as the Scottish Government have.

This motion—in fact, this whole approach—is all part of the Tory culture war to cripple unions, undermine strikes, ban disruptive protests and end pickets with temporary agency staff, and it highlights yet again why the Tories are unfit to govern. Rail has a bright future. In Scotland, after decades of underinvestment and gradual decline, electrification and decarbonisation have been a core part of the Government agenda for every party that has been the Administration, whether Labour, Liberal or SNP. Sadly, we have not had a Conservative Government in Scotland yet.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Not sadly at all.

[Gavin Newlands]

It was ironic. Electrification and decarbonisation are a key part of the drive towards a net zero society and a more balanced and sustainable economy, but that modernisation has to be accompanied by a modern, mature industrial relations strategy. That maturity and modernity was demonstrated by ScotRail and the trade unions in Scotland this month in coming to an agreement that benefits staff and the network, and the contrast with the utterances of the Secretary of State and his team could not be clearer.

The Secretary of State is a dinosaur stuck in the dark ages of industrial relations, retreating to his ideological instincts instead of looking elsewhere to see how to manage a railway and work collectively with staff and unions to plot a path for the future. It is not too late for him and this Government to see sense and join the rest of us in the 21st century, to learn lessons from elsewhere on these isles and in Europe, and to take heed of the voices in the industry, unions and management who want a grown-up discussion about where the industry goes. This motion is not grown-up. If the Secretary of State is serious about a new start for railways, he should seek permission to withdraw it immediately.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I want to bring the debate back to passengers and rail users, because my constituents do not just face the strikes next week; they have faced months of industrial action by the RMT affecting the TransPennine network.

We have seen weekend services completely and utterly disrupted. We have seen regular cancellations of weekday services because of the issues around rest day working and working to rule on that issue. We have the conductor dispute, which means that there is essentially no reliable Sunday service. As someone who has worked for 20 years to improve services at Lockerbie station and to encourage people to get on the railways, I can say that these issues undermine confidence in the railways. Lockerbie station is the hub for the rural south of Scotland. There are, particularly for journeys to Edinburgh—

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman knows what these negotiations are like. My background is the National Union of Mineworkers, then the TUC and so on—I have been a trade unionist for the last 50 years—and in every sort of negotiation, the key issue is just getting through that door. Once we get through that door and are face to face starting those negotiations off, anything can happen. We have all been there, and we can have a bloody great row, but at least we are talking. That is all the RMT is asking for.

Let me just say that Members need to know the atmosphere at the moment. I have been talking at various union conferences—I was at Unison yesterday and all the rest—and there is a concern that we are going back to the 1980s, and I saw what happened in the 1980s. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who is here, was an active miner at the time, and I was a member of the NUM head office. What happened then was that there was a Government will to somehow take on the trade union movement, and we got described as the “enemy within”.

If anyone thinks it is to their advantage politically to start taking the RMT on as the enemy within in this situation, they are sorely mistaken, because it is not just about the RMT. At every union conference I have been to, there is a real anxiety. There is an anxiety about protection of their members against this cost of living crisis, and I have to say that there is an anxiety about protecting themselves against some of the threats that have come from the Government—minimal services, bans on overtime and all the rest—which is inflammatory when we are trying to get a negotiated settlement.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I do not have time, to be honest, or do I get a second extra minute? [Interruption.] I will give way.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is it not ironic, or does he not think it is ironic that, with a Prime Minister who talks about a higher-wage economy, the minute people start—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Can the hon. Gentleman face the front, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I am trying to do that and face the right hon. Gentleman, which is not easy, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Surely it is ironic that, with a Prime Minister who talks about a higher-wage economy, the first time people come along just wanting to maintain wages—not let wages go lower—his Government are opposing it, with the right hon. Gentleman having to make a very reasonable case in this House pointing out why trade union members have to do what they are doing.

[John McDonnell]

Perhaps I pointed in the wrong direction, but I meant no disrespect to the hon. Member.

I have talked at several trade union conferences and I have been consulting trade unions in my own constituency, and the big fear at the moment is that their members are facing a potential avalanche of costs coming at them, and they have had their wages largely frozen for 12 years, with some having in effect had a wage cut. They do not see any light at the end of the tunnel, and they see a Government now threatening intimidatory legislation to undermine trade union rights further, so then we ask the question: what do they do? All they can do—this is all that is left to them—is to withdraw their labour, and that is what we are seeing.

This is not just in the RMT. Unite has 100 disputes taking place at the moment. The general secretary of Unison has for the first time—I have never heard this before—said to Unison members, “Go back to your branches and prepare for action.” The PCS is in dispute as well. If we look at what is happening, it is because we have working-class people frightened for their futures and deeply insecure about their futures. They are faced with a Government who, to be frank, on this particular issue will not even open the door for a meeting. That is why the atmosphere has been so fouled at the moment. I just think that Conservative Members should know that this is not the time for braying speeches; it is a time for consideration and an element of responsibility to be introduced into this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mike Penning]

What I am trying to get across is that there is anger here, on both sides, and my constituents will not be able to go to work, because people are on strike who did not have to go to work during the lockdown when the unions were getting their money. What is going on here is that we are being punished. My constituents are being punished by the Labour party, which will not come out against this strike.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

rose—

[Sir Mike Penning]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has been chuntering away for the past two hours, and that’s enough for anybody. Labour Members could contribute to this. They could turn around and say, “This is the wrong time; this is not the right time”. Instead, because they are so petrified of their paymasters, they have to condone it.

Seaborne Freight

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, the best way of avoiding no deal is to ensure that the deal passes through this House, and I will vote for it next week.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

It feels like we are on the set of a film called “Carry On Brexit”. Le Figaro described the contract as ferries “sans bateaux”. The firm’s terms and conditions are from a pizza delivery company, so we wonder whether the MV Hawaiian and the MV Pepperoni will be sailing the route. To get away from “Carry On Brexit”, the serious point is that the Secretary of State is saying that if the company does not deliver ferries, there will be no payment, but if it does not deliver the ferries, what will be the fall-back, stopgap or contingency? If there are no ferries, the whole thing falls apart—it is “Carry On Brexit”!

[Chris Grayling]

What a load of absolute tripe. I can tell the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to me. Ninety per cent. of this contract has been awarded to substantial and established ferry operators—DFDS and Brittany Ferries. We did not have a reason to exclude a small business from taking a small part of the contract with a legitimate, valid bid.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I have two things to say. First, we very strongly support community transport operators in general. Secondly, we have been under some pressure to clarify the rules regarding local transport operators who are tacitly operating commercially. I am sure that that is not the case in Oxfordshire, but it is in other parts of the country. If my hon. Friend’s transport authority has a difficulty, he is welcome to get it to talk to my officials and/or the Community Transport Association.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The Shipping Minister will be aware of huge concerns regarding a time lag of almost an hour on a number of occasions between distress at sea and the tasking and launching of an RNLI boat. What can the Minister do to ensure shorter response times in that golden hour, particularly at Maritime and Coastguard Agency level? After all, RNLI men I know have told me that they would prefer 10 false alarms than to be late at the scene of a real distress call.

Airport Capacity and Airspace Policy

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will be aware that the Government are bringing forward plans to fulfil Chris Gibb’s recommendation of spending £300 million on the route in the short term. We clearly have a modernisation challenge beyond that, and we are looking at how best we can fulfil it. The other issue for Gatwick is the station, and we are in discussions with the airport and Network Rail about what we can do with it. Ensuring that Gatwick has proper modern surface access for the future is also our priority.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I welcome the national airport policy, although I note the warning that aviation could become less convenient to use, lowering economic output. Unfortunately, many airports are turning themselves into long, tedious, meandering shopping malls, which inconveniences travellers. Glasgow airport, for example, has a quarter of a kilometre meander that not only hinders those needing to travel, but inconveniences people with mobility issues, particularly those going to gates for flights to the islands. I exclude London City airport from that criticism, but will the airport policy consider travellers as well as shoppers by at least providing a shorter route for them?

[Chris Grayling]

I know what the hon. Gentleman means—we do spend a lot of time walking through the shops—but the counter-argument is that shops are one of the factors that keeps the cost of aviation down, making it more accessible. I am unsure whether I can promise him fewer shops.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will you look at it?

[Chris Grayling]

We will be holding a consultation on the national strategy, so the hon. Gentleman is welcome to make that point, which we will consider carefully. More important is providing better links through Scotland’s airports to Heathrow, and better links to his constituency from airports such as Edinburgh and Glasgow. That is important for better connectivity, which is why the proposal will make difference for him, too.

Exiting the EU and Transport

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have seen the inability to see such things through and deliver them not only on this issue, but through the prism of the franchising system in the rail market. He raises a grave concern about something that we will be watching with great care in the weeks and months ahead.

Through its membership of the EU, the UK currently relies on the EU single aviation market, which allows airlines to operate freely inside the EU without restriction on capacity, frequency or pricing and enables the use of the EU’s external aviation agreements. Leaving the European economic area could mean that we are no longer part of the single aviation market and could lose access to those external air service agreements. That is critical, because unless the position is clarified urgently UK airlines will lose the right to operate within the European Union and airlines will lose the right to fly UK domestic routes. The Government must ensure that Brexit does not damage the UK’s connectivity. The aviation sector has been clear about the importance of retaining an unchanged operating environment.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman and others have talked about getting the best out of Brexit as it arrives. Given the seven options for that process, does he imagine that any will be as good as the situation that we have at the moment? People are looking for the best decision, but the question is whether it will be as good as what we have.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman raises a critical point that is the whole focus of this debate. It is our concern in this House that we are simply not going to be able to deliver the same level of interoperability and accessibility as we currently enjoy throughout Europe. In the aviation sector, it is critical to achieve that before we even begin discussions about our trading relationship going forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I am delighted to hear it.

Will the Secretary of State explain to the House his plans for the UK’s relationship with the European Aviation Safety Agency on leaving the EU? What is his intention? Will he seek to maintain technical co-operation through a bilateral aviation safety agreement approach, as with the United States, Canada and Brazil, or through a working arrangement with the EU, as is currently enjoyed by China, New Zealand and Russia? I urge the Government to confirm that air service agreements will be negotiated separately from the UK’s negotiations on future trade with the EU, as well as specifying the nature of those agreements. I invite the Secretary of State to outline his plans for UK airlines to retain the right to operate within the EU and retain access to the EU’s external air service agreements.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point about retaining the work done on the open skies agreement, because if we look back on UK air policy before that time, as I have done, we see that it was about bilateral agreements that specified flying into London airports only. I believe Iceland broke that by getting into Glasgow, because the father of one of the negotiators wanted to go shopping for suits in Glasgow. That absolutely points out the problem we faced when the UK was managing this itself: it was centralised for the benefit of the south-east of the UK, to the detriment of others.

[Andy McDonald]

I do not know where you get your suits, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Neither in Iceland, nor in Glasgow. It appears we should always go to Glasgow. The issue the hon. Gentleman raises is particularly pertinent given the decision we have just had on the additional south-eastern runway, so he makes the point well.

Numerous rail projects in the UK receive support via loans or direct funding as a consequence of our membership of the EU, and now is not the time for the Department to row back on investments in our railways, as we have seen happen repeatedly in respect of electrification works, which hon. Members have spoken about so eloquently this afternoon. I invite the Secretary of State to reassure the House that any funding shortfalls will be made up by the Government and that investment in rail will not suffer as a consequence of Brexit.

The Secretary of State said during the EU referendum that he wanted to take back control. Labour Members very much wish to take back control of our railways from private and foreign state-owned companies, which currently profit from the system at the expense of passengers and taxpayers. Ours is a policy supported by two thirds of the public, but, as the Secretary of State is aware, although running services in the public sector is currently entirely consistent with EU legislation, the fourth railway package may restrict the different models of public ownership that might be available. Does he agree—I believe he said so earlier—that it should be for UK voters to decide how best to order our railways? If so, will he confirm that his Government will not attempt to retain any European requirements in domestic law that would frustrate any future attempts to bring railways back into public ownership? I was delighted to hear what he had to say about HS2, and I suppose that if there is going to be a silver lining from leaving the EU, it will be that we will not be able to blame “them” any longer for any problems we have with disabled people getting access to our railway system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) has not had an answer to his question, because he made it abundantly clear that he was talking about the infrastructure. The Secretary of State suggested he should be satisfied with improved services, but those will come only with improvements in the infrastructure.

The skills footprint, to which the Secretary of State referred with great regularity—of course we share some of his concerns—should be delivered whether or not we are in the European Union. That is not a consequence of any move. It should be an absolute prerequisite that is woven into everything we do.

Although we have decided as a nation to leave the European Union, co-operating with, and retaining our connectivity to, the EU is vital. We would greatly appreciate it if the Secretary of State enlightened us on what progress is being made to ensure that hauliers from the UK can carry goods between other member states and on whether it is his intention to secure an agreement for British driving licences to continue to be exchangeable with those of EU member states after Brexit.

Finally, let me mention UK ports, which directly employ more than 25,000 people, many of whom voted to leave because of anxiety surrounding EU ports services regulation. Many leave campaigners argued that leaving the EU would ensure full exemption from those regulations. However, the former shipping Minister, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), was reported as saying that the ports services regulation would still apply under an arrangement that granted the UK access to the European economic area. Can the Secretary of State clarify the Government’s intentions on any withdrawal from ports regulations and guarantee that any exemptions do not inadvertently undermine strong industrial relations and the welfare standards of dock and port workers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Indeed, and I know where the hon. Gentleman—my next-door neighbour—has got that figure from. It is from paragraph 6.2 of the Library note, which I can see he has been reading. I am glad that he has been so assiduous. The principle is that, despite the fact that we are an island, we compete with continental ports for certain types of traffic. Those in the ports industry are therefore concerned by a lack of a level playing field between the UK and continental ports.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman will have probably seen the report published on the front page of the Financial Times perhaps four, five or six weeks ago that the UK might have some difficulty carrying out customs checks at ports and other such points. At the moment, we carry out 35 million checks a year. We as the UK would need to carry out up to 240 million checks a year, but the new system has the capacity to handle about 100 million checks. If this situation emerges, it will cause a huge difficulty post-Brexit and inevitably damage trade, because the infrastructure is not there to do customs checks at ports.

[Sir William Cash]

My response is quite simple: if we do not continue to have an efficient ports system because of the effect of the port services regulation, nothing that the hon. Gentleman says will make any difference to the fact that our ports will be put not only at a severe disadvantage, but in a dangerous situation vis-à-vis the other continental ports. However, despite the fact that there was an attempt to get state aid rules imported into the regulation, the ports employers believe that

“it is essential that legislation aimed at regulating less commercial ports on the continent does not cause unintended damage to the UK’s thriving commercial sector.”

On that basis, there is a matter of principle that affects our whole import and export business that goes through the ports.

The effect that the proposal will have is so obvious that I need not even attempt to explain it. It aims to regulate market access to port services, port charges and financial transparency. The ports employers say:

“The text as a whole”

—this is some time ago, but I will catch up in a moment with what they have said most recently—

“even if heavily amended, cannot deliver on its states aims. Instead, it will create severe legal uncertainty, reduce investment and will ultimately be detrimental to the safety standards and working conditions which currently exist in EU ports. EU ports may have different ownership structures, but all require a high level of confidence in a stable legal and policy framework in the long term if they are to operate safely”,

which is for the benefit of the workers,

“and contribute to the EU agenda for jobs and growth”,

which is vital to everyone, whether they are employers or workers in the ports.

The UKMPG goes on to say:

“The Port Services Regulation proposal does not provide such confidence and risks leaving a legacy of legal and practical difficulties across the EU.”

The UKMPG

“supports a return to the previous EU ports policy approach based round application of the general provisions of the Treaty reinforced, where appropriate, by guidelines on state aids.”

We now have Brexit so, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) suggested in relation to the great repeal Bill, are we going to reach a point, as I think we must, where we transpose the legislation into UK law but then, through statutory instruments and our own decision within the framework of this Westminster jurisdiction, as a result of the decisions taken by the people of this country, including Government Members and Opposition Members—with the exception, I suspect, of SNP Members, but they will pay a price for this in their ports areas—[Interruption.] They may find this amusing, but there are people in the ports of Scotland who do not like the proposal and will resist it if they can. They will not be allowed to do so if the SNP can get away with it.

The bottom line is that this is an issue of great national interest. The European Scrutiny Committee has been following the matter for several years. We first recommended it for debate on the Floor of the House in July 2014—over two years ago. On 19 October, I wrote to the Minister:

“We understand that it is intended that the European Parliament will adopt this text for a First Reading Agreement at its 12-15 December plenary and we presume that this will be followed shortly by Council agreement.

You will understand, therefore, that the Committee expects that the Government will finally, after a disgracefully long delay”—

which I underlined several times—

“schedule the floor debate on the proposal which it and its predecessor have recommended.”

In fact, there have been two debates, which have been aborted. One of them, I can assure the House, was so shambolic that the Chairman of the Committee had to suspend the sitting. I will not go into the details of that—they are all on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

Let me answer that by giving the right hon. Gentleman the words of easyJet itself. EasyJet is currently registered in the UK and can fly largely without restriction from the UK to other member states—France and Germany, for example—and wholly, in terms of the domestic market, within countries such as Italy. EasyJet is now setting up a separate operation outwith the UK to ensure that it can continue to fly without restrictions after the UK leaves the EU. As its chief executive officer, Carolyn McCall, said, current EU flying rights might have to be renegotiated, and the new company will ensure easyJet can operate within the EU. She added:

“We are not saying there will be no agreement. We just don’t know the shape or form. We don’t have the luxury of waiting. But we have to take control of our own future.”

That is in no small part due to the lack of clarity from the UK Government over what aviation agreement the UK will eventually come up with. The Secretary of State and his colleague the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union have said:

“Market access remains a top priority, and we want to make sure we have liberal access to European aviation markets.”

Strikingly, however, there was no guarantee that the UK would stay within the open skies agreement. The UK Government need to explain to us now how this is going to work. When open skies was agreed back in 2008, the UK market was one of the key attractions for the United States. At the time, the UK accounted for a 40% share of the EU-US market. If the agreement ceases to apply, as was mentioned earlier, will the UK have to revert to the Bermuda II bilateral agreement, signed in 1946 and last amended in 1991?

[Mr MacNeil]

Perhaps there is an opportunity for the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us whether we will be in the open skies agreement post-Brexit.

[Drew Hendry]

I am happy to allow the Secretary of State to intervene on that point if he wishes to do so, but obviously he does not.

The aviation market has changed considerably since the days of the Bermuda II agreement, and any reversion could cause disruption to UK airlines and transatlantic trade and passenger routes. If this is not the case, then what is the plan?

The implication of new border controls is negative in both ways. Ease of travel within the EU is attractive to our constituents and to those visiting the UK. Undoubtedly, passport checks and processing times for visitors from the EU will impact on our attractiveness to visitors. The fact that EU visitors will need to enter the UK through the non-EEA lines will require Border Force to commit significantly more resources at airports. Even with extra staff, queuing times for European visitors will still almost double to about 45 minutes. Those of us representing constituencies with a significant tourism economy find this extremely concerning.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The House can invite the Procedure Committee to look into this matter, as you well know. And you know better than I do how the procedure of this House works, after so many years in this place.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether we could have a tidying-up of the procedures of the House. In the light of English votes for English laws, Health questions and Education questions, as they are termed, are actually English Health questions and English Education questions. It would be better for voters up and down the length of the current UK if they understood that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Once again, the answer is the same: it is for this House to invite the Procedure Committee to look into the matter. If you believe there is a wrong, I am sure the Committee will make sure it gets put right.

I have now to announce the result of today’s two deferred Divisions. In respect of the Question relating to electricity, the Ayes were 287 and the Noes were 232, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the Question relating to public sector pensions, the Ayes were 287 and the Noes were 211, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]



With the leave of the House, I will put motions 4 and 5 together, as they cover the same area.

Emergency Tug Vessels (West Coast of Scotland)

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan). I would argue that there is a wider point, because if we had responsibility for our marine environment in Scotland we would make sure that we had ships in place to protect our coastal community. Moreover, the unbelievable threat that we face from nuclear waste being moved by sea down the west coast of Scotland would certainly not be tolerated by an independent Scottish Government.

Let us think about the risks that we face on the west and north coasts of Scotland: extreme weather, treacherous coastlines and changing tidal patterns throughout the year. In those treacherous waters are general cargo boats and tankers, and there is even the threat of nuclear waste, as has been said. The thought of nuclear waste being transported down the west coast leaves me cold. The possibility of no emergency towing vessels being available horrifies me.

The need for such vessels was demonstrated clearly when two days after the announcement of the withdrawal of the vessels in 2011, the ship-towing vessel based at Stornoway was sent to the aid of a nuclear submarine, HMS Astute, which had run aground off Skye. We do not know whether Astute was carrying nuclear weapons—it is a moot point—but a nuclear sub colliding with the Isle of Skye was quite an incident. Who is to say such an event could not happen again? We need the security of an emergency towing vessel. I might add that the towing vessel would provide some security for us; a useless Trident nuclear submarine presents no security to the people of Scotland.

Where is the Government’s responsibility to my constituents—what will happen if there is another Braer, heaven forbid? We have learned that ETVs are not a statutory responsibility of the MCA and are not a budget priority. Even so, the MCA admits there is an increased risk if ETVs are not available. One almost could not make this up: there is acceptance of risk, but here is the rub, those of us in these far-off communities, well, we can take the risk—we are expendable. That is the message from this Government. Why should the Minister care? As a local MP, I care for my communities—I will fight for my communities—and I want the Government to take responsibility. What is the point of the MCA if such provision is not a statutory responsibility? Why will the Minister not make it a statutory responsibility?

Let me deal with the issue of vessels in the constituency of Ross, Skye and Lochaber. This wanton disregard for marine safety takes place at a time when the MCA is considering an application for ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Cromarty Firth. Here again, the Government seem to be coming up short in discharging their responsibilities to consult effectively and take environmental considerations seriously. It is environmental concerns that demonstrate the need for our marine safety to be taken seriously, and our communities need the comfort of knowing that emergency towing vessels are there as part of the Government’s responsibility.

The Scottish Government are responsible for marine safety yet, incredible as it sounds, we do not know whether Marine Scotland was consulted as part of the process. The application for the ship-to-ship transfer dated 5 November states that the MCA confirmed that the main consultees would be the local government authority, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, with the appropriate wildlife non-governmental organisations. There was no mention of Marine Scotland. Why not?

That is why I tabled a question to the Minister dated 9 February, which was answered on 15 February, stating that Marine Scotland was consulted. I have not been able to clarify whether this was the case or not. Perhaps the Minister can do so this evening. Why was Marine Scotland not listed in the consultation document? Was it consulted? In the interests of transparency, will he publish any related correspondence?

I return to the clear need for ETVs both on the west coast of Scotland and in the north. I mentioned the Donaldson report from 1994. We also had the Belton report in 1995, which stated:

“Once a ship has irreparably broken down and is drifting towards the shore tugs represent the first and only line of defence.”

Well, that is pretty clear. We also need to examine the scale of the risk. The Minister has an issue with costs.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I am pleased to see in this Parliament so many attending such a debate. In the previous Parliament, before SNP Members were so numerous, there would be very few Members at a debate such as this.

The UK Government are playing fast and loose because of an event that might happen once in 25 years, once in 50 years or once in 100 years. They have no insurance policy because they are a penny-wise, pound-foolish Government who are playing fast and loose with the Scottish coastline, which my hon. Friend and I represent and care about. If the UK Government respected Scotland and genuinely thought of the UK as a family of nations, they would step up to the mark now, instead of abdicating their responsibilities.

[Ian Blackford]

I thank my hon. Friend for that fine intervention. I look forward to hearing the Minister answering it, as we have not had an answer yet. Five of us went to see the Minister last November. We have been waiting quite some time for this Government to take their responsibilities seriously.

As I was saying, the Minister has an issue with costs. What the Government should be doing is looking imaginatively at making ETVs multifunctional in conjunction with other Government Departments to spread costs. There are many possibilities—for example, increased lighthouse dues, port dues or MCA inspection fees, as well as deploying the ETVs on other activities. Time does not allow a full exploration of potential revenue streams, but there are many opportunities for growing income.

In a letter to me and colleagues on 17 November last year, the MCA stated that there is no formal vessel traffic management system in the Northern and Western Isles region and that no mandatory reporting requirement exists in these areas. There is a voluntary reporting scheme. I find it remarkable that in this day and age we do not know what ships and what dangerous cargoes are afloat on our waters.

Be that as it may, the voluntary scheme showed that in the Northern Isles, the Pentland firth and the Fair Isle channel there were 81 tankers and 290 general cargo vessels over a 30-day period to 9 November last year. For the Minches and west of Lewis the respective figures were 66 tankers and 202 general cargo vessels. We are not talking about the odd cargo. As my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) said, whether it is a one-in-25-year or a one-in-50-year risk or even a one-in100-year risk, these are risks that we cannot afford to take. That raises the issue of a mandatory reporting scheme, because we need to know exactly how many vessels are in our waters. The numbers I have given suggest that my communities need the protection that ETVs offer.

The same letter from 17 November lists the towage provided in the Northern and Western Isles since 2011. It includes, for example, an incident on 19 March 2012, when the MN Flinterspirit ran aground off North Uist. There is no ETV in the Western Isles, so the Orkney-based vessel was deployed, and the MN Flinterspirit was refloated. A month later, the Orkney ETV went to the aid of a fishing vessel that was on fire 50 miles from Orkney. On 7 April 2014, it went to the aid of MV Norholm, which had broken down off Cape Wrath.

More recently, the Orkney ETV went to the scene of the grounding of the MV Lysblink Seaways at Kilchoan, in Ardnamurchan. Interestingly, the report I have states that the location was well outside the ETV’s operational area, so there we have it: the MCA itself accepts that the vehicle in Orkney was not ideally situated to give succour to constituents in Ardnamurchan. Let us just dwell on that: the MCA concedes that the distance from Orkney is too great to offer security. If there is one thing that demonstrates the need to maintain one ETV in Orkney serving the Northern Isles and one serving the west coast, that is it. Are we just to sit back and hope for the best, or will the Government meet their responsibilities and provide security for the marine environment and our coastal communities?

[Mr MacNeil]

My hon. Friend asks a pertinent question. He says we do not know what boats are going up the west coast of Scotland at the moment. Actually, looking at a marine traffic app, we can see that an 11,000-tonne oil and chemical tanker is going up there just now—it is between South Uist and my hon. Friend’s home in Skye. There is no insurance policy for that boat travelling through the Minches, because of the UK Government’s negligence. He makes a salient point when he says that we do not know what is going up the west coast; in fact, we do, but the point is that the UK Government do not, because they are not looking at these apps, and they are not worried, because this is Scotland.

[Ian Blackford]

It is too far from Westminster. Why should they care? However, my hon. Friend makes an important point. The vessel that ran aground at Ardnamurchan—the Lysblink Seaways—was a general cargo vessel. Can we just stop and think for a minute about what would have happened if an oil vessel had run aground at Ardnamurchan? We should just think about the environmental damage that could have happened. We should think about the threat to the tourist industry in Ardnamurchan—this is a fragile economy that depends on tourism. We cannot accept that risk. The Government have to act to protect communities up and down the west and north coast of Scotland.

On 7 May 2015, the MV Industrial Kennedy broke down 94 miles north-west of Shetland and was towed to Lerwick. That and the other incidents I mentioned are just some of those in which the Orkney ETV was deployed. From my information, it appears that the ETV was deployed on 13 occasions between November 2011 and November 2015. That is a significant number of incidents. More importantly, however, we should remember that these vessels are required as an insurance policy, as my hon. Friend said.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing this debate on the subject of ETVs. Only the Department for Transport could come up with a three-letter acronym for a three-letter word—tug. Let me be clear from the start that I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion for protecting the Scottish coast. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) said that I did not care about Scotland. I assure him that Scotland is every bit as much part of my country as is Yorkshire or any other part. I do care for the environment around Scotland and for the welfare of seamen on that part of our seas.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning me and for giving way, as is the convention in the House. Will we see his concern and his fine words manifested not only in the retention of the ETV in the Northern Isles, but in the return of the ETV to Stornoway, in the Hebrides?

[Mr Goodwill]

Let me develop my argument, and I will return to that point. Scotland is not only a stunning landscape but the home of important industries such as agriculture and fishing, which are economically important to Scotland and the whole United Kingdom. Protecting the environment and safety at sea are our top priorities. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned the Cromarty firth oil transfer licence. Marine Scotland was directly consulted on 10 December, and on 8 February, when the consultation ended, it had not responded. When it was asked whether it intended to respond, the answer was no. I hope that that clarifies that point.

Shipping has a good safety record, but we must guard against complacency, because incidents happen. The last major environmental tragedy to befall the Scottish coast was the loss of the oil tanker Braer in the early ’90s. We are very lucky that because of the seascape, much of the oil was dispersed. As a member of the European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I, like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), visited the Galicia area and saw some of the devastation caused to the beaches, the marine environment and the marine ecosystem by the heavy oil. The oil clogged up the beaches, and it was heartbreaking to see the seabirds that were affected by it.

That was 23 years ago, and it is to the credit of the shipping industry and the skills of its seafarers that we have not had an incident on the same scale since. As we have heard, the late Lord Donaldson of Lymington conducted an extensive review of safety after the Braer incident. His report, “Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas”, was published in May 1994. It is easy to select quotes from Lord Donaldson’s excellent report. He recommended that the Government set up a system to ensure that tugs with adequate salvage capacity were available at key points around the UK’s coast. He also said that salvage was, and should remain, a primarily private sector service. That is, of course, what happens around the UK’s coast, with the exception of Scotland. The shipping industry pays directly for towage where it is required, at no cost to the public. Lord Donaldson was equally clear that the costs of pollution prevention should be met by potential polluters rather than by the Government and the public.

[Mr MacNeil]

The Minister’s arguments are all well and good if there are tug boats available to do that work, but what if there are no tug boats available? Where coastal communities and our coastline are at risk, a responsible Government would make sure that that capacity was there where the market and the private sector were failing. The market and the private sector are failing in that on the north and west coast of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has secured the debate because of that failure and the lack of those boats.

[Mr Goodwill]

If the hon. Gentleman will relax a little, I will come on to some of those points. He might find that he need not be quite as irate as he is, because I share his concerns.

The world has moved on in the more than 20 years since Lord Donaldson wrote his report, and shipping safety has moved on, too. We have seen the introduction of the new global maritime distress and safety system, electronic charts, bridge watch systems, integrated bridge navigation systems, automatic identification systems, better standards of training for seafarers, improved and more reliable ship propulsion and engine systems, and the international safety management quality code. Those have all added to the tools available to support safer navigation practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is absolutely valid. I am talking about some of the other vessels that we have been able to remove from around the coast because of other factors.

There is improved automatic monitoring of ship movements from the shore, both by Her Majesty’s Coastguard and by port authorities. That is why we felt it was right in 2011 to decide to withdraw the Government-funded tugs operating in the Dover strait and in the south-west approaches off Falmouth. The savings were substantial. Withdrawing the ETVs elsewhere in the UK saved the public purse approximately £32.5 million over the last spending review period. The ETV based in Orkney in the Northern Isles is funded until 31 March, at a cost of roughly £2 million to £3 million per year.

The availability of commercial tug and salvage operations in such areas persuaded us that it was no longer appropriate for the UK taxpayer to fund that provision. That decision has been borne out by the fact that commercial tows have provided assistance where that has been necessary. However, we recognised that the picture was different on the Scottish coast, where there is a lack of larger commercial tugs. One Government-funded tug has been retained since then, based at Kirkwall in the Orkneys, and can operate both to the north and to the west.

The positioning of the ETV was carefully considered and was based on the density of shipping across the Northern and Western Isles region, notably of tanker vessels; the availability of shelter during inclement weather; and the ready availability of effective logistics support. On balance, the density of shipping, particularly of tanker vessels, carried the greatest weight and predicated the stationing of the tug in and around the Orkney Islands. That provision costs the taxpayer between £2 million and £3 million annually, as I have mentioned.

Since its retention in 2011, the emergency towing vessel Herakles has been used to offer a tow just four times. The tug has been asked to stand by and ready itself for potential towage on other occasions purely as a precautionary measure. At no time has any ship needing a commercial tow failed to secure one, nor has there been any occurrence of pollution within the marine environment through a lack of a timely and effective towing service. It is therefore right that we consider whether it is appropriate for the UK taxpayer to continue to fund that provision. We have not included the provision in our current spending plans.

[Mr MacNeil]

In fairness to the Minister he is genuinely allowing us to have an exchange of views. However, I find his argument akin to saying, “My house was built in 1906 and it has not been on fire since, and therefore I do not need fire insurance for my house.” The reality is—this is the point made by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber in this debate—that we should have an insurance policy. The Minister is telling me that, no matter the age of my house, I do not need insurance for my house—or, in this case, coastal insurance. In that, the UK Government have been found short and very wanting.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct to raise the issue of risk. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland talked about the MCA looking at all potential risks. Indeed, the risk assessment by the MCA looked at all factors, including mechanical failure, collision risk, traffic volumes and the weather, including the very severe weather that can affect that part of the world. The stakeholder meeting on 10 February scrutinised the risk assessment, and all parties agreed with the assessment, including the fact that risk levels increase without ETV provision. The MCA will carry out further refinement of the risk assessment in the light of stakeholder discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I certainly hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The provision of the ETV and the steaming times to get to certain locations where it may be needed is something we need to address. I urge all those with an interest to seize the opportunity this extra time brings to work with the MCA to implement a longer term strategy to meet this need. I hope right hon. and hon. Members will give their encouragement for that.

As I have said in response to questions from hon. Members, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring shipping activities off the coast of Scotland remain safe.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am very grateful for the Government U-turn, although it is only for six months. We have concentrated a lot on pollution, but two months ago the cruise ship Star Pride ran aground at 6.15 am on 22 December near Isla de Coiba, Panama. In such a situation many lives are in peril. Luckily, the climate was better there. There is increased cruise traffic off the west coast of Scotland. Where are the tug boats or the security to ensure that such a situation would not turn into a human catastrophe? We talk about environmental catastrophes, but we have to be aware of human catastrophes. The Government are making a U-turn, but I hope that they carry on steaming further south and think of the Hebrides and the west coast too.

[Mr Goodwill]

I have already made it very clear that we have two considerations in terms of the marine environment and pollution, particularly from vessels carrying oil, but there is also the potential loss of life from vessels that cannot receive timely assistance.

I will make a final decision about whether it is right for the UK taxpayer to continue funding the emergency towing vessel provision in the light of the MCA’s advice before the end of September. We look forward to colleagues giving evidence and giving their views on that consideration. I will, of course, be consulting Scottish Ministers on those options before a final decision is made. As I have said, I am happy to meet island councils to hear their ideas for the future. Indeed, I look forward to travelling north, if the diary allows and now there will be a bit more daylight up there, to visit some of the locations and hear at first hand from people on the ground.

Question put and agreed to.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I bow to no one in my applause when unemployment falls, but to say that Wirral, Merseyside and the rest of the north-west have not suffered from huge cuts to local government is to ignore the facts. I know that that is an argument that almost everyone in the north-west—perhaps with the exception of members of the Tory party—will recognise.

We need not just the right investment but the right protections. We have seen family budgets hit radically and hard, we have seen child poverty rise and, on the relative measure, we have seen people in the middle of the income distribution fall back towards the bottom. That is not offering families in our country the right protections—

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will not take any more interventions, because I might be here for a long time if I did.

We need a bank levy to fund 25 hours of free child care for working families with three and four-year-olds. That pledge alone will help 51,000 children in poverty and will be a real boost to their families’ incomes, which have been hit hard. Whatever the Chancellor says, and whatever the Tories try to convince themselves of, it is not only the London School of Economics and its analysis of the past five years that shows that the incomes of the bottom half have fallen while those of the top half have risen; the Treasury’s own figures now say that the bottom fifth has done worse. We need the right protections to ensure that when economic growth happens, it is not just for the few but real growth for the many. Rather than failed austerity, we need a truly progressive Government in favour of the many, not the few, and more than anything else we need a Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem for Labour Members is that when they are confronted with the facts, they hide. That is the problem they will all face in the course of the next 50 days. They have clearly not developed economic credibility, because their plans and message are confused. They have no idea how they would deal with the economy. All we know about Labour is that it will spend more and borrow more and tax more, the way all Labour Governments have behaved in office.

The final reason we should be moving towards a surplus and reducing the national debt is that if we continue to lock in debt at high rates, we are reducing the capacity of future Governments to withstand future economic shocks. One of the challenges we faced in this Parliament was that the high levels of debt racked up by the previous Government made it increasingly hard to put in place the measures to turn the economy around.

We cannot simply pretend to ignore, or rack up, unfunded spending cuts. We need to work hard to tackle the deficit to ensure debt falls as a proportion of national income, as it will at the end of this Parliament, to get the right messages across. Let us be responsible about how much we spend. Let us be responsible on taxation and spending. Running a surplus in the good times will help the economy when difficult times lie ahead.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that this has been the slowest recovery from any recession just about ever? Research from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research shows that, had it not been for the austerity cult and the Government choosing austerity, GDP would be 5% higher and extra tax revenue would be about £32 billion—about a third of the current deficit. Cuts and austerity have cost not just the economy but people’s opportunities.

[Mr Hoban]

I am really not going to be lectured by a Member from the Scottish National party about economic realities. We heard in the Budget today that because the United Kingdom is together, we are able to support the North sea oil sector in a way it could not have been supported if the SNP had achieved independence, so I am not going to take any lessons on economic credibility from the SNP.

In preparing for this speech, the last I will make in this House, I looked back to my maiden speech. Unsurprisingly, it touched on the local economy. I highlighted the strength of the business community in Fareham and its low unemployment rate. I also talked about the pressures on public services and infrastructure from house building. Perhaps it is with this frame of reference that I should talk about the economic reforms the Government have introduced in the past five years.

Fareham’s economy is still strong. In 2010, unemployment was 2.2%; today it is 1%. Strong businesses have helped to contribute to that and they have benefited from the Government’s reforms. Lower employment and corporate taxes have helped businesses to recruit locally. The apprenticeship reforms introduced in the past five years have meant that Fareham businesses have taken 740 apprentices in the past year, compared with just under 600 in 2010-11. The reforms have led to a renaissance at Fareham college where, thanks in part to taxpayers’ money, it has opened a specialist advanced manufacturing centre to meet the growing needs of local business, as well as refurbishing its campus in Fareham.

In my maiden speech, I criticised the top-down housing quotas that characterised the old-fashioned approach to planning. They had failed Fareham. The Government’s planning reforms, focusing on securing consent through a bottom-up approach, have secured widespread consent for 6,500 homes to be built in the new community of Welborne. This new settlement has benefited from the local growth deal funding infrastructure improvements, such as the new all-ways junction at junction 10 of the M27. Whereas in the past infrastructure never quite met local needs, I am more confident now than ever before that new development in Welborne will not harm the quality of life of local residents.

One of the challenges we face in Fareham is getting young people on the housing ladder. The Help to Buy ISA announced today by the Chancellor in the Budget will help to make it easier for many young people in my constituency to get a home of their own.

The economy of south-east Hampshire is dependent on good infrastructure, which is why I am pleased that the M27 is scheduled to be upgraded to a smart motorway in the next Parliament. I encourage my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to ensure that that is delivered in the first half of the next Parliament, not in the second half. Poor road and rail infrastructure makes it harder for those out of work in the older urban areas of south-east Hampshire to access employment opportunities in Fareham.

In taking forward the economy in south-east Hampshire, we have benefited from the abolition of regional development agencies and the introduction of local enterprise partnerships. I always felt that the South East England Development Agency neglected south-east Hampshire and focused its money and efforts elsewhere. The Solent LEP has had a relentless focus on economic growth in our community, playing an outstanding role in delivering all aspects of economic infrastructure in our community. I believe that our economic reforms and long-term economic plan have benefited Fareham and its residents and provided a route for further prosperity and security for local families. It has been an honour to serve those families over the last 14 years as their Member of Parliament, and I am grateful to them for the trust they have shown in me.

Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the staff of this House for the support they provide to Members of Parliament. Their work over the past 14 years has been invaluable and has supported me in becoming a more effective Member. It is ironic that I am making my last speech in front of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as we sparred many times on Finance Bills under the last Government. One of the most important roles of any Government is economic stewardship. We need to provide jobs and growth for families and economic stability, which is vital to people’s confidence and well-being. I leave Parliament at the next election knowing that the economic future of my constituency is much more secure than it was five years ago. We should not squander those hard-won gains by losing the next general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

The right hon. Gentleman is giving an impression of a growing state, when what is happening in real terms is clear from page 112 of the Red Book—that, as a percentage of GDP, this Chancellor and his party are cutting the state by 13%, which will affect the poorest in society most. That is the legacy of a Tory Government.

[Mr Redwood]

I am giving the cash numbers, which are clearly set out on page 111. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I will come on to deal with the argument about real terms and the percentage of the economy.

Let us start with cash. The £60 billion increase in the annual spend at the end of the period is a big increase, and if we can keep inflation of costs down, it could provide a real increase. We had these arguments at the beginning of the last Parliament. When I quoted the cash figures, people said it would amount to a real decline, yet we have had a real increase, with the last two years seeing real increases in total general public spending, as I indicated in a recent intervention and as this Red Book makes very clear. If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) reads it he will see the real increases in general Government current spending over the last couple of years. Those have been affordable and the lower rate of inflation is helping.

If we look at public spending as a percentage of GDP, we see that, yes, it will fall, but that is extremely good news, because it means people will be able to keep more of the money they earn from their productive activities and as the economy is growing we can have better public services.

One of the cruellest myths being put around by the Opposition at the moment is that if we took public spending to 35% of GDP, we would be cutting it to 1930s levels. That is complete nonsense: for most of the 1930s, public spending as a percentage of GDP was well below 35% in any case, but I recently looked at the numbers and found that, in real terms, public spending this year is nine times the level of real public spending in the early 1930s—nine times in real terms.

[Mr Redwood]

To make the point, the Chancellor has said that he will spend a little bit more in the last year of the period so that we reach exactly the percentage of GDP that Labour thought appropriate in 2000. We cannot say that because we are spending the same percentage of GDP we have cut spending or that it is down in real terms. If we have a healthy, growing economy, public spending is well up in real terms, as is the general size of the economy. We should welcome that. What we want is growth in the economy, so that we can have affordable growth in the range and quality of public services. That is exactly what this illustrates. I hope that Labour Members will stop trying to con people into believing that if we ended up with 35% of GDP—1% lower than the Chancellor intends—we would somehow have 1930s levels of public services. It is so absurd that I cannot believe that they even dare to repeat such nonsense day by day.

What we want from this Budget, and what I think it helps to deliver, is more growth. It is great news that we now have such good employment figures, which show record highs. It is good news that unemployment is reducing and good news that youth unemployment in particular is reducing.

What has happened over these five years is quite remarkable if we consider two important background points. The first is the state of the banks inherited in 2010. This House has never really understood or grappled with the magnitude of what happened to the banking system under Labour, or the magnitude of the changes between 2008 and today, particularly with respect to RBS and HBOS. If we had asked most economic forecasters what would happen to the UK economy if we took about £1 trillion of assets off the balance sheets of two leading banks, they would probably have forecast that the economy would crash in a remarkable way. What is fantastic for our country is that after the initial crash over which Labour presided in 2008-09, we have managed to get the economy back to growth while mending the banks and going through the extraordinary shrinking on the banking balance sheets. [Interruption.]

I find it remarkable that Labour Members will not listen to what I am saying. They lived through this dreadful experience and their regulators allowed the banks to over-expand their balance sheets, when many of us were saying that it was going too far. [Interruption.] Indeed, we did. We constantly said that regulation was too lax. I remember writing in the report of the economic policy review undertaken by the Conservative Opposition that, while in some areas there was far too much regulation, the regulation of the things that really mattered—cash and capital—was far too lax, and needed to be tightened. However, the Labour Government and their regulators then made the worse mistake of over-tightening in a hurry, and precipitated a major crash. Labour needs to learn from that. Indeed, we all need to learn from it, because we do not want it to happen again. We need to understand why there was such a big crash in output and in people’s living standards and real incomes, and why it took time, between 2008 and 2013, for growth to resume. The reason was that the banking system was so badly damaged that, obviously, it took time to get it back into shape.

As the Chancellor said himself, there was another reason for our problems. In 2011 there was an extremely unpleasant euro crisis, which had an impact on Britain because we live by foreign trade as well as by our domestic activities. We had to shelter ourselves from the worst of that. We are now in the process of orientating our trade much more strongly towards Asia and the Americas, the growing parts of the world, and away from the European area, which is mired in recession and is still experiencing enormous difficulties. It decided to create a single currency without creating a single country to back it and love it, and is having to live with awful strains and stresses as a result.

As we meet today, this Budget is an important event. It is certainly a very important event politically in the United Kingdom. However, a far more important set of events is taking place on the continent, where hectic negotiations are taking place between Greece, Germany and the rest over whether Greece can stay in the euro. It is not easy to see a happy outcome in either direction from those very pained discussions, but are we not glad that we are not having to live with that awful experience in this country, thanks to some of us who urged very strongly that we should stay out of the euro? [Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) thinks it is funny that Greece has a youth unemployment rate of 50%, but I do not. I think it is a disgrace. I also do not think it is funny that several countries on the continent have a general unemployment rate of 25%. That is quite unacceptable, and the Labour party would rightly condemn it every day of the week if it were happening here, but it is not happening here because we ran our own economic policy, and we have done a much better job that they did on the continent.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that most of the problems of the European Central Bank are to do with a fixation on inflation—a fixation that he shares?

[Mr Redwood]

I have no fixation on inflation, but neither do I think that runaway inflation creates prosperity. It is necessary to manage inflation, and to manage growth, and to have an economy that can expand. I am very pleased that this Budget helps to create and preserve the expansion that is now under way in the United Kingdom. I think it is good news that it contains measures to promote more home ownership and saving, and I think it is good news that it contains measures that will help enterprise and business to promote more jobs, because what we want are more jobs and better-paid jobs.

I was pleased to hear the Chancellor say that most jobs now are full time, and that many are highly skilled. That is what the country needs: more skills, more opportunity, and the chance for individuals to train, work and educate themselves well so that they can get better-paid jobs. That is what we all want in the House. It is sometimes suggested that the Conservatives do not want it, and I find that regrettable. We want it as much as anyone else. We want more jobs, better-paid jobs, and more skilled jobs. We know that we have to earn our money, and we want to create opportunities for people to earn theirs.

The Budget contains some sensible judgments on how much the country can afford in increased public spending. I think that £60 billion is a perfectly good judgment of the amount of extra public spending that will be possible by the end of the next Parliament. It also contains a judgment on how we can finally get rid of the deficit and start to cut the debt. I find it a bit odd that Labour has been telling us that too much was cut in this Parliament, and is now saying that the deficit is too high. I have news for Labour. You have to cut if you want to lower a deficit; it does not just magic away. The question is, how do you get that judgment right?

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I feel that the Government new clause deals with the specific issues that are relevant to the Infrastructure Bill. I understand—we all do—that many other measures may need to be debated, but the time for that will be after the next Government are in place, when there will be a fuller debate on proper devolution.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The Minister said that onshore energy and fuels will be devolved, but when will offshore be devolved to the Scottish Government—Scotland’s oil?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, but I must defer to other Departments on that. For now, I will deal with the specific issues on the table for the Infrastructure Bill.

Coastguard Centres (Staffing)

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in the last, but I hope by no means the least, debate of the day. I look forward to hearing the response from the Department for Transport on the issues I will raise.

It is now about three years since the coastguard went through the upheaval of reorganisation, changes and closures, onwards towards its new structure. Of course I mourn the loss to Scotland of the Clyde and Forth coastguard stations. Scotland has 66% of the UK’s coastline, but, alas, only 33% of the coastguard stations. I am glad that we managed to save Stornoway station, which is now a very important coastguard station. It has a search and rescue helicopter—at one point, it had an emergency towing vessel, a tugboat—and is located in an important sea area. I am glad that we also still have in Scotland the Shetland and Aberdeen stations.

Stornoway is located between Belfast to the south and Shetland to the north, and covers a large sea area, not least because the next station to the west—perhaps the one direction I have not yet mentioned—is in Canada. Stornoway station’s area of responsibility covers about 250,000 square miles of sea, and meets the Canadians’ area at 30° west, about a time zone and a half away; Stornoway lies about 7° west. I had thought that Shetland station’s area of responsibility would be larger, but the Faroe Islands lie to its west and Norway to the east and north.

Those are just a few facts that can be found out by your average MP when they visit the local coastguard station. I bring them to hon. Members’ attention because they emphasise the international aspect of maritime activity, which could doubtless be further underlined by the station to our south, Belfast, which no doubt deals with coastguard colleagues in other jurisdictions such as the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland.

As I said, it is now over three years since the announcement that, importantly for me, confirmed that the hard work had paid off and Stornoway coastguard station was saved. The date was 22 November 2011, and it was a Tuesday—one that brought great relief not just to me but to those working at the station and people round about. We kept our coastal maritime expertise in Stornoway, and with it the associated local knowledge and jobs, as well as the intimate interaction with our local fishing community.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I do not want to take away from what the hon. Gentleman has said about the people of Stornoway, but on that same date the people of Crosby coastguard station had exactly the opposite reaction, because of the announcement of the closure of that station with the loss of jobs unless people were prepared to relocate to either Southampton or, in some cases, Holyhead. The subject he has chosen for his debate is the staffing of coastguard stations, and I am interested to hear what he has to say on that point. Many of the staff at Crosby have not been able to transfer, and grave concerns have been raised with me about the standard of recruitment and training of replacement staff. Have similar points been raised with him?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He will recall, I think, that the word I used about Stornoway was relief. To see that the stations in Forth, Clyde, Crosby and other areas were to close and the jobs of professionals with years of expertise under their belts were to be lost brought no pleasure at all—in fact, it brought great sadness. I am interested to hear what he said about staff, because I am coming on to that point. If there are surplus staff somewhere, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency might consider that fact when dealing with some of the problems I will be highlighting.

It has been three years since the reorganisation, so we would have thought that most of the changes would have been brought through by now and the organisation would be running as smoothly as it could and should be. Many people would expect the changes to have bedded down, yet reports have come to my ears—actually, to my eyes—of one coastguard officer saying to another, “Let’s hope the latest Minister does something, because the whole issue—the closure of stations, the loss of experienced staff, the undermanning—is a disaster waiting to happen.” Those are strong words—not my words, I stress, but words I feel need to be checked up on.

We must remember the value of our coastguard staff, as the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) pointed out with regard to the staff in Crosby, who sadly lost their station. We know they are trained to a high standard and that their professionalism is exemplary. I know that not just from visiting coastguard stations as an MP but from an earlier life working on fishing boats, and travelling regularly on ferries as I do, I am aware of yet another aspect of the work of coastguard staff. Each time I have been in the wheelhouse of a fishing boat or on the bridge of a passenger ferry and the words “Stornoway coastguard” have come over the radio, that radio has been turned up and there has been silence from those assembled within earshot, because, nearly always, serious and important words are coming across the airwaves.

How are those in the stations—the people broadcasting into the wheelhouses of fishing boats and the bridges of passenger ferries—faring at the moment? No one would know it from the professionalism that I hear coming over the radio, but in reality, although they may not show the strain, it seems that the stresses are most certainly there. When I visited Stornoway coastguard recently, the watch was at 75% of its strength. That brings us back to the point about Crosby. There is a problem with staffing, and people are working overtime to cover a shortage of staff—it is a regular occurrence. Some retired coastguard officers are coming in to help out, if only for a limited time due to the restrictions on what they can earn, and their expertise is still looked to. The demands on present staff are high.

I have good news for the Minister. I am sure he will be pleased to know that fortunately there are many people waiting to join the coastguard service. Sadly, I have not got much more good news than that—that is where the good news ends. Perhaps, by extension, we could say that the fact that 60 or so people came to Stornoway coastguard station in May and June to apply to join the service is good news, but six months later there is still a shortage of staff, and none of those people has been appointed. I am told that that pattern is being repeated across the service; in fact, some at Stornoway would argue that their situation is better than that at many other stations.

The problem has lasted for six months and is set to go on until February. That means the MCA’s recruitment process for the coastguard will have taken eight months in total. And there is more: although three staff are in the pipeline for Stornoway—they are due to start in February—the reality is that eight more are needed and the glacial pace of recruitment could go on for ever.

Can anything be done? There are indeed things that can be done, which were identified quite quickly by the staff I have met—these ideas are not mine, but are emerging within the coastguard. The bottleneck seems to be the fact that new recruits cannot start until they go to training, which takes place in Fareham or perhaps Highcliffe. There are certain dates set aside in March and new recruits can start at their stations six weeks before, hence the eight-month delay. However, there will be a knock-on effect. When will the next opportunity be? Surely the Minister and the MCA either have to look to increase training so it starts at more regular intervals, in order to shorten the recruitment period, or else think of another solution so that stations are not left with such stresses on the shoulders of their watch staff—stresses that have obvious knock-on effects on morale.

The most obvious solution would be to let new recruits into the operations room once they have been through the application process and have been accepted, so that they can do most of their training in there. Coastguard officers—seasoned people with a wealth of knowledge under their belts—tell me that that is where most of the training occurs anyway. The training centre helps to top and tail those skills; it is a useful check on quality, and is useful, too, as a refresher course.

The current situation cannot be allowed to fester—that is how it feels to many at the moment. Some in the service feel that it could be a cack-handed way to save money, but I am not sure it is that sophisticated. I would not say it is incompetence. Perhaps it is mismanagement, or I might be a bit kinder and say that it is not mismanagement but people cleaving to a system and a model idealised for some time, which they think should be delivering for the coastguard. However, it is not—it is simply not cutting the mustard.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The coastguard station at Bangor in Northern Ireland was saved when the last changes took place. I was aware earlier this year of issues similar to those outlined by the hon. Gentleman at Stornoway. Action was taken in Belfast and at Bangor coastguard station in regard to issues of sickness and overtime, and I understand that those matters have been addressed. When changes have taken place successfully, that might be a precedent for what to do in Stornoway.

[Mr MacNeil]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I understand from what he says that, unfortunately, Stornoway is not the only place affected like this, but I am pleased to hear that Bangor had a successful localised approach.

The situation facing some of us is an eight-month delay, which has had an unfortunate result for at least one new recruit, who gave up her job when she accepted the coastguard job, only for it to become apparent later that she would have to wait many months, until February, without salaried employment while she waited to start the job with the coastguard.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman is raising some worrying examples, and I can add to them because information given to me suggests that existing coastguard staff have felt criticised by senior agency management—so much so that some of them have left, which perhaps explains some of the evidence he gave earlier. That concerns me not just in terms of what is going on with the closure at Liverpool, but what is happening at Fareham and elsewhere and the knock-on effect on the service’s ability to deliver. It does not bode well if quality and experienced staff are being criticised.

[Mr MacNeil]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have some evidence that I was not going to use because I thought there was not enough support behind it. Essentially, it is an e-mail containing implied criticism of existing staff, saying that there were better, more highly trained, more experienced or higher quality staff—I cannot remember the exact words—and existing staff felt undermined by that. I will be charitable and say that that was unfortunate, but there seems to be more than one example, or it may be the same example in many places, but it is unfortunate that the situation arose.

I return to the new recruit at Stornoway. I cannot help but think that that person has been mucked about by the MCA system—I will be kind and say that it is the system. We cannot treat grown adults, whom we trust to run one of our most important emergency services, like that and expect them to go months without paid employment because of the MCA’s procedures not being clear during the recruitment.

I have outlined some of the problems of undermanning in the ops room and taking in retired people, but there are other knock-on effects. Coastguard volunteers around our coast are also affected. Some people are destined to leave the operations room to train volunteer coastguards and to give them the training they deserve and the professionalism that anyone who is ever in need of their services deserves, but they cannot leave the operations room because of the demands there, so one of the knock-on effects is that that training is not happening. Those who would oversee development of the volunteer teams cannot be in place due to the glacial recruitment issues. Courses that should be happening in rope rescue, water rescue, first aid, land search, and equipment control and maintenance, to name but a few of the 20 courses in the guide, are not happening and cannot happen. We are back at the root of the problem, which is getting people into the service in a timely, speedy, correct and clear manner. This is not good for morale.

I may have sounded critical of the MCA and operations within the coastguard, but I do not mean to. There has been a general pattern of events in the coastguard service over the last few years and I have been critical, but although I am still being critical today, I hope that the criticism is constructive. We would all like nothing better than to have a properly functioning coastguard service. It is important to get to grips with that goal, and it could be happening, but it is not.

I want to spend a few moments putting on the record the importance of another aspect of guarding the coasts: emergency tug vessels. I want the Minister to understand the seriousness with which we on the west coast of Scotland regard them. We have nuclear movements going through the Minch—the stretch of water between the Hebrides and the mainland. The Minch is used by boats carrying nuclear material from Scrabster near Dounreay to the reprocessing facility at Sellafield, and we certainly do not want to contemplate one of those boats with that cargo requiring assistance, but the possibility exists. We also have fuel tankers, and those of us who do a bit of maritime trainspotting with the automatic identification system online often see tankers transiting north and south of the Hebrides between Tranmere and Mongstad in Norway. They carry fuel into some of the roughest European waters. We also have cruise ships in ever-increasing numbers, and the coastguards tell me that these sometimes carry the same amount of fuel as a tanker, which surprised me. They also carry something else very important: passengers. There are many people’s lives at stake, and we do not want one of those ships losing power along the rocky coastline of Scotland’s west coast.

If there are problems on the west coast, we will not be ready to tackle them like other nations, which take their responsibilities seriously and have plans in place to deal with problems. We have been told that we could get a tug from the oilfields west of Shetland and north of the Hebrides, but to my knowledge no simulation of a tanker or cruise ship in trouble has been carried out at the drop of a hat so that we have some experience of what would happen in real time trying to source one of those boats. I ask that such an exercise should take place. I fear that it will not happen and that our first experience will be an emergency.

I have a couple of final points. I mentioned the Faroes, Norway, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and Canada—the internationalisation of the coastguard. I am disappointed that the Smith commission on Scottish devolution has left only a consultative role for the Scottish Government. The issues I have brought to the fore would be dealt with faster and better in Edinburgh. As we saw today in the autumn statement, some of the things that have happened in Edinburgh, such as on stamp duty, have been a good example and have been copied. We have nothing to fear from devolution and control by Government outside Westminster. Sometimes, it may be for the benefit of us all.

As I said at the start, Scotland has 60% of the UK’s coastline but only 33% of the coastguard stations. Those coastguard stations are undermanned. I hope that if anything comes out of this debate, it will be that the Minister looks at the system so that we do not have the same situation in a year, and after four years a new system will have bedded down and we will have the necessary manpower in the coastguard station at Stornoway so that people do not suffer stress, can do their job professionally, and are released from the operations room to train volunteer coastguards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I take that relationship very seriously indeed. I have already celebrated, in this all too short contribution, the work of those volunteers, and I see them as being critically important to the link between the coastguard service and the community. They are model examples of how voluntary involvement can not only enliven communities, but provide vital services. I take the relationship very seriously, and under this Minister, it will always be taken in that way.

Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the national network, made up of a new National Maritime Operations Centre in Hampshire and a series of geographically spread coastguard operation centres that, in effect, retain each of the existing paired sites, has been the product of the consultation that we described. The retained sites would move progressively into the national network over time until December 2015, whereas other centres would either close completely or would remain open but would no longer be responsible for search and rescue co-ordination.

The blueprint included new and exciting coastguard roles and responsibilities with improved pay and terms and conditions. As I said, the unions were involved in developing that package for coastguard roles, which, for example, would see shift patterns redesigned to reflect better seasonal demands, and with more weekends off over a year. In the union ballot, 79% of those who voted supported acceptance of the new terms and conditions.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has moved on a long way from the concept phase of this programme. We are now making real progress in establishing a joined-up national network for rescue co-ordination. The new National Maritime Operations Centre near Fareham became operational from 1 September this year, when it assumed responsibility for coastguard functions along the south coast that were previously handled by the Solent and Portland maritime rescue co-ordination centres.

Coastguards at Falmouth now operate in the first of the new breed of refurbished and refreshed coastguard operations centres, and in effect, joined the national network in October. Just as envisaged by the blueprint that we published in November 2011, any coastguard function, including search and rescue, in the areas covered by the network can be handled by anyone in that network, allowing the national commander at the National Maritime Operations Centre at Fareham to make decisions about the distribution of work loads, given the people, resources and experience available. It is that improved co-ordination, better use of resources and more efficient use of skills that lies at the heart of the blueprint and its implementation.

I believe that we can maintain and improve what we do as a result of the changes. If I did not believe that, I would not support them. It is as simple as that, because there is no way that this Minister or this Government would compromise safety or inhibit effectiveness. It is simply not our intention; it never would be and it never could be. It is important for hon. Members to accept that. As the national network evolves, the number of officers on duty at a particular site becomes less significant. Measurements of input, in the end, are bound to be less significant than measurements of effect. What matters is how the coastguard operation deals with need at the point of need.

Every month, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is either moving an existing co-ordination centre into the evolving network or ending the search and rescue function in one of the centres that was earmarked for closure.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I will not, because I am very short of time. I know the MCA is far from complacent and will continue to give the closures and transitions to come the same management, attention and care, so that people, their allegiances and emotions are handled with sympathy.

I appreciate that there are always issues with this kind of radical programme, but I want to assure the House that after each transitional closure, there is a period of review, to learn lessons and improve the process before moving on to the next transition. I can further reassure the House that I will continue my regular face-to-face meetings with Sir Alan Massey and HM Coastguard officers to scrutinise and challenge the agency’s progress against that blueprint, including monitoring any particular pressure points, so that we can all have confidence that Her Majesty’s Coastguard continues to deliver the first-class service that we have all come to expect. It is absolutely right to examine and review this process to ensure the effectiveness at the point of need that I have described, in line with some of the arguments that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar has made in this debate.

The new coastguard roles and responsibilities are more demanding, and I am delighted that we are taking large numbers of our existing coastguard officers into the new set-up, supplemented by many new recruits. The hon. Gentleman mentioned recruitment, and he acknowledged generously that lots of people want to join.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

These five minutes will be exciting, because we have had a break and are waiting with anticipation for the culmination of this wonderful address.

I want to talk about recruitment, because for the operations centres the MCA has recruited against 78% of the roles, while for the roles to support the volunteer Coastguard Rescue Service the recruitment figure is 90%. Of the posts that have been filled, only 21% have been filled by new recruits; 79% of the vacancies have been filled by experienced coastguards taking up new opportunities. That is very important. The need to maintain continuity, to take advantage of experience and to ensure that the skills that people have developed over time play a key part in the new operation seems to me to be salient.

I do understand that there is particular concern about the adequacy of staffing at some centres that are transitioning into the growing national network. Many of the concerns expressed by hon. Members stem from the fact that the MCA has undoubtedly found it a challenge to staff existing maritime rescue co-ordination centres to the levels set out in historical watch-keeping risk assessments. Those levels were set several years ago and erred on the side of caution.

I can tell the House that I have had an assurance from Sir Alan Massey and the chief coastguard that there are sufficient officers with the right skills available across each existing pairing arrangement, backed up by additional cover, to sustain the comprehensive search and rescue service that we would expect. I have made the effort to challenge the service on that basis; I have asked those questions and asked to be regularly updated on recruitment and staffing. Hon. Members will understand that getting everyone in place for the new roles, both at co-ordination centres and on the coast to support our coastguard volunteers, is a complex jigsaw that must be carefully handled in terms of logistics and sequencing.

[Mr MacNeil]

I would like an undertaking from the Minister that he will seek to speed up what has been a glacial process. Eight months is too long. Can he look at shortening the period so that we do not see the undermanning in operations rooms that we have seen?

[Mr Hayes]

Senior managers closely monitor staffing on a daily basis and take action to ensure that safety is not jeopardised. That is certainly true for a lot of the west coast of Scotland and at Aberdeen. The essence of the plans that we have put in place is that they must have at their heart continuing operational effectiveness. I regard it as a key responsibility to ensure that that is the case.

I end by paying tribute to the professionalism and dedication of all those wearing the uniform of Her Majesty’s Coastguard. They should rightly continue to be proud of the job that they are doing and look forward to being part of a new and exciting future. Transitional arrangements are always challenging, and new ideas are sometimes regarded with suspicion, but we must move forward and we must get this right, because we owe it to the future to do so.

Question put and agreed to.