Rural Bus Services

Debate between Annette Brooke and Richard Drax

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Drax]

I applaud the scheme in Northern Ireland. The Minister will no doubt have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point and perhaps he will comment on it.

Another pressure on rural bus services is the concessionary bus pass. Government statistics show that 30% of all bus journeys are now made using this pass. Free off-peak bus passes for pensioners are welcome, but they skew the economics of bus networks in rural areas. For example, in Dorset operators are dealing with record numbers of pass holders enjoying our stunning countryside and coastline. Up to 20 million people visit Dorset, many of them on buses. It is a tourist destination. The original idea of the pass was to ensure that bus companies are not better or worse off. However, reimbursement is paid on the basis that without concessionary journeys, fewer would have been made. Dare I say it, that is slightly illogical in a business sense, although any money is gratefully accepted. The rebate is about a third of the cost of a ticket, which clearly disadvantages the bus company and the local taxpayer. Inevitably, it means that operators are left struggling to fund services, not least in rural areas such as my constituency.

The Government recognise the value of the national network, and the “Green Light for Better Buses” agenda is intended to improve local bus services. Some, however, such as the Campaign for Better Transport, worry that 2014 may be the worst year yet for cuts to bus services.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I concur with everything he is saying, particularly about the pressure from visitors, who are welcome, on our bus services in one way or another. Does he agree that this has been a particularly bad year? We have villages that are now down to just two bus services a week. Young people want to be able to take up an apprenticeship and travel to our local colleges. There are people who, for whatever reason—perhaps sight impairment—cannot get to work. We are at crisis point in Dorset. We need longer term planning. We cannot go from year to year with people wondering whether they can stay in the village in which they have lived for many years.

[Richard Drax]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and I agree with her entirely. I wonder whether the Minister will consider the point I was about to make. Obviously, some routes in rural areas are loss-making. When contracts are put out to bus operators, as part of that contract, should they not have to take on board the whole contract and not be allowed, as they currently are, to drop non-profit-making routes? Business plans should be drawn up to take this into account, so that, rather than making x profit the operators make y profit, but essential bus services are retained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Annette Brooke]

rose—

[Richard Drax]

I have got two hon. Friends wishing to intervene.

[Annette Brooke]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way a second time—I will claim first place because I want to mention a Dorset problem. I wonder whether he has experienced the same problem that I have, where parents and students have decided to go to an out-of-catchment school, knowing that there was a bus route, but suddenly the bus service has been terminated. Even for catchment routes, I have got parents and students stranded without a bus or a safe route to school along country lanes. Our problem with the main services has spilt over into providing services that get young people to school and thereby comply with our law and our expectations of young people staying on longer at school.

[Richard Drax]

Again, I agree with my hon. Friend. I have some experiences in my constituency—I am wandering slightly off the point—where, as I understand it, school children cannot get to school because the school bus will not pick them up, as they are not quite in the catchment area, yet if the bus travelled another mile or so, they would be. Again, this goes back to—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has disappeared.

Dorset Police (Funding)

Debate between Annette Brooke and Richard Drax

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Richard Drax]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I will come to it later on. Dorset gets no recognition for the fact that it receives 14 million visitors a year.

Evenly split between a large conurbation on one side and a scattering of rural communities on the other, the “two Dorsets” demand very different styles of policing. Rural policing involves greater distances and time and, therefore, costs, and the night-time economy in our seaside towns, particularly when summer numbers peak due to tourism, demands a significant police presence. That is an area of great concern as stretched resources have to be targeted at weekend trouble spots, leaving the rest of the county with minimal cover. Resources are stretched even further to cope with the 14 million visitors who come to Dorset each year. Added to that, we have thriving sea ports and a busy international airport. None of those factors is recognised in the police funding allocation, which, by 2018, will allow us barely to fund 1,000 officers to police the lot.

Our police and crime commissioner, Martyn Underhill, has fought valiantly for increased funding and continues to do so. As he says:

“We are the lowest funded force and have seen the worst cuts. This is wrong. I will continue to fight this.”

However, in the absence of any new funding, he is obliged to look at sponsorship, which is anathema to most police officers and to me. It has been tried elsewhere in the Met, but there is naturally great concern about the independence of the police when sponsors’ names are emblazoned on every police vehicle, station and letterhead. Admittedly, the rules are strict: sponsorship must not amount to more than 1% of a force’s total income; none of the statutory functions of the force should depend on the sponsorship; and sponsors may not interfere with police duties.

However, the potential for conflict of interest, or at least a perception of conflict of interest, is evident. I should like, if I may, to inject a note of levity here. In the future, when someone asks, why do all police officers look so young these days, the answer will be, because they use Camay! I inject a note of humour, Mr Dobbin, but I think it makes the point rather well. Policing is a serious matter, and this sponsorship business does not bode well. If the police lose their independence through sponsorship deals, can privatisation be far away? Will the Minister tell us whether there are any plans to privatise the police?

Surprisingly, the Treasury seemed less embarrassed than perhaps it should have been over the news of the Dorset police sponsorships. It may even be policy. Chief Inspector Tom Winsor, in a recent speech to the Royal United Services Institute, said:

“The provision of services to police forces by private sector organisations, and agencies and organisations in the public sector, is likely to increase markedly as efficiencies and economies have to be found.”

Whether or not sponsorship is used—and I hope it is not—the funding formula remains profoundly flawed. Its original purpose, which is to achieve a reasonable balance across counties in police service delivered and council tax paid, manifestly no longer works.

Along with Dorset police, I welcome the review of the police funding formula, which I understand from my conversations with the Minister is due in September. Police treasurers met the Home Office yesterday as the first stage in that review. As we are on this subject, may I, on behalf of our police and crime commissioner Martyn Underhill, remind the Minister of the undertaking that he gave him at their meeting on 15 May? In a significant change to the Government’s position, the Minister agreed that PCCs can now be involved in the review, and several will be invited to join the table. As the greatest losers in the funding settlement nationally, and one of the best performers despite it, Dorset should be represented. Mr Underhill would be a worthy representative and if the Minister will kindly give some kind of acknowledgement when he responds, both Mr Underhill and I would be grateful.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and I endorse his congratulations on what all our public services achieve with such scarce resources. It is commendable, and I agree that when an organisation is already cut to the bone, it is very serious to have to tackle further cuts. What is most important to my constituents, who are in the next-door constituency, is their safer neighbourhood teams. If there were any further threats to those teams, we would be in danger of losing public confidence. They have been built up with our scarce resources but are now potentially affected. I endorse my hon. Friend’s request for Martyn Underhill to join the table, because he is hard working and someone who has his feet on the ground and will know what he is talking about when he gets to that table.

[Richard Drax]

I agree with every one of my hon. Friend’s words. The safer neighbourhood teams are key to policing in Dorset, as I am sure they are around the country, and we are now getting to a point where even they are stretched, with officers being removed to deal with the night-time economy and, as I have already indicated, the other target areas of potential crime from which all towns suffer to a certain extent.

I am concerned about the Government’s plan, as I understand it, to begin the review this autumn but not report back until after the next election. We cannot wait any longer to get a proper and fair settlement, and I ask the Minister, most respectfully, to speed the process up considerably and report back before 2015. Need I remind him that there is no guarantee that he and I will be serving in government in 2015, or even be MPs? Policing is a serious matter, and the resources must be there to do the job effectively. Crime may well be down in Dorset, but that should not be an excuse to keep cutting. The previous chief constable told me repeatedly that every time Dorset police did well, more resources were taken away. I am afraid that I do not understand the logic that if someone is doing well they should lose the resources with which they can keep up the extremely high standard they have attained.

I believe, and my constituents tell me—as, I am sure, do the Minister’s—that people ideally want to see police officers on foot, patrolling their towns and villages day and night. I have argued strongly for a return to the days when each village had its own bobby living in the community. Costly though that may be in the short term, catching a potential offender in their childhood would save countless millions of pounds in the longer term.

I would like to dwell a bit on that point, and speak from my previous experience as a soldier patrolling the streets of Northern Ireland. The way in which we dominated the ground, gathered intelligence, fought against the IRA and protected the good people of Belfast and the other places in which I served, was by presence, by showing a face, patrolling the streets, being there for people to talk to, and being there to reassure, listen and pick up intelligence. The modern world relies more and more on technology, but the CCTV cameras, precious though they are, cannot possibly pick up on a patrol on the ground, on the atmosphere, the feedback, the communication and the observation, on the shop that is a bit different this morning from what it was last night because there is a gunman inside with a weapon to the shopkeeper’s head. CCTV cameras will not pick that up; police officers on foot will. When they come back, a huge amount of intelligence can be obtained by asking, “What did you see during that two-hour patrol?” When our soldiers came back everything was logged, pictures were taken and checks were done, and all the intelligence went up the line, meaning we were better informed and could do a far better and more effective job on that mission.

I am glad to say that policing does not carry the threat of being blown up, although police officers in this country tragically lose their lives in the line of duty. In Dorset, however, we are most fortunate not to have had such an incident, as far as I can recall, for many years, if at all, and long may that be the case. Nevertheless, the threat is there. I urge the Minister carefully to consider the funding formula, and to give a fairer deal to the people of Dorset, who must be treated more equitably. We are not asking for more money. We understand the restrictions that the Minister, the Government and the country face—the austerity we all face. We have heard about that again and again. What the people of Dorset are asking for is a much fairer share of the cake.

Portland Search and Rescue Helicopter

Debate between Annette Brooke and Richard Drax

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Drax]

I agree with my hon. Friend to a certain extent, but when there was an earlier attempt to remove the helicopter, my predecessor was able to keep it because of PFI. In those days the Government were able to throw more taxpayers’ money at retaining it. Sadly, I am not in that position. The proposal has been put out to contract under the Official Journal of the European Union, which states certain key user requirements. As long as those requirements are met—at least theoretically, and that is the point—the Department for Transport assumed that no consultation was necessary. The previous Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), wrote to me and said that no consultation was necessary because she was “improving the service”. That presumption was criticised by me and many others. It has now been criticised strongly by the Select Committee on Transport, which has called on the Government to rethink their proposal.

The Portland helicopter operates in one of the busiest areas in the UK, and 25% of all coastguard call-outs come from there. It is illogical to close a base in the middle of all the action and rely on those further away. Cover should surely be provided close to where it is needed. Portland is only a 12-hour base, yet it compares favourably with its 24-hour neighbours—Solent, Culdrose and Chivenor. In 2011, the call-outs were: Portland 194; Solent 210; Culdrose 249; and Chivenor 272. Its helicopter is being called out as much as helicopters at the 24-hour stations.

Furthermore, the costings were wrong. When I first got involved, the Secretary of State assumed that the Portland base cost about £9 million a year to run. It does not. It is a 12-hour base and costs between £4 million and £5 million. If the Government think they will save money by closing the base, let me tell them that the money spent on diving casualties and flood rescues this year alone would pay for multiple helicopters. Portland costs half the amount of other bases and does almost the same number of taskings. That important point bears repeating.

The flying times were also wrong, and this relates to what the then Secretary of State was told by her advisers. The flying time from Culdrose to Portland is 48 to 54 minutes. If we add 15 minutes—the key user requirement to get the helicopter off the ground—we are looking at about 63 minutes. The flying time from Solent to Portland is between 21 and 25 minutes, plus the 15 minutes, which makes 36 minutes. The flying time from Chivenor to Portland is 37 minutes, plus the 15 minutes, which makes 52 minutes. That is on the basis that the air is still, conditions are perfect and no wind is blowing. As we all know, helicopters are not called out to rescue people unless something has happened—normally in stormy weather. In the sea, a person has 10 minutes before they are unconscious—that is the maximum in current sea temperatures—and 30 minutes before their core temperature drops and they are dead. Not one of the proposed helicopter bases would meet that time. All the people in the water—children, mothers, grannies, whoever—would be dead.

The other helicopters—at the three other bases I have mentioned—are as busy as ours. The point I have made repeatedly to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) is that one helicopter can only be in one place at any one time—however new, however fast, it can only be in one place at any one time. So if the Lee-on-the-Solent helicopter, and we will have to rely on that, is called to the east of its basing area, we can add to the 21—or 36—minutes at least another half hour or even an hour because that is how long it will take to get back to its base, having completed its task, to refuel and to come to us. And the people in the water? They would be dead.

On concurrent call-outs—when the other helicopters are in the air at the same time as ours—I have documentation proving that, in the past 14 months, the Portland helicopter responded to 21 incidents at the same time as the Solent helicopter. My helpful and moderate letter from the Under-Secretary, dated 17 December, includes a table on tasking concurrency. It lists the call-outs for Lee, Portland and Chivenor in 2009, 2010 and 2011. According to these figures, tasking concurrency happened three times in 2009, once in 2010 and once in 2011. Why, then, do we have other figures stating that on 21 occasions the helicopter at Lee-on-the-Solent was in the air and doing a task at the same time as the Portland helicopter? Something is seriously wrong, and I urge Ministers to look at the modelling, which I believe is fatally flawed. Someone somewhere has got their maths wrong.

Over the past 10 months, 25 out of the 32 transfers to Dorset county hospitals were so life threatening that the Civil Aviation Authority regulations were waived so that the helicopter could land at the hospital. According to Department for Transport figures, every road death, which equates to a water death—it is the nearest we have got—costs £1.6 million. On the basis of those figures, we save about £40 million by having the helicopter at Portland. If the Government needed any lessons on saving money, that is a pretty stark example.

Sadly, all this is being compounded by the proposals to close the maritime rescue co-ordination centre. They, too, are criticised by the Select Committee. The local resilience forum is particularly concerned. The Government said there would be no cuts to front-line services. I wonder what these are: no emergency towing vessels in England or Wales; no offshore firefighting capability, because the marine instant response group was withdrawn; a proposal that more than 50% of the co-ordination centres should go; and two helicopters going—ours and another—reducing the number of bases from 12 to 10. If these are not front-line services, I would love to know what the definition of a front-line service is, because to me that is the very coal face that the search and rescue capability depends on.

It is not just search and rescue that our Portland helicopter is involved in. It also works with the police and the ambulance service—yes, we have a charitable air ambulance, as do many counties, but it is small and does not have a winch. Without a winch, it can land only at certain places, so on many occasions the Portland search and rescue helicopter is called to help. The air base played a major role at the Olympics—TV companies, VIPs, business; you name it, it was used. Then there are pan and mayday alerts, and let us not forget the Channel Islands, which are also in the Portland helicopter’s area of responsibility.

I would like to thank the Under-Secretary, —he is not the Minister currently sitting on the Front Bench; it is hard to track the right Minister down when trying to fight one’s case—for his letter. To be fair, he has seen me and listened to me, and when he got his facts wrong about the timing from Culdrose to Portland—he initially thought it was 21 minutes, until I said, “By Concorde, yes,”—he wrote a helpful letter saying that the flying time is actually 48 minutes. These are fairly serious errors.

Those on the Front Bench are very intelligent, capable men and women, but I urge them please to come down to Dorset and listen to those involved in search and rescue along our coast. I am a former soldier, and I cannot think of any major decision where one would not appreciate what one was about to do beforehand. It is military training; it is civilian training; it is what we all do—we make an appreciation. To do that we must go on a reconnaissance mission; and to do that we need to go up front as a commanding officer and look over the land that we are about to move over or perhaps the hill that we are going to attack. We do not just sit there in our bunker, look out and say, “Onwards men! There’s the hill! Go and take it! I’m having some breakfast”—and off they go and they get slaughtered. That is what happened in the first world war.

It is that important. I cannot request enough—it must be at least three, four or five times now—that someone comes down to Dorset and listens to those intimately involved. I do not pour scorn on civil servants—they have a very important role to play—but sitting back in Whitehall pressing computer buttons, playing with their modelling and making pretty circles on maps is not really the way to come to a logical conclusion. If someone came down to Dorset and listened to people—this is another thing that really appals me—they would find that they are frightened to speak their minds. Why is that? Because if they do, they will lose their jobs. Is that not unbelievable? In this democracy of ours, in which millions have died to allow me to stand here and speak, the people who should be giving the Government the proper advice that they need are too frightened to do so, because if they do, they will lose their jobs. That is utterly outrageous.

Let us for once, as a Government, stand up and start leading. I say this: “Come down and listen. Listen, and listen. Do not talk; you can do that when you get back to your office. Listen, and I am convinced that once you have done that, Ministers will change their minds, or at least will start thinking about the whole process again.”

In a letter to the Government, the Transport Select Committee said:

“There are understandable concerns that the withdrawal of these bases will lead to…increased fatalities”.

The Under-Secretary took the view that that was entirely different from saying that lives would be lost. I have to disagree: temperate language was rightly used to a Government Department by a responsible and highly influential Select Committee.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. The issue that he has raised is very important throughout Dorset. Although none of my constituency is on the coast, my constituents are just as concerned as my hon. Friend about the potential for fatalities. Let me reinforce his point that it is essential for someone to come down to Dorset and observe, for example, our lack of roads.

[Richard Drax]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the lack of roads. We live in a beautiful part of the land, and helicopters provide the only way of reaching people who need help quickly. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that half my constituency is at sea, and that “at sea” is a dangerous place. Millions of people use our coastline, our seas and our cliffs. They dive under the sea and they boat over the top of it, and all that generates tremendous activity.

In Fareham, one of the new maritime operations centres is to replace our co-ordination centre in Weymouth. At present, people who live locally get out of bed and, as they have done for many years, look out of their windows, see the rain, look at the sea, and get a sense of what is going on. Because they know the area, when something happens they are able to target the right asset immediately. They will know, for instance, that the field by Durdle Door is so boggy that a four-wheel drive will not get there at this time of year, so they must get the helicopter out.

What will happen if, during a busy bank holiday weekend, that huge MOC—with at least 40 staff—is bombarded by calls from people all along the south coast saying, “We have a child here, a mother there, a lilo somewhere else”? I predict that there will be utter chaos. That is another part of my constituency that I am trying to save, and I urge the Government to think again about an issue that is very dear to my heart.

I want to be generous, and to give the Minister as much time as possible in which to respond. Some Ministers—dare I say—stand up and read from a written script which, for eight of the nine minutes available, repeats what we all knew already. I should be very grateful to the Minister if he answered my specific questions. The first is this: will someone come down to Dorset and listen? If no one does, the consequences will be absolutely terrible. My invitation to a Minister to visit South Dorset was declined on the basis that it was

“important that the procurement proceeds as planned.”

I submit that, as it currently stands, it must not, because if it does, lives will be lost. I have been around long enough not to make such a statement loosely or lightly. I say it with the backing of those who are in the know, and who speak to me in the dark of night for fear of speaking out loud. They predict we will lose five, six, seven or eight more people a year. That many people each year will be dead if we do not have our helicopter. That is all because the Government are relying on modelling from miles behind the front line, rather than having the courtesy, if nothing else, to come down to Dorset and listen.

Will the Minister tell me how many search and rescue stations he has visited? How many helicopter crews has he spoken to? How many co-ordination centres has he been to? Talking to the crews and visiting the centres is the best way to learn what this is all about.

Finally, I thank the air crews—especially ours in Dorset—for the incredible bravery they demonstrate in the job they do. My aim is not to be a belligerent Back Bencher. I am supported by tens of thousands of people, as well as many colleagues, who believe the Government have got this badly and seriously wrong.