Harvey’s Law

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Derek Twigg]

I agree. I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman’s loss of two pets, which is difficult for any family. His point is well made, and it is why we are here today. We want the procedures of the Highways Agency to be changed back, and we want some legislation to ensure that they will not change again. I will come to that point later.

I will give two more examples, which will put into perspective the tragedy that people face. The first is Shiver’s story. Shiver bolted away from his owner during a thunderstorm and was killed on the M60. Shiver was chipped and was wearing an identification tag. His owners contacted the Highways Agency daily for information, but they were constantly told that no dogs had been retrieved from the highways. They continued to search for him for 19 days. They persisted, and a temporary staff member of the Highways Agency confirmed that Shiver was in cold storage. His owners were given two hours to collect his body before he was cremated. They rushed to the depot and were made to go through two freezers full of dead dogs to retrieve Shiver’s body. Shiver was in a plastic bag with an identification tag still attached. He also had a cannula in his leg, indicating that he had been with a vet.

The second example is Jester’s story. Jester went missing while out on a walk with his owner in 2005, and he was killed on the A1. As no procedure was in place, no one scanned Jester for a chip or took details from the tag he was wearing. No one alerted other authorities or logged the incident, so Jester’s owner was not notified of his fate. Jester’s body was removed and sent straight to a rendering plant. His flesh was stripped to make fuel for energy plants and his bones were crushed to make garden compound. His owner’s desperation for closure was so powerful that she collected blood from the A1 and sent it and a toy belonging to Jester to California for a DNA test. The test confirmed that it was indeed Jester who had been killed on the road that day. Distraught by the way Jester had been treated, Nikki campaigned tirelessly until the Highways Agency agreed to introduce area management memo 67/05, to which I will return. That procedure is set out in chapter 7.17 of the Highways Agency’s network management manual. As I said, those are terrible stories.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

That story perfectly demonstrates that this problem is not about stray dogs, but about loved pets who are cared for by responsible owners who have done the right thing by having them chipped and tagged. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that we show the same compassion and commitment to those owners as they showed to their pets?

[Derek Twigg]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, and I think everybody would agree with it.

Let me return to Harvey’s case. By chance, an employee of the contractor used by the Highways Agency saw one of the fliers that had been distributed about Harvey. She contacted the owners via a message on Facebook and said that she had collected Harvey’s body on the M62. It was only by chance that the owners were given that information.

In 2010, the Highways Agency took the decision to withdraw the routine scanning of domestic pets from highways so that their owner could be identified and notified. Area management memo 67/05, which is being phased out—this is what we have been talking about—states that highways contractors are supposed to scan a domestic pet for a chip, check for other details and contact the owner if possible. They should complete a log with all the details and notify the relevant authorities. The animal should also be kept in cold storage for a period of seven days or until the freezer is emptied, whichever comes first.

There is an odd situation, therefore, in that the Highways Agency is changing that practice, whereas the Government—rightly so—are implementing a policy of compulsory microchipping for dogs from April 2016. One Department is rightly ensuring that there is a legal requirement to have a dog microchipped, whereas the Department for Transport is taking a different view that does not really sit with that policy. It is quite bizarre.

As we have heard in various interventions and seen in the information that we have all received, the death of a pet is traumatic and deeply upsetting for an owner in any case, but when an owner does not know its fate—when the pet has gone missing—the situation is made much worse by not knowing whether their pet is alive or dead. They spend time looking, which, as we have heard from case studies today, can turn out to be wasted. That is obviously very costly, and it also makes the situation all the more unbearable for the families and owners concerned.

Hundreds of pets—probably thousands—are killed on our roads each year. Apparently, the figure is more than 300 for Highways Agency-managed roads, although I think that is an underestimate. As a result of my discussion with Pauline Krause, I wrote to the Minister to raise concerns about the Highways Agency’s stance on notifying owners about the change in policy. The Minister wrote back, saying:

“The Agency is currently phasing out contracts which include the Area Management Memo 67/05 to which your constituent Ms Krause refers. More recent contracts no longer mandate Agency contractors to scan or record pet identification details, or to contact the owners and the pet identification organisations. I know this current position will be hugely disappointing for all those involved with Harvey’s Law e-petition.

Increased investment in the Strategic Road Network brings the opportunity to focus more on the service we deliver for our customers. This could include a review of our current policy around this issue so potentially there may be an opportunity to change contractual arrangements in the future.”

I will come back to this point, but I hope that the Minister will change those arrangements now. When he talks about “delivering for our customers”, I think pet owners can be put in that category.

Local Bus Services

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend has made another excellent point. I have experienced that myself. When I caught a tram from the station, a return journey cost £1.50, and I then had to take a bus to the venue, which cost £1.40.

I do not think it is fair that only London provides audio-visual announcements on all buses for the benefit of deaf, blind and partially sighted people. I do not think it is fair that only London provides seamless interchanges with real-time information that makes door-to-door journeys easy. When I was visiting—I think—Milton Keynes, a lady said to me “We call them ghost buses. You stand at the bus stop and you see from the countdown that buses are coming, but when they are due, they just do not turn up. Why are there these ghost buses in the system?” We know that there are problems with technology and other equipment, but why are the problems ironed out in some cities and not in others? Labour will ensure that cities are given the powers they need to take control of their transport system, no longer playing second fiddle to the capital. Bus provision where cities let the routes will unlock efficiencies to cut fares, run more buses and invest in growing the network. Bus provision must become quicker and easier to achieve. We want a bus market that is growing, not dying by a thousand cuts.

Transport plays a vital role in driving economic growth. Devolution is important and control over transport is important, but transport is much more than that. It has profound effects on us as people and on the places where we live. It affects our health, our environment and our quality of life. Buses are the lifelines of our cities, towns and villages. Buses enable people to get to work, bring jobs and growth to our high streets, reduce isolation and ensure mobility for those unable to drive.

Labour is the party of the bus user. In government over 13 years we increased funding for buses from £774 million in 1997 to £2.3 billion in 2010.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

The hon. Lady makes the valid point that buses bring mobility to those who are unable to drive. How then does she feel about Southampton city council removing concessionary passes from disabled people, who have previously enjoyed them?

[Mary Creagh]

As I have said, Southampton council is doing no more than delivering the very strong cuts to its budgets that the hon. Lady’s Government have imposed on it and that she has voted for as a loyal servant of her party, so I tell the people of Southampton to vote Labour next time.

South West Trains

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important and, it appears, annual debate. He is moving on to an important point. One of my constituents said to me this morning that they would accept consistently increasing prices if the quality of service improved, and concluded by saying, “That is not the case currently.” Does my hon. Friend agree that the nub of the problem is that commuters are paying more for what they see as a worse service?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely bang on. That is the crux of the matter. We have heard interventions already about other parts of the country. I can speak for Elmbridge and for Surrey, but it is interesting to hear that the problems are systematic and not parochial.

Clearly, the Surrey network feels the pressure of a high volume of commuters. In Elmbridge borough alone, some 12 million people use our stations. The number of recorded journeys almost doubled between 2002 and 2010, so demand is high and increasing. Fares will rise by 2.5% again in the new year. The Minister will say that that is not a real-terms increase, so we thank heavens for small mercies, but none the less it is an increase. The fares are already some of the most expensive in Europe. A season ticket for the 25-minute journey from Esher to Waterloo currently costs just under £2,000, and many pay a good deal more.

What is hard to explain, let alone justify, to many passengers—I think my hon. Friends were making this point—is the enormous subsidy that they pay as passengers for other lines across the country. That is largely hidden from view. Of course, redistribution of wealth is a natural function of general taxation—it is the stuff of politics and Parliament to debate how much or how little there should be—but I doubt that many are aware of quite how stark the impact is. Certainly, in my area, Surrey residents contribute £6 billion to the Treasury, and we get back less than £1 billion in services. The point is that, on top of that redistribution of wealth via general taxation, Surrey rail passengers, through their fares, are not just paying high fares for the services that they use. They and many others using South West Trains are paying a whopping subsidy for investment in the rail network across the rest of the country.

In 2013-14, South West Trains passengers paid the Department for Transport the highest premium for their rail service at 5.2p per passenger per kilometre. That compares to the 13.1p subsidy doled out by the Government to Arriva Trains Wales, or the 2.8p subsidy received by London Midland, and the 2.2p subsidy received by Southeastern. Some train companies are therefore paying an inordinate amount for the right to run the service while others are effectively receiving a subsidy.

Over the past four years up to 2013-14, South West Trains passengers have effectively coughed up the largest subsidy to Government coffers of any train operating company, totalling just over £1 billion. That is the scale of the subsidisation of other lines by my commuters and other passengers using South West Trains. That is more than £1 billion over and above what is redistributed via general taxation. It is a staggering amount.

Aside from the scale and the volume or the amount, no one can explain to me how this allocation of premiums and subsidies across the train operators is calculated. I have looked at the franchise contracts for the train operating companies. They do not disclose the information. We are told it is too sensitive, and the Minister’s predecessor could not explain what the allocation or criteria are. It looks arbitrary in terms of the relative wealth of the areas concerned. For example, Southeastern received £97 million in 2013-14 to run the service, compared with South West Trains, which paid £312 million for the right. Will she, if she can, explain in plain language that my constituents can understand how the allocations—the premiums and the subsidies—are worked out? How are they calculated and how are they justified? In particular, how can they be justified given what we have heard about overcrowding, particularly on South West Trains?

I referred to the sardine express earlier, but that is just one service. In 2013, average overcrowding on South West Trains was the joint third highest in London and the south-east. Overcrowding increased in each of the preceding four years. South West Trains services featured three times in the top 10 most overcrowded services across England and Wales for 2012, and twice again in the Department’s spring 2013 data. To put those raw numbers into perspective, EU rules stipulate that calves, adult goats and unshorn sheep must be transported by train in an area of space of at least 0.3 square metres per unit of livestock, but the new Government standard for commissioning commuter services for humans is now 0.25 square metres, which is significantly less. I understand that the only train company operating to that standard is—you guessed it, Dr McCrea—South West Trains. Can the Minister explain why my constituents, who are paying ever-rising fares and doling out more than £1 billion to improve rail services for the rest of the UK that they will rarely use, do so for the privilege of travelling at one grade below cattle class on South West Trains?

The Minister will understand immediately why in Passenger Focus’s 2014 national survey, South West Trains passengers ranked their service the third worst in the country on value for money, with a bare 37% saying that they were getting bang for their buck. That dropped to 28%—barely a quarter—for peak-time passengers. Just in case anyone thinks that all passengers and commuters grumble, that compares with approval on value for money of 78% with Grand Central passengers and 61% with Virgin Trains passengers. It is not beyond the wit of man or woman.

I recognise that South West Trains will argue that it is playing the hand it was dealt by Government in the franchise agreement. That is the line, and there is obviously some truth to it. The Government ultimately decide on the premium or grant, and that very much conditions and influences the nature of the service that can be run and the resources available. That might, however, be a little easier to swallow if director remuneration at Stagecoach Group, which is the operating company, had not doubled between 2010 and 2014, just as these developments were taking place.

Nevertheless, with the fragmented nature of responsibility for rail services, it has got difficult to get straight answers to straight questions. As an MP, I find it difficult to explain to commuters and constituents why the high fares they pay deliver so little in return. My hon. Friends have made that point. What action has been taken to deliver a fairer deal for my constituents and the many others using South West Trains who feel as though they are treated like a cash cow, despite travelling in sub-cattle class conditions?

In particular, what progress has been made on expanding the platforms available at Waterloo into the international terminal that used to service the Eurostar routes? I understand from the managing director of South West Trains that that, at least in the short term, offers the greatest scope for lengthening platforms and trains, thereby easing overcrowding along the lines I have mentioned. Does the Minister agree with that analysis? If so, what is holding up progress in that direction? Will she update me on the options for Crossrail 2? I understand that her officials are looking carefully at the so-called regional option, which would link to the metro option, servicing south-west London, Surrey and Hertfordshire. That would substantially alleviate pressure on existing services, as well as carrying a multitude of other regional benefits. What is her view on the regional option?

Finally, we have been sweating under the franchise agreements signed off by the Labour Government. I have always argued that they bear the responsibility for the framework in which we are operating, but an extension to the South West Trains agreement was agreed in 2013, taking it to March 2019. I am sure the Minister’s Department looked carefully at the terms of the extension. Will she help me explain to my constituents what the premium or subsidy will be between now and 2019? What criteria are being used for that? What are the objective grounds justifying the different rates at which operating companies are being charged or paid?

My constituents have rather stoically endured the immediate frustration of high fares and acute overcrowding. We all know the financial situation the country faces, and that rising demand for rail services will continue for a range of demographic, economic and environmental reasons, but the raw truth is that, when I stand on that platform with my fellow constituents and take the sardine express up to Waterloo, I need to be able to explain in clear language how we will address over the long term the conditions of travel, which are often cramped and uncomfortable. I need to explain how we are going to deliver better value for money. I need to give them some light at the end of the tunnel. I hope the Minister can provide me with a degree of reassurance today.

Sulphur Regulations

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right, of course, and I will return to that point.

As the Minister is aware, the route between Harwich and Denmark is to close after 140 years, because of declining demand and the £2 million annual cost of cleaner fuel. I am concerned that other routes will follow. Echoing such fears, the Transport Committee reported that the regulations could reduce shipping activity, affect ports and roads, and cause job losses.

Any attempt to reduce sulphur emissions is commendable and no one is arguing against reducing them per se, but I am concerned that this so-called green policy will in fact have a detrimental effect on the environment—as my right hon. Friend said. I agree that increased costs will see a modal shift, with freight travelling by road instead of by sea; road freight emits around 10 times more CO₂ per tonne than shipping.

In April 2008, the International Maritime Organisation agreed to reduce sulphur emissions from shipping to ensure that ships only use fuel that emits 0.1% sulphur in designated sulphur emission control areas. The entire eastern and southern seaboards of the UK sit within that control area, so every ship coming in and out of ports from Falmouth to Aberdeen will be required to comply with the regulations on 1 January 2015. At least 220 usual routes operating from the UK will be affected and there is real concern that increased costs will see the closure of many of those routes, resulting in job losses.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he agree that not only shipping companies are likely to be affected, but fantastically successful ports such as the port of Southampton, which contributes directly to around 15,000 jobs in Hampshire? It is critically important for us to have transitional arrangements so that the private sector investment that has continued in Southampton for many years carries on in future.

[Karl Turner]

I agree with the hon. Lady, and I thank her for her intervention. For me, the issue is mainly about the loss of employment, and she is right to mention her own constituency because I am sure that she is concerned about employment there. Although the IMO adopted the regulations, it also definitely recognised that flexibility would be required to allow companies the transition time to adapt to the new era without damage to businesses. The hon. Lady made that same point.

Following an inquiry by the Transport Committee, it reported that the regulations would see an 87% rise in fuel costs, and shipping companies estimate that approximately €55 million will be added to annual fuel bills. To meet such increased costs on the North sea routes will probably be economically unviable. I am told by P&O Ferries and other shipowners that, in reality, ferries tend to run on tight margins. The costs will create a problem not only for ship operators, but for exporters, leading to a detrimental effect on our region’s exports and tourism.

Hull’s local economy relies heavily on tourism, and Hull city council’s 10-year plan sees tourism as a major contributor to the economic regeneration of the city. Hull will be the city of culture in 2017 and we are working hard locally to ensure we have reliable and affordable transport links. As a result of increased fuel costs and in order to overcome the extra expenditure, ferry operators will no doubt pass them on to their customers or, worryingly, reduce services. It is therefore of great concern that the regulations could have a severe impact on the number of tourists coming through our ports and weaken the much-needed tourism economy.

No one disputes the need to reduce sulphur emissions, but, if we consider the resulting increased use of road haulage and accept that shipping produces considerably less carbon emissions per tonne kilometre than any other commonly used means of freight transportation, the environmental argument for the policy in the regulations is undermined.

Cycling

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and the all-party group on securing this important debate, which has provoked a great deal of interest from my constituents. I have had a large number of e-mails, although it is worth noting that only one of them came from a woman. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) and the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) commented on the cycling gender gap. It is interesting to note—this comes from the Breeze website—that more than three times as many men as women participate in cycling.

In Hampshire, the Bikeability scheme is run by Mountbatten school in Romsey. It gave evidence to the all-party group and has contributed to the “Get Britain Cycling” report, which is an excellent report containing brilliant ideas. Annually, the Hampshire schools cycling partnership delivers in excess of 12,000 cycle courses throughout Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton, in more than 300 schools. There is a commitment within the partnership to make cycle training available to all, and to make both bikes and helmets available to those who do not have them. There is a belief that cycling is an essential life skill, and that every young person should receive a safe grounding in cycling skills and road use.

Test Valley borough has, for the past 16 years, run the Test valley tour, an off-road cycling event that encourages participants from serious cyclists down to the weekend pedaller to enjoy the Hampshire countryside. This weekend, as part of the borough’s Olympic legacy project, a new BMX track is being opened in Valley park. There is not only a competition-standard track, but a learner track, to ensure that all levels of cyclist can get involved. It is important to remember that cycling is about not just mountain and road bikes; people can participate in a broad range of cycling. It is not just about getting from A to B, which much of the debate has focused on; cycling can be fun for its own sake.

It would be wrong to suggest that all is rosy in Hampshire. The experience of off-road cycleways and of the conflict with road junctions is the same as we have heard from many hon. Members. Test Valley works hard to ensure that there is a network of off-road cycle routes, but the one that always comes to my attention is the route running alongside the A3057. Often, we see cyclists on the road rather than the cycleway, which frustrates motorists. However, when I drill down with cyclists as to what the problem is, they tell me not only that we need capital investment to provide cycleways, but that cycleways need maintaining. They say that the small stones they find if the cycleways are not swept can be lethal to the thin tyres of road bikes. Indeed, the tarmac surface of the road is often better for serious athletes wishing to train and get up to good speeds.

There is also conflict with the many junctions on the road way. I am thinking in particular of Heron lane in Timsbury, where the markings are not clear. Road users seeking to access the A3057 often meet speeding cyclists on the cycleway who believe they have priority, when in fact the motorist has priority. There are many near misses, which provokes anxiety for motorist and cyclist alike.

I am not suggesting that better signage is a panacea. In rural areas, opting for red or—dare I say it?—blue tarmac is incongruous, and does not fit well with the countryside. It is important that we look for tailor-made solutions and that we are innovative in junction improvements. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.

I should conclude with one suggestion from a cyclist, who said that we need a similar legislative framework to that of Italy—hon. Members will be pleased that he identified Italy rather than the Netherlands. In Italy, the presumption is that the liability for any accident is with the motorist and not with the cyclist.

One of our great Olympians, Laura Trott, said at the weekend that:

“It’s not always the car’s fault…Cyclists need to help themselves”.

Of course, she is right.

Cruise Market (Competition)

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke.

At the outset, I pay tribute to all the right hon. and hon. Members who called for this important debate. I draw the Minister’s attention to the cross-party nature and geographical spread represented by those present. This is not simply Southampton versus Liverpool; it is about the principles of fair application of competition rules wherever they are applied. The issue relates to all parts of the country. I am particularly pleased to see the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) and the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband). There are very few things that can bring together the south coast ports of Southampton and Portsmouth, so I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) cannot be here, but she has expressed sympathy on the matter before.

I direct the attention of right hon. and hon. Members much further north to the Scottish satirical writer, Thomas Carlyle, who said:

“Our life is not really a mutual helpfulness; but rather, it’s fair competition cloaked under due laws of war”.

That is why so many hon. Members here today are flummoxed or angry, or both, at the different application of due laws of war to different parts of the country, to different ports and to different port operators. Those due laws of war are not simply set down by a very British sense of fair play and a desire to see a level playing field—or whatever the equivalent nautical term is—but are clearly set out in European competition rules designed to ensure that state aid is not available to give an unfair advantage.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, which is also of significant concern to the people of Dover and its very successful cruise turnaround business. When it comes to state aid, should not the entire £19 million be repaid?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and for standing up for the cruise business in Dover. He makes an interesting point, which I will move on to later.

I have an unashamed loyalty to my home port of Southampton, the second-largest cruise port in Europe and the embarkation point of a cruise voyage for 720,000 passengers a year. Southampton is not a port that is afraid of competition. It is not afraid to invest private money to provide the facilities required for a thriving and expanding cruise business. As port director Doug Morrison, who has taken the time to be here today, has said on more than one occasion:

“We believe in fair competition. We do not fear Liverpool and competition, but it is simply not right.”

Of course, that is what our debate is about: ensuring that competition in the cruise industry is on an equal footing, and that a leg-up to one port is not an iceberg to another.

European competition rules on state aid are clear. The European Commission website devotes a considerable number of words to explaining them. Why does that come as no surprise? The Commission seems to be very good at devoting a considerable number of words to many things, but perhaps less good at applying those ideals when it comes to the crunch. I will quote those words to the Minister:

“Sometimes Government authorities spend public money supporting local industries or individual companies. This gives them an unfair advantage over similar sectors in other EU countries. In other words, it damages competition and distorts trade...It is the Commission’s job to prevent this,”

which seems a fairly unequivocal statement to me. It does not say that the Commission’s job is to sit back and allow market distortion. No—it is the Commission’s specific job to prevent it. However, first it must apparently ask some questions. That is fair enough, and I would like to take hon. Members and the Minister through those questions and ask whether they have been rigorously asked and responded to in relation to the UK cruise market.

Have state authorities given support, for example, in the form of grants, interest and tax relief, guarantees, holdings in companies, or goods and services provided on preferential terms? The answer strikes me as a big yes in the case of the port of Liverpool, which has received £19 million in grant and been asked to pay back only somewhere between £8.8 million and £12.6 million. Has such aid been available to other port operators in the UK, or has investment and expansion in their cruise facilities been without such support and advantage?

Is the support likely to affect trade between EU countries? Arguably, yes again. Barcelona and Venice are two of the leading ports in southern Europe, and a significant proportion of the UK cruise market heads directly to the Mediterranean. Clearly, therefore, there is potential for an impact. Of course, it is not only ports on the Mediterranean, but other European ports, too. For the past two years, the port of Copenhagen, primarily hosting departures to the Norwegian fjords and the Baltic, has been rated as Europe’s leading cruise port at the world travel awards. In Southampton, we might have a view on that, but it would come as no surprise to learn that cruises from Liverpool might reasonably be expected to head in that direction as well.

Southampton has been shortlisted at the world travel awards for the past four years, and I am pleased to see that it is nominated again for 2012. I have no doubt that the other ports shortlisted this year, which range from Las Palmas in Gran Canaria to Stockholm in Sweden, are all extremely concerned about the state aid to the Liverpool cruise terminal, which could have a very detrimental effect on the business they have worked so hard to attract. It is a market that continues to expand, as one in every eight British package holidays sold is a cruise.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She has made a compelling case about the importance of EU rules in this case. I am sure that she will be aware of the recent statement by Commissioner Almunia, who said that he has reminded the British Government

“of their obligation to comply with EU state aid rules.”

Does the hon. Lady agree that this is not a matter where the Minister can simply say that it is down to the European Commission in Brussels? He has a personal responsibility to ensure compliance with the rules, which means taking action to prevent Liverpool from breaking them.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that comment. When I conclude, I will ask the Minister to work with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government on that very subject.

Is the support selective? Does it confer an advantage on specific companies, parts of industries, or on companies in specific regions? Yes, again. No other port operator, whether ABP, Hutchison or the port of Tyne, has received that sort of assistance for their cruise facilities. They have had to invest in their facilities themselves using private capital, just as they should in a free and fair market.

Has competition been distorted or might it be in future? We can fairly safely respond to that one. In requiring Liverpool city council to get state aid clearance from the European Commission prior to commencing turnaround cruises, the Government appear to endorse that view. However, what has happened in Liverpool? It has started anyway. The European Commission states that if that has happened, the Commission must disallow the support unless it is shown to be compatible with the common market.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Lady care to comment on what appear to be further proposals by Liverpool for a permanent terminal by investing £23 million, including a further £10 million of possible public subsidy? I understand that that was not discussed with the Department for Transport when competition was first raised. Does she consider that it indicates a possible permanent arrangement as far as distortion of trade is concerned?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are not just talking about £21 million of public money, but future moneys, including the £10 million he mentioned, for a permanent turnaround facility that, in my view and that of several other hon. Members across the country, will have a permanent distortion on the cruise market.

To relate some of the history, as the Minister is well aware, the city of Liverpool cruise terminal was built using £19 million of public money on the explicit condition that it would not compete with other ports that had invested their own money to build similar facilities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the Chamber. We all have constituencies where cruise ships bring benefits. People come to Belfast and then go by bus to enjoy the scenery and history of the Strangford area. Does the hon. Lady feel that we need—perhaps the Minister will drive it—a UK or Great Britain strategy that involves all regions to ensure that competition is fair and that we all gain advantage from cruise ships?

[Caroline Nokes]

Of course, the existing port strategy makes a very clear point about the need for fair competition and a level playing field.

When talking about ports that have invested their own money, I could mention Southampton again, but there are many other examples, such as the port of Tyne, where investment worth £100 million has been put in over the past 10 years, and Harwich, where there has been significant investment since 1998, when it joined the Hutchison Port Holdings Group. Throughout the country, as evidenced by hon. Members today, large private investment has been put into both freight and passenger-focused ports.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Like my colleagues, I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North on securing this important debate. Surely, fairness is an important consideration when talking about private investment. State aid clearance is crucial. We hope that the Minister will assure us that fairness will be the key in this matter.

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Lady is correct. I commend her on the extensive work that she has done on the subject. She hits the nail on the head: state aid and fairness are what matter.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend gets back into her stride, does she agree that good faith, as well as fairness, should come into account? It was revealed, as a result of a freedom of information request, that Liverpool city council resisted pressing for a turnaround facility at the outset

“due to advice that there could be state aid complications which could prevent the terminal being built at all.”

The key words are:

“Their approach was to build as a port of call facility and address turnaround later.”

It seems that it was using a Trojan horse tactic and acting in very bad faith.

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is partly about good faith and trusting that the port of Liverpool and Liverpool city council will abide by conditions and rules that are set for them.

By 2008, Liverpool city council had launched its first attempt to lift the conditions, and the conclusion, after a detailed assessment by the Department for Transport, was that the change of use to turnaround cruises would have an

“unfair and adverse effect on competition between Liverpool and other cruise ports. It would be unfair to allow one port to benefit when competitors have found, or would have to find, private money to achieve the same objective.”

And so to today. The Government have decided, “based on independent advice”—even though that advice is from First Economics, a consultancy that freely admits it is not expert in either competition or the cruise industry—that they will withdraw their objection to removing the funding condition and Liverpool being used for turnaround calls, provided Liverpool repays either £8.8 million upfront or £12.6 million over 15 years. None of the European regional development fund money would have to be paid back, but—this is crucial and goes back to the good faith argument—state aid clearance from the European Commission would have to be secured.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is happening is astonishingly high-handed? The project has gone ahead regardless, without state aid clearance having been obtained. I note that no Member of Parliament representing Liverpool is in the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that. I was about to move on to that point.

Within one week of the Government’s making their announcement and prior to having even sought, let alone secured, European clearance under state aid rules, the port of Liverpool accepted its first turnaround cruise, which visited France, Guernsey and the Scilly Isles. A quick inspection of the cruises scheduled for the coming year reveals a number of cruises to the Canaries, a focus on the Baltic and various other destinations. Whatever else that was, it certainly was not playing by the rules of war so eloquently described by Thomas Carlyle; it was more like a massive two-fingered salute to the Government and to anyone’s idea of fair play.

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

I cannot resist intervening in a debate that brackets South Shields and Venice in the same speech. I congratulate the hon. Lady on that. The addition of Trojan horses raises extraordinary prospects. I congratulate her on securing the debate.

Does the hon. Lady agree that the uncertainty of the current situation will blight a lot of the business development that is taking place around the country? The port that is of interest to me is the port of Tyne, which has a ferry terminal in North Shields and its headquarters in South Shields. It has doubled the number of cruise ships docking in the past year and there is concern that an elongated, uncertain process will damage the business investment planning that it is trying to do. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need some clarity from the Government to get the sequencing of decisions clear and right?

[Caroline Nokes]

The right hon. Gentleman is spot on. We want certainty and we want a level playing field for private investors, who might otherwise feel nervous and anxious about investing in a number of ports throughout the country. It is important that they have that certainty from the Government.

It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that there is fair competition. The Minister will have heard that hon. Members wish to hear that state aid rules are not flouted and that original conditions and amended agreements are adhered to. As I said, within a week Liverpool had started turnaround calls without having made any effort to ensure that it had clearance to do so.

The European Commission is in contact with the United Kingdom authorities and has reminded them of their obligations to comply with EU rules. The Commission has written to the United Kingdom requesting information to assess the change in use of European regional development funding. Should the conditions of the original grant offer no longer be complied with, recovery of that grant may be necessary.

A letter dated 8 June 2012, from the head of the ERDF closure team at the Department for Communities and Local Government, states:

“DCLG recognises that the commencement of turnaround operations in advance of State Aid clearance from the Commission may result in financial penalties if the Commission concludes that there is unlawful State Aid.”

The most pertinent statement in the letter is that any penalties that are subsequently levied would fall upon Liverpool city council and will not be recovered from the Government.

As Andrew Carnegie once said:

“And while the law of competition may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race”.

Are any hon. Members suggesting that Liverpool would not survive if obliged to refund all the public moneys it has received? Not a bit of it. If the business model is good and if the figures stack up, the operators of the port of Liverpool should be prepared to do what every other port operator in the country has done and put their money where their mouth is. However, we are where we are. As free marketeers, we have to deal in the marketplace where we find ourselves—a marketplace that has become or has the potential to become distorted.

I call on the Minister to respond to three points. First, I should like him to justify the current inaction on the flouting of the conditions laid down for Liverpool with regard to the commencement of turnaround calls before state aid clearance was sought or received, and to use a suspension injunction to prevent further turnaround cruises until such time as the outstanding issues are resolved. Secondly, I should like him to support the calls by Members of the European Parliament throughout the country to the European Commission for Liverpool city council to repay the European regional development funding, and to work with his colleagues in the DCLG to ensure that that goal is achieved. Thirdly, I should like him to ensure that the apparent “anything goes” attitude to the use of taxpayers’ money is halted forthwith and that, in these difficult times, the private companies that we wish to see lead the economic recovery are not disadvantaged by unfair competition from a state-subsidised operation that appears to have no respect for the rules of competition that I mentioned at the start of the debate.

Port of Southampton

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I congratulate my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), on securing this important debate, and on his determination to make this a cross-party initiative to highlight the issues currently faced by the port of Southampton. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), the port is a significant driver of economic prosperity in the wider region and the country and provides employment both directly and indirectly. The port of Southampton is the main access and departure point in the UK for a wide variety of products. To give one example from my constituency, Ford makes the much-loved Transit vans at Swaythling, 50% of which leave the country via Southampton port. In addition, given that Southampton is the fourth largest port for the import of cars, it is no surprise that many of the Fords that we see on the roads today have accessed the country via that city.

I welcome the “National Policy Statement for Ports”, which has a clear focus on integrated transport networks. We have heard about the importance of altering the rail network, so that larger containers can get through the tunnel underneath Southampton. The rail lines have been lowered and the height of the tunnel raised. However, that £60 million investment might not reach its full potential if those containers cannot access the port of Southampton and end up being transported from the continent. Work is ongoing in my constituency to ensure that the diversionary line is also improved—to raise the road bridges—so that the port can achieve its aim of getting 40% of the freight from the port travelling by rail, which is a far more environmentally sustainable route.

The investment might not achieve its maximum potential, however, if the port of Southampton is not allowed to develop and thrive in a very competitive climate. It is the second busiest deep-water port in the UK and cannot afford to stand still if it is to retain that position, yet as we have heard time and again, it has been forced to tread water because of the inefficiency of the Marine Management Organisation, what I regard as unacceptable objections from rival commercial operators and a delayed process that has seen the likely timetable pushed back and back.

I will not rehearse all the reasons behind the delay, but, as the Member for Romsey and Southampton North, I should like to focus on something that is of particular interest and concern in my constituency. I am also a member of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit. People might therefore expect me to be conscious of the potential environmental impact of the port’s proposal to deepen berths and introduce a new piled quay. Concerns have been raised, including about the migratory salmon that pass through Southampton water. However, the environmental impact assessments have been done and redone. They have been enhanced and more information provided. Despite that, there has been stunningly little progress, and there is a very limited time window for the piling of the new quay. Given the potential impact on migratory salmon, that can be done only between mid-September and March, so a scheme first mooted back in 2008 has missed that window time and again. If it does not get the go-ahead very soon, the next window, between September 2012 and March 2013, will also be missed.

I do not dismiss the importance of the salmon—far from it. Two of the pre-eminent chalk rivers in the country—indeed, the world—run through my constituency at various points. There is, I concede, a very small stretch of the River Itchen, but much of the River Test runs the length of my constituency. One of my constituents proudly boasts of having caught a salmon on the Test every year for the past 50 years. Those salmon are few and far between, and I am most anxious that their migration should not be disturbed, but there is no reason why the development should be held up by them. It is notable that the environmental objections have come not from the fishermen on the River Test, but from a rival port operator.

As I said, I will not rehearse all the reasons for the delay. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen took us through a comprehensive timetable. Suffice it to say that the hold-up is putting expansion plans at risk and, in so doing, threatening local jobs, regional economic prosperity and, importantly, private investment in a vital facility. I will not dwell on private investment and the questions about the Liverpool cruise terminal, but it is worth mentioning that in the dealings with the MMO and waiting for permission to be granted, as with the Liverpool cruise terminal, all that Southampton is asking for is a level playing field—I could not work out whether there was an analogy involving water, but I do not think so.

This is a very difficult week for the cruise industry, and our thoughts should be with the victims of the dreadful accident off the coast of Italy. It is important that we get behind that industry. We sincerely hope that it recovers, because it is very important to the port of Southampton. Above all else, we urge the Minister to ensure that, at a time when the cruise industry needs some help and support, we have some clear answers on the question whether public money should be used to subsidise the industry.

Rural Bus Services

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and support his comments. One important issue on which we need to move forward, and one thing I will ask the Minister to work on with colleagues, is flexibility. In the spirit of true localism, we need to ensure that we achieve solutions that are suitable for an area, rather than just one size fits all, because what suits one place will not necessarily be perfect in another.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I appreciate the opportunity to say that some very good rural bus schemes have been set up by villages in my constituency, and I would highlight Broughton. Local communities, which know their areas best and know the demand, need that flexibility and the ability to come together to form solutions that will be responsive to their needs, rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.

[Brandon Lewis]

I wholeheartedly agree.

Reduced or withdrawn bus services, which are quite likely in areas such as Norfolk, will make people more socially isolated, and make it harder for them to access employment, education and vital services, such as health care and retail facilities. Casework in my constituency shows that some of those issues are already prevalent. Any further loss of, or reduction in, rural bus services can only exacerbate the problem faced by rural communities, which have already been hit by rising fuel costs, increased reliance on cars and increasingly long and frequent car journeys.

We need to look at options for the future. The Government need to encourage and enable local authorities to provide alternative rural transport models. Where necessary, they should provide additional funding to kick-start that process, and there are exciting examples of that innovative approach across the country. Hon. Members have mentioned some, but let me give a few specific examples.

This September, Isle of Wight council joined bus operator Southern Vectis to form a community bus partnership that is the first of its kind in the country. That follows the scrapping of the council-owned Wightbus to save £175,000 a year. Working in conjunction with town and parish councils, voluntary drivers run some rural services. Southern Vectis provides off-peak school minibuses and driver training. The council has also allocated additional funding for community bus services. That arrangement avoids the problem of capital costs, which confronts many other community transport schemes, removing the risk from the voluntary sector. Before any union representatives complain, I should say that the service is not taking jobs away from existing drivers because it is an additional service, which ensures that existing services remain. As a result of that partnership working, Southern Vectis has won this year’s transport operator of the year award. That is a great example of what can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

7. What impact assessment his Department undertook in relation to the decision to end concessionary coach travel for elderly and disabled people.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

10. What consultation he has had with coach operators on the effects of the withdrawal of the coach concessionary travel scheme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

The decision to end Government funding for the half-price coach concession was announced as part of the 2010 spending review. The Government have corresponded with affected operators on the proposed change and my officials have held discussions with National Express—one of the operators affected by the phasing out of the concession. An impact assessment relating to the ending of the coach concession has been submitted to the Reducing Regulation Committee. The final assessment will be published on the Department’s website and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

[Norman Baker]

Of course we assessed the proposal as part of the spending review, and I mentioned the Reducing Regulation Committee assessment a moment ago. May I suggest that the position is not quite as apocalyptic as the hon. Gentleman makes out? A year ago, after the 2010 spending review announcement, National Express said:

“We are already planning for the removal of the coach concessionary fares scheme in October 2011 and will announce new products aimed at the over 60s and disabled travellers in due course. We believe the financial impact of the scheme’s removal is manageable and will be mitigated by our own plans”.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the Minister for his comments. Many elderly and disabled people in my constituency have become reliant on coach travel because of its ease of use and cost-effectiveness. If this decision results in the withdrawal of some routes, what choice does he think those vulnerable groups in my constituency will be left with, given that train travel is acknowledged to be very expensive?

[Norman Baker]

First, we have retained the bus concession in its entirety when many thought that was vulnerable in the current financial circumstances—that has not been chopped in any way. Secondly, the senior citizen railcard continues to exist, and it enables those people to receive a significant discount on rail travel. Thirdly, as I have said, National Express, which is by far and away the largest coach provider, is intending to put its own scheme in place, and I am sure it will do that. I say that, first, because it makes commercial sense for National Express to do so and, secondly, because the profits on its coach division increased by 14% in the last six months.