Select Committee Inquiry (Aviation Strategy)

Debate between Iain Stewart and Louise Ellman

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The Committee will certainly be interested to hear representations on the specific issue that he has raised.

The Department for Transport has taken some time in producing its aviation strategy. The coalition rejected plans for a third runway at Heathrow in 2010, but in July this year the Government published their draft aviation policy framework for consultation. The Government say that their draft policy should make the best use of existing aviation capacity in the short term, while other long-term solutions to increase capacity are being developed.

The issue of hub status is particularly contentious. Two years after opposing plans to expand Heathrow, the Government’s draft aviation policy does not include a strategy for maintaining an aviation hub in the UK. Ensuring that the UK has an effective hub airport is important to encourage growth, maintain international connectivity and provide transport services on more marginal routes.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

As a member of the Transport Select Committee, I am very much looking forward to working on this important inquiry. Will the hon. Lady confirm that the inquiry’s terms of reference will allow us to consider the interaction of aviation strategy with a high-speed rail network, so that we can explore other hub airport options rather than simply the binary choice between expanding Heathrow and building a Thames estuary airport?

[Mrs Ellman]

I can confirm that the terms of reference for the inquiry, which are now being published, will include the particular issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Transport Committee Report (Coastguard)

Debate between Iain Stewart and Louise Ellman

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. The concern about local knowledge or, perhaps more broadly, situational knowledge cannot be emphasised enough. Our concern in that respect relates not only to the coastguard officers themselves, but to the volunteer coastguard. When we conducted our inquiry, particularly when we visited the coastguard stations, we were struck by the amount of teamworking, which is essential. We were concerned that the proposals would endanger that teamworking. To refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), I stress again the importance of considering the safety of leisure craft and small fishing vessels, as well as the commercial sector, and we felt that that part of shipping was omitted from consideration in producing the proposals.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is the Chair of the Committee. I, too, gained a great deal from visiting the three stations—Falmouth, Greenock and Stornoway—and what struck me particularly was the willingness of the serving officers there to adapt and move forward. They do not necessarily wish to keep the status quo, but they want to be properly involved and to tap into their vast experience in shaping a sensible way forward.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He played an active part in drafting our proposals, and I certainly agree with what he says. Indeed, our Committee is asking the Government not just to withdraw their current proposals, but to introduce alternatives and, in doing so, to consider the alternative proposals that have been submitted by coastguard officers across the country.

I should like to refer now to the proposals on the withdrawal of funding for emergency towing vessels—the tugs that are there to prevent major pollution incidents. That decision for change was made against the findings of an independent risk assessment, and we consider it unwise and short-sighted; it is quite literally inviting disaster. Our evidence strongly suggests that no suitable commercial alternative exists to replace the current arrangements. We urge the Government to reverse their decision to terminate the provision of emergency towing vehicles by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, although we welcome efforts to find alternative sources of funding to help to fund such procedures.

The third part of the Government’s proposals concerns the withdrawal of Government financial support for the firefighting service at sea—the maritime incident response group, which is funded by the Government and firefighting authorities. We are extremely concerned that the Government have withdrawn their funding from that service and appear to expect the local fire and rescue authorities to fund it themselves. It is a national firefighting service, and we consider it unreasonable to expect the local fire services to fund it, particularly at this time of financial constraint. Our concern is that, if the burden was put entirely on the local fire and rescue authorities, that excellent service would cease to exist. The service is extremely important; not only is it to do with firefighting, but it is deals with chemical hazards. I ask the Government to remember how important that is and what the consequences of withdrawing the service could be.

Taken together, the proposed changes to the coastguard service, with the drastic closure of coastguard co-ordination centres and the possible loss of emergency towing vehicles and the maritime incident response group, represent a significant restructuring of the country’s marine search and rescue and accident and pollution prevention capabilities. It is deeply regrettable that the Department for Transport announced all three sets of proposals with no prior consultation whatsoever and did not consider their combined impact on safety. Although this cross-party Committee recognises the pressure on the Government to make financial savings and the need to modernise and use new technology, we simply cannot support proposals that reduce maritime safety in that way.