Deafness and Hearing Loss

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Mike Penning

Thursday 30th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The right hon. Gentleman makes the same points that we have all made. Access to Work is a great scheme. It works. As I understand it, the logic for the cap is that there is only so much money in the pot—that is always the case for Governments—and therefore its purpose is to try to spread what is available as widely as possible. But for people with fantastic talent who could be advocates and champions for the deaf community by becoming chief executives and leaders of their professions and so on, the glass ceiling has been reinforced, because they can now get only £43,000. This is not a criticism—well, it is in some respects—but we need to ensure that the evidence is looked at regularly.

[Sir Mike Penning]

Governments need to be kicked and beaten up when they get things wrong and praised when they get things right. I was proud that a Conservative Government brought in Access to Work, which is massively important. There will always be examples of abuse in the system and so on, but that does not give the Government carte blanche to say, “No, the only way this can work is with a cap,” particularly if the evidence does not show that a cap will work. The Minister will have looked twice when he came into the Chamber and realised what this debate would mostly be about, which is not his responsibility but the DWP’s. I am more than happy to go across to my old Department and sit with my old officials and explain to them exactly where the evidence is in their cupboards.

Let me touch briefly on two other areas, and then on one thing that has not been touched on at all. I do not understand why, in the 21st century, a recognised language is not recognised in the House or across the country. I really do not understand why, all these years after I made a point of order in the main Chamber in 2005 to complain that a hearing loop was not available for my constituents when they were in the House—even when it was installed, it did not work properly—this is the first time a debate has been signed for our constituents. People will always go on about how that must cost more money. The cost is minimal compared with the benefit to our constituents of being part of the democratic process.

[Sir Mike Penning]

The things I do for everybody in this House. It was genuinely embarrassing. I remember it vividly. I said to the Speaker, Michael Martin, “My constituents have come to see this world heritage site and their Parliament at work. I took them on a tour, and frankly they got hardly any benefit apart from visuals, because they couldn’t understand or hear a word I was saying.” I seem to remember that there was the comment, from a sedentary position, “Well, they didn’t miss very much,” but I was trying to get across a point. This is the mother of Parliaments, and as we have heard from colleagues, we are way behind the loop again. I am sorry to use that terrible pun, but we are really behind. I hope that we will have a lurch forward. I have noticed all the Clerks coming in, and have heard that the Speaker will be reported to, and all that, and that is great, but it is absolutely useless unless someone actually does something. Then we can move on. I know this is a trial, but signing should be transmitted live.

Secondly, there should be a GCSE. I find it fascinating: we can see all the different courses that our young people do in schools and colleges, yet they are excluded in this way. If people do not want any more GCSEs, we could drop one of the ones that would not get used anywhere near as much as this. It would make people aware. In my constituency, people who are not deaf or hard of hearing have said to me that they want to be able to communicate like this; they want to do these courses as well. They want to have a GCSE, so that they can chat away with their mates in that sort of way. That is a simple thing, and I cannot see huge cost implications, so it should be moved on, as we have heard this afternoon.

Finally, I will touch on people whose hearing has been impaired by industrial injuries. That has not been mentioned at all in the debate, but not because people think it should not be. It is just one of those issues. People cannot see this type of industrial injury. It is not like the industrial injuries that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse and I saw in our former jobs as firemen. There is something very wrong about how we measure industrial injuries, and hearing impairment industrial injuries in particular. So many people who have a hearing impairment do not admit it to themselves, their wives and their loved ones, even though their wives and loved ones are probably aware that there is an issue. They certainly do not talk about it to their employer or previous employers.

I can talk about this, because my eardrum is perforated. I did not know about that until I started to miss conversations that I thought I should be picking up. You just do not think there is something wrong. However, when I was a Minister at the Ministry of Defence, I had to have a medical before I was allowed to go into operational fields, and it was obvious that I had a perforated eardrum. It was almost certainly from live firing when I was in the armed forces—the specialists told me that—although it was not picked up then. That is not so important to me, but where industrial injuries are common, it is massively important that there be a level playing field on decibel levels. Completely different levels are used for hearing damage in the armed forces and what I call civvy street, and that cannot be right.

We must encourage people to come forward, not so much so that they can get compensation, but because, as we heard earlier, if we can pick this up earlier, it saves the state and everyone a lot of money, and also makes life much better for that person, who can start to accept the disability that they have and continue to live a happy life.

[Ms Karen Buck in the Chair]

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

When I had the hearing test that identified my audiological loss, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, the printout showed whether it was down to age or genetics, or whether it was industrial. Mine was at least partly industrial. I was told by my clinicians, “Your hearing loss is above the threshold for applying for industrial injury compensation.” I never did, because I had a great job here, so I did not have to, and it was not a matter of money. I have always felt a bit difficult about saying, “Well, I should have gone down as a statistic.” I am sure that, as the right hon. Gentleman says, there are a lot of us out there who have not registered and do not appear in the statistics. The base statistics are only of the people who absolutely needed to make sure that they registered.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Mike Penning

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I understand exactly where my hon. Friend is coming from, especially on the point about audit. However, at the moment, we do not feel that there is a need to use external specialists in that way; if we find out later that there is, the inspector could ask the Home Secretary for those specific measures. The fire service has enough expertise to ensure that the regime works. It will be completely different from the current regime.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to another former Fire Minister. There used to be an honourable tradition that Fire Ministers were West Ham United supporters, but sadly that was broken by the right hon. Gentleman.

We have gone from the fire services inspectorate to the National Audit Office and then to nothing, and we are now going back to the fire services inspectorate. Has the Minister taken into account, for example, the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, which could give external advice to the new inspectorate, very much along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)? Will the new chief inspector also be the national adviser for fire? I would be grateful if the Minister explained a little of the background.

[Mike Penning]

I am conscious that I am in the hands of experts who were Ministers long before I was, but as an ex-firefighter, I was really quite surprised to see how the inspections took place when I came into the role. They did not take place as envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) when he introduced the relevant legislation. There was a genuine feeling that we had to address the costs and how the inspections were done. To be perfectly honest, the system has not worked. We cannot continue with the situation where one fire and rescue force inspects another and they tell each other what they can and cannot inspect.

This proposal is separate, which is why we have put the new inspector alongside Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. They will tell us exactly what expertise they require. As ex-firefighters, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and I can assume what they will need to look at, but I accept that some fire and rescues services will need to draw on financial expertise from other areas.

Fire Service: Flooding and Statutory Duties

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Mike Penning

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I may give way in a moment. Time will be difficult.

The fire service continues to evolve and not every fire service will come under police and crime commissioners. Around five PCCs are looking into this, but other PCCs and clinical commissioning groups are considering whether the ambulance service could be included. My views on this are pretty well known. I think the blue light emergency services must work much more closely together than now. I am chuffed that in London we have co-responding, but that is just the start. In Hampshire, there are qualified paramedics who are firemen. I apologise to the ladies, I mean firefighters. When I was in the job, there were only firemen.

It is important to see where the job is going. Yes, we are going to more flooding. We have always gone to flooding, I went to flooding and the London fire service went to a flood yesterday. None of the national resilience back-up was used yesterday. I asked the question before coming here today.

I am a former member of the Fire Brigades Union. I met the leadership and it put similar arguments to me. I will keep the matter under review. I will not comment too much on the numbers, not least because in other parts of the country we have seen firefighter numbers drop, but there has been a different way of delivering the service, including retained firefighters. London still has this policy, which I thought was an anomaly when I was in Essex—it will not allow retained firefighters on to its ground even if in their day job they are fully qualified firemen. I have never understood that and it is something that must be addressed as we evolve. I know that the union is trying to protect jobs, but in retrospect it is probably not doing that.

Lancashire has developed a completely different model. The union there wanted to protect jobs and to keep stations open. There was a risk of them closing so it went to the eight-eight day model, so that they were manned during the day with back-up crews during the evening. That is a completely different model. That is why local decision making is vital.

I am not denying that there are fewer firefighters, but there are dramatically fewer turn-outs. Fire prevention work started during our time in the job. I remember vividly arguing that firemen should go into homes to help to install smoke detectors. The situation has dramatically changed but there are still too many deaths and there is a lot more work to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I do listen to the chiefs. They are firefighters as well, interestingly enough. I am sure that they would like to be classed as firefighters, not separate from firefighters—we may make a few enemies with some chief firefighters, but that is semantics. I do listen to the chiefs, and other chiefs in other parts of the country are not saying the same thing. What we need to do is ensure that we have the assets in the right place. To go back to the point about Lancashire, one of the crews said to me, “We did not have a flotation platform, so we were using salvage sheets and ladders,” which I trained with all those years ago; people would think we had moved on from there. I understand that that service is now looking at deploying that piece of kit. It does not take up a huge amount of space. It uses compressed air.

We have to look very carefully at this matter, and the brigadiers’ report on how the resilience worked during the flooding is crucial as well. We had a situation in which the Army could get in, because it was using what I still call 4-tonne trucks, but when we tried to follow them with fire appliances, many of them broke down and were severely damaged. That had a lot to do with the air intake and with positioning. People would think that in the 21st century we would have learned how to deal with those situations, but actually that is what we were learning. We also know that the cars of crews who came in and parked in one particular fire station were destroyed by flooding. We therefore need to look very carefully at the resilience that is there, and that is one reason why I am looking very carefully at the pumps.

The point I want to make is that we can change the title and say, “You should do this and you should do that,” but we have to ask whether the services are doing that first and whether that is the best utilisation of what we are asking them to do. There are some chiefs who take the view referred to, and the FBU has been running a very long campaign on this matter; it goes way back to when the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse was the Fire Minister. However, I am of the same opinion as the 2008 Minister: if necessary, we could do this, but at present—

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am glad that the Minister has at least said that he will keep the situation under review. The best argument he has is that a statutory duty would force all 40-odd fire brigades in England and Wales to buy the equipment when some of them may well not need it—but then a number of us have been advocating fewer fire authorities for a considerable time. It would be much better to have regional structures and fewer chief fire officers and fewer fire and rescue authorities. That streamlining would be better. The key point here is that whether it is because of climate change or just weather patterns changing, floods are on the up; they are increasing exponentially. We need the equipment and resources to deal with that, and people think that a statutory duty is the only way to get the Government to focus on ensuring that those resources are available.

[Mike Penning]

I agree that the fire service is top-heavy in administration terms, which is why I am looking at PCCs who want to take over that administration and limit those costs, so that we have more money for the frontline; I am sure that we would all agree with that. Perhaps it is a question for another debate, on the number of fire and rescue services. That is a really emotive subject, because a local community relate, they tell me, to their fire service.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Mike Penning

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have been called to speak so late in this debate. I apologise to both Front Benchers, and to most of the speakers who preceded me, for not having been here throughout the debate. I declare an interest as a former asbestos worker. I suspect that not many former asbestos workers have spoken in the debate. If they have, I suspect that they were from the Labour Benches. No disrespect to Government Members, but hearing from such speakers gives us greater insight into the issue.

I am a former fire brigade worker, and I suspect that I share the same background as the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)—or is he right hon.?

[Mike Penning]

indicated dissent.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

He has not been promoted yet. When we worked in the fire service, we used asbestos anti-fire equipment; we had asbestos hoods and gloves. We are lucky: having worked for local authority fire brigades, we know our employers, know that they are insured, and can trace them. Should anything happen to us —goodness forbid—our families could track back and seek appropriate compensation for our early demise. Clearly, that is not the situation for thousands of other asbestos workers, especially those who worked in industries and businesses that have gone out of business or become defunct.

On the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) about being able to track people, when I was the senior health and safety official at London fire brigade, I got management to agree that every member of London fire brigade who served before the withdrawal of asbestos equipment would have “asbestos-exposed” on their personal record file, so thousands of firefighters are covered. London fire brigade was great in making sure that that happened.

I share the Labour Front Benchers’ five key concerns about the Bill: that the level of compensation is lower than it should be; that other asbestos-related diseases have been excluded; the decision on the cut-off date; the clawback of benefits; and, most importantly, the level of research into asbestos-related diseases. We have some very strong points to make. It is clear that there is support in the other place, especially from senior Members on the Government Benches. I would be very surprised if Government Front Benchers in this House did not have great sympathy with a number of the points raised by the British Lung Foundation and other charities that provided briefings for today’s debate.

I look forward to the Bill going into Committee and to having discussions with Government Front Benchers. I look forward to them being as accommodating as they can be, because bringing the Bill forward is a great signal of their intention to deal fairly with the victims of asbestosis and those suffering from mesothelioma. I think that the Bill can be improved and hope that the Government see it that way, too.

Coastguard Modernisation

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Mike Penning

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government’s final decisions about coastguard modernisation in the light of responses received to the second round of consultation, which ended on 6 October 2011.

I should first like to remind the House that the plans for coastguard modernisation announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) in his statement on 14 July, following the first round of consultation, are not about altering the arrangements for front-line rescue services around our coasts. Rescue activities will continue to be carried out as they are today by the 3,500 community volunteers in the Coastguard Rescue Service; the lifeboats operated by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution; independent lifeboats operated by volunteer groups; and our search and rescue helicopters. The bravery and commitment shown by those providing front-line services have served this country well and will continue to do so.

The plans we have announced specifically include an increase in the number of regular coastguard officers who provide operational leadership to support the 3,500 volunteers in the Coastguard Rescue Service, whom I mentioned. These plans therefore reflect the importance we attach to continuing the delivery of a first-class local rescue service directly serving citizens and recreational mariners.

The decision announced on 14 July, and the further details I am announcing today, are about modernising the coastguard co-ordination function only. Modernisation is needed to address the limited resilience of current rescue co-ordination arrangements, which have changed little since the removal of the visual watch in the 1970s. Modernisation will provide the operational resilience needed; distribute work more effectively and efficiently around coastguard centres; make the most of the professional skills of our regular coastguards with levels of reward that match their responsibilities; and deliver improved support and co-ordination for our Coastguard Rescue Service and our search and rescue partners.

The original proposals, which we consulted on last December, had been discussed and developed over several years by the previous Government. We said at the outset that we would have a genuine consultation and that we expected the outcome of the process to be improved and more resilient plans.

We made it clear in July that we had listened to the views expressed in the first consultation. As a result, we announced that, in implementing a nationally networked system, we would retain more coastguard centres than originally proposed; keep all these centres operating 24/7; and retain more regular coastguard jobs. These plans will keep open at least one of each of the paired coastguard centres. Operational pairs have experience and knowledge in managing incidents across their shared geographical areas. Keeping at least one centre from each pair will therefore ensure that that experience and local knowledge is retained. In addition, as we explained in July, the operational costs of retaining the 10 centres overall plus a small centre in London will be offset by operating only one national maritime operations centre—MOC—with an unmanned back-up in Dover, rather than the two that were previously planned.

The second consultation exercise, which is what this statement is about, invited views on four specific issues: the retention of both the centres at Stornoway and Shetland and their operation on a 24/7 basis; the change to a single maritime operations centre with an unmanned back-up in Dover; the retention of Holyhead rather than its paired centre at Liverpool; and the retention of Milford Haven rather than its paired centre at Swansea.

The second consultation closed on 6 October. I should like again to thank all those who engaged in the process, including those in the service, members of the public and Members from both sides of the House. All responses were read and examined by an independent team, which has helped to develop the modernisation proposals. I am making its report on the issues identified in the consultation available today on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency website, and it will be available in the Library of the House.

Let me now turn to the specific questions we posed in the second consultation. The support for keeping open both the centres at Stornoway and on Shetland was overwhelming, so I can confirm that we will keep them both open on a 24/7 basis.

On the move to a single maritime centre, concerns were expressed about having both an unmanned centre and its back-up in the south, when they should be geographically separated, and about the possible reduction in capabilities at Aberdeen to co-ordinate oil or gas incidents if there was not to be a second main centre in Aberdeen. However, we continue to believe that with more centres remaining open on a 24/7 basis, there is sufficient cover not to need a second nationally networked system. Consequently, there will be one network in the south.

We also believe that the back-up at Dover is sufficiently distant from the maritime operations centre in the Portsmouth-Southampton area—I shall return to that later—to provide the necessary resilience while minimising costs. However, we will retain additional specialist staff in Aberdeen to maintain the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s close links with the oil and gas sector. Those jobs will remain.

On the choice of Holyhead rather than Liverpool, representations were received stressing the scale and proximity of maritime and tourist activities at both locations; questioning the importance of the Welsh language considerations highlighted in the first consultation; and concerning the running-cost advantages and higher disposal costs for Liverpool. We considered the responses carefully, but as we made clear in July, we have identified no operational or financial reasons for preferring one location to the other. In particular there are no significant differences in running costs.

In the light of comments in the first consultation, it is also our view that familiarity with Welsh place names, rather than speaking Welsh, must be an important consideration supporting the retention of Holyhead. As a result, I have concluded that Holyhead should form part of the nationally networked system and that the co-ordination function at Liverpool will close. We plan to maintain a marine office, coastguard rescue team, coastal operational hub and a radio mast at the Liverpool site.

Representations were also received about the proximity, particularly of maritime activities, at Milford Haven and Swansea. The representations concerned the perceived risks of having a centre so close to liquefied natural gas terminals at Milford Haven; better transport links in Swansea; and the wider potential recruitment pool in the Swansea area. I must reiterate, however, that within the nationally networked system, which will co-ordinate incidents in this area, there are no operational reasons for choosing one or other of these sites. Similarly, as was explained in July, we are satisfied that there are no considerations that favour either location.

In addition, we have not recently experienced any recruitment problems at Milford Haven. As a result, I have concluded that it remains right that the choice of Milford Haven as the site for a continuing coastguard co-ordination centre should reflect the Department for Transport’s continuing substantial levels of employment in Swansea. This means that we will no longer have a coastguard co-ordination function at Swansea, but we plan that the building will remain in use as a coastal operations hub for the volunteer rescue teams. It will be at that site.

Having reached these decisions, I am today publishing a short summary document that sets out a clear blueprint for the operation of the nationally networked coastguard co-ordination service comprising a single national operations centre in the Portsmouth area—again, I shall return to that—a back-up national operations centre at Dover; and centres at the MCA sites at Humber, Aberdeen, Shetland, Stornoway, Belfast, Holyhead, Milford Haven and Falmouth. This blueprint also sets out the previously announced provisional timetable for the closure of the other existing co-ordination centres before 31 March 2015. The centre at Solent will be replaced by the new maritime operations centre. This timetable remains our best estimate of when these centres will close, although clearly it will need to be kept under review to match operational requirements.

The document also explains—and I stress this point—the strong commitment to the coastguard presence that will be retained at the existing MCA sites at Liverpool, Swansea and the Thames, even after the co-ordination centre function ends. There will be a similarly strong presence in the Clyde area, but not at the existing site.

Finally, I would like to say something about the location of the new national maritime operations centre. With the full support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, I am pleased to inform the House that the maritime operations centre will be housed in the vacant fire control centre building in Fareham—the significance of that with a former fireman standing here will be obvious. The building’s existing facilities mean that the maritime operations centre can be established quickly, allowing for an extensive programme of tests and trials to prove and refine the new concept of operations for maritime rescue co-ordination. Those tests and trials will be an important element in addressing the understandable concerns from many professional coastguards about the operation of the new system and will ensure no reduction in capabilities in the transition period. The choice of Fareham also makes best use of the Government’s existing estate and minimises up-front costs, offering best value for money.

I understand, of course, that the closure of some existing co-ordination centres and the loss of some coastguard jobs will come as a disappointment to those directly affected. However, the decisions that I have announced today will deliver the modernised, nationally networked and fully resilient coastguard service that we require for the future, while also reducing costs. Critically, these decisions will enable us better to support our coastguard volunteers and the front-line rescue capabilities on which the public and mariners depend. I commend this statement to the House.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement. I would expect no less a courtesy from a former fellow fireman, but it is especially generous coming from someone who served with the Essex brigade to someone from London. I apologise to the Minister and to you, Mr Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Secretary of State, is not present. She has pursued the issue vigorously, as have the shadow Secretary of State for Education and the shadow Leader of the House. She is particularly frustrated at being unable to be here today, especially as her own station is to close.

I also thank the Minister for making today’s statement, ending the prolonged concern and uncertainty in coastguard communities. These exercises take time, and I know that the Minister made a considerable personal effort in travelling to various parts of the country to meet and engage with staff and others. That is to his credit. He will also have listened to the respected chief executive of the MCA, Sir Alan Massey, and the highly regarded chief coastguard, Rod Johnson. I, too, would like to take this opportunity to express our support for them and the entire coastguard service, which so professionally co-ordinates the first-class search and rescue capability around our coast.

As a member of the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights, as former shipping Minister and now as shadow shipping Minister, I, like the Minister, am proud to wear the red ensign badge, in solidarity with and respect for British shipping in all its aspects. I have no doubt that the Minister has done his best within the limits set by the Treasury and his departmental budget; but equally, I have no doubt that these proposals are at least partly driven by financial constraints. He knows the concerns out there about shipping safety owing to the loss of Nimrods, the ending of the emergency towing vessel contract and the outstanding review of the air-sea search and rescue service. The Select Committee on Transport, under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), echoed that concern when it said:

“The evidence…raises serious concerns that safety will be jeopardised if these proposals proceed.”

In that case the Government were right to look again and amend their original proposals.

I would be grateful if the Minister responded to a few questions. In the original plan he envisaged two operational centres, we assumed for resilience. Can he reassure the House that the non-staffed back-up will be able to do the job if the main centre crashes? Can he also say how quickly it would be up and running under such circumstances? Can he tell us how many coastguards will remain in full-time employment after this modernisation programme? I think he said that there would be more, but I assume that that is against the original consultation document, not the present establishment. Part of our review in government was about addressing low pay among coastguards historically, compared with similar staff, with similar duties, in the other emergency services. Given that remaining staff will be undertaking more work with more responsibilities and that we anticipate they will need to be upskilled, will this modernisation address that historic anomaly? My last question is when we can expect a statement on the future of the air-sea search and rescue service.

In conclusion, we welcome the Minister’s acceptance of the need to keep both Shetland and Stornoway, and we are relieved that the Department proposes 24/7 cover at all the remaining stations. His decision to retain one of each pair of twinned stations is an acknowledgement that the question of local knowledge weighed heavily on him and his officials. I am sure he will understand, however, that in a number of communities out there now, there will be real disappointment and even anger today. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.

[Mike Penning]

I thank my friend for his comments: we agree on most things, but occasionally disagree; perhaps we will disagree a little bit today. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s four specific questions.

In the original proposal, which we inherited from the previous Administration, two MOCs were required, not least because the majority of the stations would have gone part time. They are no longer going part time; they are 24/7, so the resilience within the system, which is not there today, will give us the communications resilience that we need. If we need to move into the unmanned MOC we will do so. We looked at this carefully and found that in 99.9% of cases we would not have to do this, even if the MOC went down initially, because the other stations will pick it up, and we are moving towards the Dover MOC.

Pay is a real issue: £13,500 as a basic salary for someone working in the emergency services is a disgrace. I know that the shadow Minister looked at this carefully when he was in my position, which is why the original proposals were on his former desk and on the desk of the Minister before him and the one before that. We have done something about it so that we have pay, conditions and promotion opportunities for the people who serve so well.

In the original proposals I inherited, coastguard staffing levels would have gone down to 244. Under the proposals I have announced today, the staffing level will be 314. The shadow Minister will have to wait for the Secretary of State to make her announcement on search and rescue helicopters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Mike Penning

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

We have indeed considered the environmental impact of longer semi-trailers, and have concluded that there will be less pollution in the community. There will be fewer lorries, because the longer lorries will be able to carry more cargo than can be carried now. We considered carefully whether longer semi-trailers posed a risk to cyclists in particular, and the risk is not there.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I know that the Minister is in some pain this morning owing to a tooth abscess, and I do not want to add to his discomfort, but people—motorists, cyclists and pedestrians—are frightened by heavy goods vehicles, and longer vehicles will cause even greater anxiety. Given the 40% cut in road safety funding and the results of the Department’s own consultation, which suggest that the number of casualties may be marginally higher if longer vehicles are introduced, will the Minister ensure that the road safety element features highly in his consideration? Surely it must be at the top of his agenda.

[Mike Penning]

It is very kind of my shadow opponent to worry about my abscess, but I promise him that the NHS dentist will look after it for me.

We will carefully consider the road safety implications of longer semi-trailers, but we must sweat our assets better on the roads. We are not going to introduce heavier weights, and we are not going to introduce the mega-trucks whose introduction has been proposed to us. We will look carefully at the length of trailers to ensure that more products can be taken around the country with the same weight, the same fuel and fewer emissions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Mike Penning

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

The existing limit has been in place since the ’60s. We will weigh up safety and environmental aspects against enforcement—although we all know that 70 mph is not being enforced—and how increasing the speed limit to 80 mph would help the country to grow in infrastructure. We will look at the balance in those areas.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

In assessing the impact on safety of increasing motorway speed limits, does the Minister agree that another potential consequence will be our ability to meet our carbon dioxide emission targets? Has he received any representations from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change who, as we know, is something of an expert on these matters?

[Mike Penning]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who had my job before me, but he should have listened to the answer I gave a few moments ago before reading out his prepared question. We will balance the environmental aspects against the safety aspects, and also take into account the legislative process and whether or not we can get Britain moving better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Mike Penning

Thursday 5th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

ANPR is a huge move forward in how we catch more people who drive without insurance. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), we are looking at the issue and working with other Departments to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Uninsured drivers contribute significantly to the number of crashes, deaths and serious injuries on the roads. When will we see the long-awaited road safety framework document, and will it address that issue? Does the Department intend to continue publishing targets for the reduction of deaths and serious injuries on our roads?

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman used to have the job that I have the honour of doing these days, and he knows full well that the Government will publish the road safety strategy as soon as we can; he will have to wait for what is in it. He made a point about targets. If we are not careful, if we set targets the easy option is always the way forward. We have the safest roads in the world and we intend to keep them that way, but we are not going to set arbitrary targets and just say, “We have met that target, so we can ignore the harder option.”

Search and Rescue Service

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Mike Penning

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, for the first time as a Minister of the Crown.

First, I want to say that a leak has taken place. It must have taken place last night, because the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has read out my summary of events, with great clarity and great accuracy. I praise him for his knowledge of the issues that he has raised in Westminster Hall today.

Having secured this debate, the right hon. Gentleman might have thought that there would be a few more Members here for it. The amount of correspondence that I have had on this issue is not reflected in the number of Back Benchers who are in Westminster Hall today. I hope that those who are not here will read the report in Hansard later, so that we can get some better knowledge out there around the country about what is happening.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), was quite right to say that I am somewhat tied by “legal eagles”. There are some things that I can talk about today and clearly there are some things that I cannot talk about. I will be as open and honest as possible, as I always am. As Members can imagine, there are officials from the Ministry of Defence who are keeping a very close eye on me as I stand here, as well as my own officials.

We are discussing a really serious issue today. I am not particularly happy about the position that I am in. As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse and other right hon. and hon. Members have said, we inherited the position that we are in and literally on the eve of our announcement information was brought forward that meant that the whole procurement process and the awarding of the contracts had to be halted. Indeed, they were not only halted but we had enough information at that time, as the police were brought in, to know that that procurement process and the awarding of the contracts would cease.

So, wherever I can be, I will be as open as I can, but I hope that Members will understand that I am speaking under legal constraints and I do not want to jeopardise any possible legal action or police inquiry by what I say during this debate.

Quite correctly, right hon. and hon. Members have paid tribute, and I join them in paying tribute, to the men and women who have served in the air-sea rescue service in the many roles that they have played in the many years—nearly 70 in total—that they have carried out this service on behalf of the British public.

What is interesting is that the public have a perception about who is flying those funny-coloured helicopters that have the word “Coastguard” written on their side. When I first became a Minister, I assumed that the crews involved were all military crews and I think that a lot of people make that assumption. They assume that when they are on the beach, or on the moorlands and lakelands of this country, or when they are waiting to be rescued from a cliff, that those pilots, navigators and loading guys in the back are military personnel. However, let us be perfectly honest. We know that many of them are not military personnel and that for some 27 years four of the bases—four of the air-sea rescue facilities—have been run under contract by the private sector. Have there been huge numbers of complaints about the ability, skill, dedication, commitment or professionalism of those private sector crews? To be truthful, no, there have not been—not at all. So, although I understand the concerns of areas where there are military bases, we must not undermine the work of the civilian crews who have done fantastic work for many years.

I acknowledge the concerns that exist about some of the contracts—not being responsible for them, I can say that. The contracts were there, we inherited them and we have moved forward with them.

There are obvious and understandable concerns about the future. However, the awarding of these contracts has been delayed for some time. I myself would probably have flown in some of these Sea King helicopters when I was in the armed forces and I joined as a boy soldier in 1974. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, I was in Sea Kings rather too often. I was also in Wessex helicopters. The Wessex is long gone, but Sea Kings are still fulfilling a fantastic role, here in the UK and on operations abroad. I have been lucky enough to be in Sea Kings on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan on my visits to those countries. We must pay tribute to the work that is being done by our armed forces, particularly because as we speak today they are doing a lot of work in the middle east as well as in Afghanistan.

To be polite, the Sea King is a very old lady. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, there are two versions. However, the older version—the 1977 version—is not a modern aircraft. It has nowhere near the sort of lift, capacity or range that modern helicopters offer. I am aware that other countries have looked seriously at their Sea Kings and upgraded them. Very often, they have done so for cost reasons as well as for other reasons, because if the life of a Sea King can be extended the difficult decisions that we have been trying to make can be avoided.

So, as we look at what we have inherited, we must look at what will happen in the short term—that is, now—because of what has happened with these contracts. We must consider how we can continue to have the cover available and my Department is doing that jointly with the MOD and the MCA. However, we must also look forward to consider what will come in to replace the existing service.

Perhaps I can say now that there will be no demise in cover at all in the short term or in the long term. We will look very carefully at the existing contracts—both the civilian contracts and the MOD contracts—and there will be provision of service while we look for a long-term solution. So I hope that I can alleviate any concerns that exist among the constituents of right hon. or hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, or among the armed forces or in the MCA. We will ensure that we get this right. In the short term, we will ensure that there is cover and that the Sea Kings are available and operational.

I am really pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was as honest as I was going to have to be about the Sea Kings’ current availability. They are very often off the run. I have been surprised by a couple of incidents that I have been involved in in my short time as Minister, when I have had to say, “Guarantee to me who is available.” Sometimes the Sea Kings are not there, but that is not because of a lack of will or because people are not professional in maintaining them, it is just because they are very old ladies. They need a lot of TLC, and sometimes we just cannot physically get them up there. Their range is restricted, compared with the civilian Bristows, especially the new ones we would like to bring in, and so there are big issues about who covers. Very often, as I am sure Members are aware, the civilian crews cover in areas where the military cannot, simply because they have the range. We will very consciously ensure our commitment to mountain rescue and sea rescue, and also cliff rescue, which has not been covered today. The skill involved in cliff rescue, with the down draughts, is unbelievable. In the short term, we will commit to those areas, and we are working very closely with the MOD.

In the long term—not too long a term, I hope, but we must get it right—we have a plain sheet of paper, and I hope that hon. Members appreciate that. We can say, “What do we need for air-sea rescue, to go forward in the 21st century?” The MOD will continue to be involved in the negotiations, deciding for itself to what extent; it is not for me as a Department for Transport Minister, even with my military background, to make decisions on behalf of the MOD. It is absolutely crucial that, because of the concerns that have been raised both today and in the press in the past few weeks, we come forward with proposals—although I am sure not everyone will be happy with them—for a service that is there to do the job and to provide the skills that we all want. There has, I think, been some misinformation in the press, which is understandable because not everyone realises how service air-sea rescue is already provided.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

When the first review was under way and the consultation was taking place, it was difficult to deal with the different cultures in the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Transport. When the DFT and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency decided that we would consult on the local provision for the civilian stations, the culture was pretty much one of open politics but, with no disrespect or criticism, the MOD culture was much less open in its engagement with local MPs. If the Minister is looking to consult again, right hon. and hon. Members would obviously look for every assurance that the consultation or the exercise would be as open as possible, and as accessible as possible for Members, so that they could contribute to it.

[Mike Penning]

The shadow Minister is very knowledgeable in this area because he was around in the Department at the time, so I pay tribute to his knowledge of the problems that occurred during the consultation. It will always be difficult, because some of the stations are operational and so an operational capacity need has to be addressed as well as the secondary use, which is the air-sea rescue.

Coastguard Service

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Mike Penning

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Hancock. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. The last time I saw you, you were posing with an inflatable elephant, so you are in a much more dignified position now, and I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I will try not to speak for a full 10 minutes in order to allow the Minister the opportunity to take a few interventions and respond to the points that have been made.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this important debate, and all those who have contributed by way of speeches or interventions. As has been mentioned, the number of MPs present indicates the importance of this debate. It is good to see the Minister present. He had an important engagement at Transport questions last week, during which I raised the issue under discussion. The Secretary of State responded to my question, the context of which was the cancellation of Nimrods; the ending of the emergency towing vessels’ contract; coastguards being made redundant; the closure of coastguard stations, and air-sea rescue being sold off. All those proposals are serious and significant. Individually, every one of them has national significance; collectively, they raise serious concerns about maritime safety. My question last week was whether the Department acknowledged that. I would be grateful to hear whether the Minister recognises that concern. I thought that the Secretary of State’s response was slightly ungracious, but that is a matter for him.

As the shadow Minister with responsibility for shipping, I have been lobbied, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), on the question of the Walney coastguard. I have also been contacted by colleagues from the Western Isles, Brixham and elsewhere. I cannot imagine the pressure that the Minister might be under, given that he has to make the decision. It is entirely understandable that colleagues have today been engaged in special pleading for their local coastguard station or geographical area.

The MCA’s 2010 annual report reported an increase in coastal deaths in 2008-09. More people are holidaying in the UK—I believe it is called a staycation—and the current economic conditions mean that such activity is likely to increase, which, aligned with the possibility of more tourists and visitors coming to Britain, means that there will be even greater risks. One of the questions being asked—most recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen)—is whether the MCA has undertaken a risk assessment of the proposals. The consultation document mentions an equality impact assessment, but I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether I am correct in thinking that the impact, or risk, assessment will follow the conclusion of the consultation.

Parallels have been drawn between the proposals and the previous Government’s plans for regional fire controls. The Minister and I share a little history: I was in the fire service, then he joined the fire service; I got elected to Parliament, then he got elected to Parliament; I was the Minister with responsibility for shipping, then he was the Minister with responsibility for shipping.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

I am—not was—the Minister with responsibility for shipping.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My apologies. The hon. Gentleman is the Minister with responsibility for shipping, which is a very good place to be. He is doing a good job and I know that the shipping industry acknowledges that and respects him for his involvement, even though he has been in the position for less than a year. I am tempted to ask him whether he will make the same mistake as me on fire controls. That contract has been cancelled due to a number of issues. Does he, like several colleagues present, recognise a parallel between that and the proposals under discussion?

It is proposed that staff numbers will fall from 491 to 248. There is an historic question of underpayment of coastguards. Historically, many coastguards were recruited from former members of the Royal Navy or the merchant navy. They came with pensions and were able to be paid a little less than the going rate—certainly less than the other emergency services. That tradition has, of course, been outlived. It was one of the issues with which I grappled as a Minister and, I think, managed to solve with the support of the MCA and Department for Transport officials, whose service I commend—there are many excellent people in both organisations. We managed to persuade the Treasury that that issue needed to be looked at, and I would be interested to hear what discussions the Minister has had with the Treasury about it.

How many of those who lose their jobs does the Department estimate will receive compulsory redundancies? The savings are estimated to be £120 million over 25 years, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—or the Western Isles as the rest of us like to call it—said. The Lord Donaldson inquiry into the Braer disaster recommended an emergency towing vessel for Stornoway. It is suggested that, if that contract is abandoned, it would take 18 hours for a privately contracted vessel to arrive. That one incident involving the Braer cost £100 million, which will wipe out 25 years of savings if the Government proceed with their proposals. Does the Minister acknowledge the connection between emergency towing vessels and the coastguard proposals?

Much is made of volunteers and volunteering. We have a proud tradition in the UK, as do other countries, in that regard. However, as we have seen only today with the noble Lord Wei’s decision to cut his hours at the Cabinet Office from three to two days, volunteers can face problems in giving a commitment due to the pressures on family and business life.

We all acknowledge the need for deficit reduction after the global banking crisis. The real concern is that the Department seems to be going too far, too fast and too deep with these cuts, and the consultation, with which the Minister is encouraging everybody to get involved, will demonstrate whether that is the case.

In conclusion, shipping is pretty much invisible to most people, but it is absolutely critical to the UK, as has been articulated by many colleagues this afternoon. It generally does its job quietly and efficiently, which is to the huge credit of everybody involved in an industry that serves us so well. Safety for those involved and for the millions of recreational seafarers, citizens and visitors who enjoy our coastline is paramount. The proposals are causing serious concern among that whole community. As others have said, I am certain that we will return to the issue time and again, with more debates and more questions, in the months ahead. I look forward to hearing from the Minister to allow that debate to begin.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Mike Penning

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this subject up. It is ever so important that we encourage more people to take up cycling, particularly young people, but at the same time, we must not scare them off by trying to force them to wear helmets, recognising the peer pressure on them. The Department ensured straight away that all its videos, DVDs and anything it broadcasts on the internet do not feature children under 16 without a helmet. That is the sort of message we need to send. Compulsion would be almost impossible to enforce, but we need to work to educate more young people to wear helmets.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

On enforcement and the increase in cycling in recent years, which is set to continue because of the previous Government’s investment, is the Minister holding discussions with his colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Home Office on policing cyclists? I am referring particularly to the minority of dangerous cyclists who get the rest of us a bad name by cycling on pavements and breaking the basic rules of the road. How will we enforce safe cycling?

[Mike Penning]

Any cyclist who breaks the law and gives the former Minister a bad name needs to be brought before the courts. We see such behaviour on a regular basis, particular in urban areas and at lights, where people ignore the Road Traffic Acts. The police should enforce the rules on cyclists the same as they would on any other road user. The law needs to be used.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Mike Penning

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not accept that the very good progress made in recent years in reducing the number of deaths and injuries on our roads is partly due to speed cameras, and that the income generated has been less than the money spent by the Government on speed cameras? Will he consider the introduction of more average-time distance speed cameras and making the existing speed cameras less conspicuous?

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman, a Minister in the previous Government and a former firefighter, is well aware of how speed cameras can protect the public. As a former firefighter myself, I know that speed has been part of the reason for many road traffic accidents, but not the sole reason for them. The growth of speed cameras has been so great that the public are concerned about whether they are there for safety or to raise money for the Treasury. The Government will not put any more money in; if local authorities want to do so, that is okay. Intermittent and average speed cameras are in use, particularly on motorways, and are an excellent way of easing congestion on our motorways.