Road Infrastructure

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Gillan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on securing this important debate on a matter that has broad implications for all our constituents.

This debate is particularly timely, because by chance, the Government made an announcement overnight that they will be shifting £1 billion of vehicle excise duty away from investment in main roads and towards a bypass fund. I suspect that the announcement was made not just to give the Minister something positive to say in this debate, but as a result of constant pressure from the Opposition. On that point, I put on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for the work she did as shadow Secretary of State for Transport to push these important issues.

While Labour welcomes the news that local roads will be receiving some much-needed investment, we note that the money will not be seen by local authorities until 2020, as the Government conduct their consultation. The announcement therefore does not deal with the immediate backlog of billions of pounds’-worth of work to fix potholes—a backlog that will only increase over the next three years. Moreover, the announcement does not increase the overall spending on roads. In fact, it could be seen as the Government slashing £1 billion from investment in main roads.

Our road network needs proper investment across both main and local roads. In recent years, our road infrastructure has been severely neglected. The Asphalt Industry Alliance says that roads need to be resurfaced every 10 to 20 years. Only London comes close to that, with the capital’s roads repaired every 23 years on average. Across the rest of England, roads are resurfaced every 55 years on average. That is clearly not sustainable.

A report published by the Office of Rail and Road in February highlighted that Highways England—the company responsible for the management of motorways and main A roads in England—will have a funding shortfall of approximately £0.8 billion. It seems that the Government want to add a further £1 billion to that figure with their announcement this morning. Highways England has committed to delivering the Government’s road investment strategy, which includes investing more than £11 billion between April 2015 and March 2020, maintaining and renewing the network, delivering 112 major improvement schemes and carrying out targeted improvements through dedicated funds. In doing so, the company is also required to deliver £1.2 billion of efficiency improvements.

However, the Office of Rail and Road report showed that despite efficiency savings made by Highways England’s improvement plan that have reduced the funding shortfall from £1.7 billion to £0.8 billion, the company has plans to propose a range of changes to the road investment strategy, with schemes likely to be reduced in scope, delayed or even removed entirely. Labour has warned consistently that the Government have been over-promising and under-delivering on investment in England’s roads, and the report lays bare their entire failure on this. The road investment strategy is beginning to look like a wish list, and even more so with the decision today to take away £1 billion of funding.

The Office of Rail and Road report was published only months after Highways England reported a drop in its network condition key performance indicator that reports road surface condition, which fell to 92.3%—significantly below the road investment strategy target of 95%. We were promised the biggest upgrade to roads in a generation, but Highways England is now having to come up with plans to address a budget shortfall of nearly £1 billion, as well as to guarantee driver safety after allowing the condition of our roads to fall short of targets. Labour is very concerned about the fundamental mismatch between the Government’s expectations and the effectiveness and efficiency of Highways England, the Secretary of State having refused to rule out cancelling or delaying promised schemes. Will the Minister explain today which projects will be delayed and which will be cancelled, or if projects will be neither delayed nor cancelled, where the additional funds are coming from, especially now that the Government have announced a £1 billion cut to investment in main roads?

The situation is no better for local roads, which make up 97% of the UK transport network. As I said earlier, there is an estimated £12 billion backlog of road repairs. The funding that the Government have so far committed is a drop in the ocean, even with the extra £1 billion of funding, which will not be seen for three years. Local authorities are finding it impossible to catch up. The permanent pothole fund announced last year set aside additional funding of £250 million over the next five years to tackle potholes, on top of nearly £5 billion of funding for road maintenance announced previously. However, the additional £50 million a year until the funding announced today comes into effect, if spread over the same 148 highways authorities as last year, is clearly not enough to address the £12 billion backlog.

The recently published annual local authority road maintenance survey, produced by the Asphalt Industry Alliance, found that almost a fifth of roads were in poor condition, while local authorities have said that one in six roads across England and Wales are in such a bad state that they must be repaired within the next five years. The ALARM survey showed that last year, more than 16,000 potholes were filled per non-London local authority, costing £111 million, and more than 4,000 potholes were filled per London local authority, costing £11.4 million. In 2012, around 12,000 potholes were filled on average per non-London local authority, costing £80.6 million.

In England, excluding London, the average local authority budget for highway maintenance saw a decrease of 16% from £23.4 million last year to £19.8 million this year. That was unexpected, given the Government’s commitment to £6 billion of funding for local road maintenance over six years, which began this financial year but appears not to have yet been seen by local authority highways teams.

Every journey begins and ends on a local road, so the ALARM report’s warning that Britain’s roads are in “terminal decline” is deeply concerning. It is time the Government acted to give this vital part of our road network the attention and investment that it deserves. These findings lay bare the Government’s failure to maintain Britain’s local roads, which are blighted by potholes, causing real danger to road users. Indeed, three quarters of claims received by authorities for compensation for damage to persons or vehicles as a result of poor road condition relate specifically to pothole incidents. The Office of Rail and Road report on Highways England stated:

“While there is not a direct correlation between the road condition indicator and safety, a reduction may indicate an increase in safety risk which Highways England must manage. The company has given us assurances that the safety of the network is not compromised. We have required the company to evidence the actions it has taken to mitigate any safety risk and how it will improve road condition to meet the target.”

Will the Minister tell us today what action has been taken to mitigate the increased safety risks brought about as a consequence of the mishandling of the road investment strategy?

A total of 24,620 people were killed or seriously injured on our roads in the year ending June 2016, and hon. Members have talked about road deaths in their constituencies. Over the past two decades, the UK has earned a reputation for having among the safest roads in the world, but in the past seven years progress has stalled and begun to reverse. The Tories have scrapped road safety targets and caused a decline in the number of dedicated road traffic police officers in England and Wales. In contrast, Labour’s manifesto stated clearly that we would reset the UK’s road safety vision and ambitiously strive for a transport network with zero deaths, reintroducing road safety targets. In conclusion, will the Minister set out exactly where the £1 billion will be spent?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will crack on, because I have taken three minutes already and I have a lot to get through.

As I was saying, the road network is the backbone of Britain. Roads are vital lifelines for our economy. They matter whether people drive or cycle, or travel by bus or coach. They matter when people travel to work or to buy goods, and 95% of people use our road network every day. That is why the Government are in the midst of a £23 billion programme of investment in England’s roads; £15 billion of that is going on England’s motorways and major A roads—the long-distance roads that link regions together, connect us to our ports and airports and enable economic growth. That funding underpins the “Road Investment Strategy”, a five-year plan, launched by the previous Government in December 2014, that sets out the schemes and funding levels for the period 2015 to 2020. That covers more than 100 major schemes up and down the country. At the same time, there was the creation of Highways England and of a watchdog, the Office of Rail and Road, to ensure that motorists get what they are promised.

The investment plan is well under way. Since 2015, 16 major schemes have opened for traffic and 15 more have started construction. They include major investments such as the £1.5 billion A14 improvements between Cambridge and Huntingdon, and the £191 million upgrade of the M1, M6 and A14 Catthorpe junction near Rugby. However, that is only the start, and the pace is picking up.

As announced last Friday, over the coming six months, the Government will take the next steps on 55 road improvements across the country—opening eight schemes, consulting on 10 more and publishing final plans for another 29. In the course of that, we will be seeking to hear from local people, organisations and businesses to help to shape our plans and ensure that they benefit local communities.

This has been an extraordinarily interesting debate. I can only congratulate colleagues on the many schemes that they have brought not only to my attention, but that of officials and Highways England. I look forward to the debate’s being closely scrutinised in my Department and by Highways England for those points.

Several key themes have emerged from the debate. The first is the necessity of increased investment. The welcome nature of today’s news was, I think, recognised on both sides of the Chamber. The second theme is the importance of bypasses—the environmental case for them, and their heritage effects and economic effects. The third theme is the integrated nature of the road network. In other words, one does not want to beggar Peter to pay Paul; there has to be parallel investment in motorways and in A roads. Finally, there are the themes of the importance of safety and of cross-border funding and the like, on which I think all colleagues would agree.

Before I respond to some specific comments, let me turn briefly to the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I was surprised that, judging by their comments, there is so little recognition by Labour of what has actually happened. The new investment should be absolutely welcomed. I can tell the House that the investment by the last Labour Government, in the period 2005-06 to 2009-10, was a little over £6 billion, and the amount currently being planned is £11.4 billion. I think that is a difference—

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jesse Norman]

No, certainly not. That is not a difference—

[Karl Turner]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your first session in the Chair. I congratulate you on your new role. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I also congratulate the hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today—we have heard some excellent ones.

One of Cornwall’s earliest tourists was the spirited and adventurous Mary Kelynack, a Cornish fishwife who in 1851 travelled to London to visit the Great Exhibition. That took her longer than some say it should have done, but then again she did walk the 600 miles there and back, and she was 84 years old. At the time, Cornish travellers did not have many other options. Some will try to give the impression that little has changed when it comes to travelling out of Cornwall today, but that would give the wrong impression because, thanks to the support of this Government, Cornwall is enjoying record investment in our transport infrastructure.

If Mary had made her journey today, she would have had several options. She could have travelled by road, in which case she would have seen the soon to be completed upgrade of the A30, with the dualling at Temple that will be opened in just two weeks’ time. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), the roads Minister, is in the Chamber, and I acknowledge and welcome the Government’s announcement today of their support for the next phase of the upgrade of the vital A30, the main road through Cornwall.

Mary could have travelled on one of the new Great Western Railway’s bullet-style Hitachi trains, the first of which we saw in Cornwall just over a week ago—a £146 million investment in our railways which will be fully rolled out next year. Or she could have taken one of the three aeroplanes a day from Newquay to London.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Riveting though the hon. Gentleman’s speech is, it has nothing to do with the Bill. Many hon. Members want to speak, so perhaps he could get to the relevant aspects of the Bill.

[Steve Double]

I am not sure I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I am about to come to the very point.

Newquay airport is booming. Passenger numbers are increasing year on year, and by some measures Newquay is now regarded as the fastest growing regional airport in the country. Only recently The Independent declared Newquay the best regional airport in the country. It has regular flights to UK destinations and an increasing number of holiday destinations in Portugal and Spain. That is why I welcome the Bill.

The way in which tourists book their holidays is changing, with fewer and fewer booking the traditional package holiday by popping down to the offices of the travel agent in the town centre. In 2016, 76% of the UK’s 20 million holidaymakers booked their holidays or travel online—a staggering increase even compared with recent years. There was a partial reform of the regulations in 2012, but I am pleased that the Department of Transport firmly believes that more should be done to protect consumers. Holiday providers, market options and ever more varied flexi-packages change, and with that comes the confusion of not knowing whether ATOL cover applies, depending on where the holiday or travel provider is based and what terms and conditions apply in the event of business failure. The Bill seeks to rectify that.

The Government has said that they will

“harmonise ATOL with the scope and definitions of the EU Package Travel Directive. It was widely agreed that this will bring greater clarity and protection for consumers and help to level the playing field for businesses selling similar holidays.”

I welcome this key development and note that the Bill also seeks to build in future-proofing so that as the packages on offer—and where and how they are sold—change, they will come under the new legislation.

The travel industry has seen enormous change in just a few years, and the Bill seeks to reflect that so that travellers and the industry are served more effectively. Many if not all of the changes in the travel industry have been to the benefit of consumers, including greater competition, more choice and greater flexibility. It is important that the legislation keeps pace with those changes. It is essential that flexi-packages of all types are covered by ATOL protection and that travellers are clear and confident at the time of purchase, which might be many months prior to a departure date, that the cover is in place. The Bill serves to ensure that very purpose.

Future-proofing the legislation around ATOL protection is a necessary move that is broadly welcomed by all parties throughout the industry, but I want to push the Minister a little on that point. I am sure he would be disappointed if I did not take this opportunity to mention the potential spaceport at Cornwall Newquay airport. I was delighted to see that the legislation to enable that was included in the Gracious Speech. While it will initially be focused on commercial satellite launches, there is also no doubt of the future potential for space tourism. I know that some will scoff, but do not underestimate the Cornish. Trevithick was a pioneer of steam that revolutionised the world and Davey transformed mine safety. The Cornish have it in their psyche, in their history and in their blood to be pioneers. Surely the day will come when Newquay welcomes its first space travellers. With Cornish inventiveness in our being, “Beam me up, Denzil” is surely only just round the corner. I therefore ask the Minister—with tongue only slightly in cheek—whether the ATOL protection in the Bill can be extended to space tourism when the time comes.

I welcome the additional protection that the Bill will offer to Cornish travellers and believe that it will only enhance the opportunities for smaller regional airports such as Newquay to continue to grow and expand their tourist flights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

This has been an excellent debate, in which we have had 22 Members speak and no less than 13 maiden speeches. There have been too many to mention, but the contributions have been truly excellent, in what has been a non-contentious debate, given that the Opposition agree with the Government’s position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) stated at the outset of the debate, the Opposition are not opposed to the Bill; indeed, we are broadly very supportive of it. There are, however, some concerns about the impact of some provisions, so we want to press the Government on some issues.

The Bill will bring ATOL up to date and ensure that it is harmonised with the latest EU package travel directive, extending coverage to a wider range of holidays and protecting more consumers, as well as allowing UK travel companies to sell more seamlessly across Europe. Labour welcomes the extensions, which will ultimately help to protect more holidaymakers, but we want clarity on how UK consumers will be protected by EU-based companies, as they will no longer be subject to ATOL, but to member state equivalents.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Karl Turner]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way at this stage. I am hoping to mention some of the wonderful maiden speeches if I have time later.

The implications of ATOL after Brexit are also a cause for concern. Hidden in the Bill are proposals that the Secretary of State will require only the affirmative resolution procedure to significantly reform ATOL and the air travel trust fund. Labour recognises the merits of some reforms, but we believe that an impact assessment, full consultation and full scrutiny will be required before any fundamental changes are made to this well-respected consumer protection. These issues bring to the forefront uncertainties about the future of UK aviation following the decision to leave the European Union. Labour has been clear that whichever framework is chosen, the Government should prioritise retaining an essentially unchanged operating environment.

In conclusion, the Labour party broadly supports the Bill, as it will extend protections to many more holidaymakers. However, we want clarity on how EU-based companies—which will no longer be subject to ATOL, but rather to their respective member states’ equivalents—will provide protections to UK consumers. We are committed to securing the best possible framework to ensure that the sector flourishes, but this means adequately preparing ourselves for the many implications that Brexit will have for ATOL and our aviation sector as a whole.

Given that I have a few minutes, I want to mention some of the maiden speakers, kicking off with the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean). She spoke very passionately about her constituency and the fact that her daughter Ruth encouraged her to stand and continue the long tradition of Redditch electing women to Parliament. That was an excellent move, because her speech was extremely well received and very good. She also spoke warmly of her immediate predecessor, Karen Lumley, who retired from this place due to ill health. We send our very wishes to her from all parts of the House. The hon. Lady also mentioned her predecessor Jacqui Smith, who was the first woman Home Secretary from this place.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) eloquently described the need for consumer protections in this area. She spoke with great knowledge about the EU and the importance of these consumer protections given that we are leaving the EU. I understand that the hon. Lady is a Member of the European Parliament.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) spoke with great pride about representing the constituency in which she had been raised. She also spoke about the very important issue of gender inequality and the pay gap, and the injustice represented by the WASPI women.

The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) rightly used his opportunity to right the wrong of forgetting to mention his wife in his general election acceptance speech. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) spoke with great passion about the constituency in which he grew up, and also spoke very warmly about his predecessor, our very own Natascha Engel, who is greatly missed here. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) spoke with great passion about his constituency as well, and also, very cleverly, mentioned his wife, referring to the fact that she had been born and bred in Runcorn.

The hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) was, I have to say, very entertaining. He was, I understand, an actor, but he said that this was probably a more interesting theatre. If I remember rightly, he appeared in “Bread”, which I recall watching as a kid. That, of course, was the comedy series about a family in Liverpool who had suffered a terrible time under the Thatcher Government.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) spoke with great passion about notable people in his constituency—too many to mention—but he also decried the privatisation of the ferry service, and many Labour Members would probably agree with him. The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) spoke with great passion about his constituency too, especially when referring to the wonderful shortbread and whisky. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) spoke about a very serious issue: the fact that nearly one in four of his constituents do not own a passport, and the importance of the Bill in protecting people who spend an awful lot of their hard-earned money on holidays and expect to be protected by legislation.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) spoke of the terrible tragedy that is Grenfell Tower, having had a great deal of experience as a long-standing fire officer. I am sure that the House will benefit from his expertise in that area, and in others.

The hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) told us how innovative his constituents were, making everything from jet engines to milk floats. He also mentioned the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness, and said that he would support it. All of us, in all parts of the House, would be grateful for that support. Last but not least among the maiden speakers, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) also spoke about innovation in his constituency, in which the first bicycle was created.

The Bill is not particularly contentious, and Labour supports the Government’s efforts to legislate in this regard.

UK Maritime Industry

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

I am immensely grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I know he has a personal and political commitment in this regard and I am delighted that he was able to offer us that assurance again.

This is not just about the treatment of Filipino seafarers; there is also an effect on UK seafarers. First, because of such employment practices, UK seafarers are excluded from employment opportunities that would otherwise be available to them. That also drives down wages for those who are employed. I am told that Stena Line, the largest UK employer of seafarers, cut the hourly rate of pay for ratings employed seasonally—from June to September—from £8.31 to £7.20, which is the minimum wage rate. That is a graphic illustration of the direct impact on UK seafarers.

The situation has a context. For the Government’s purposes, that context is the maritime growth strategy that they commissioned in 2014. That was a good, comprehensive piece of work, and it was welcomed. If anything, it was somewhat overdue, coming the best part of two decades after the previous piece of work had been done. It made a number of recommendations. The most important was that leadership was required from both Government and the industry, including though a more commercial and responsive UK maritime administration within Government and an industry-led promotional body, with more proactive action to replenish and develop the skills needed to maintain our position as a world-leading maritime sector and effective marketing by the industry and Government of what the UK maritime sector has to offer both domestically and internationally to be strengthened.

I could probably do 90 minutes on the maritime growth strategy alone, but in view of the number of others who wish to take part in the debate, I will concentrate on the one aspect that, to my mind, is probably the most significant: training of seafarers. The Minister will know that since the turn of the century, we have had the SMarT—support for maritime training—scheme, which currently holds something in the region of £15 million. The British Chamber of Shipping tells me that it is looking for a doubling of that. I hope the Minister will look at that, because in terms of Government expenditure that is of course a significant ask, but it could bring significant rewards. I hope, though, that when the Minister engages with the industry in respect of that ask, he will not be shy about attaching some strings to any increase in funding.

I am told that a year’s guaranteed employment is on offer for those who are trained as officers under the scheme. That of course would tackle one of the major difficulties that I hear about consistently from constituents who work in the industry: that officers in particular are trained under SMarT scheme funding, but there is no employment for them once they qualify. There has to be a little more detail. We have to do more than simply extend the cliff edge out by one year, so that a situation in which we currently have training followed by no employment does not then become training followed by one year’s employment followed by no employment.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is right about the officers being trained under the scheme—15, I think—but only one rating is required to be trained under the deal, and that does not happen either.

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed, and the hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. Currently within SMarT training, a minuscule proportion of the fund is allocated to the training of ratings, and even that portion is not being taken up by the industry. When the Minister comes to look at the question of SMarT funding and the training scheme that comes under it, it should not be all about officers; it also needs to be about the training of ratings as well, otherwise we are again only seizing the low-hanging fruit.

My constituents have significant concerns not only about the lack of availability of jobs when the training is concluded, but very often about the quality of the training provided for them. I have been told of one constituent who in five months as a cadet officer was able to speak English on his ship only once. Given that we are talking about predominantly young men who are away from home for the first time, the significance of that as a living experience should not be overlooked.

The Minister and the Government really need to look at the roles of the Merchant Navy Training Board and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the lack of joined-up administration between them. We might then see people getting quality training that gets the taxpayer value for the money that they are putting into it. I do not believe there is any shortage of people looking for a career at sea, but there are obvious and significant obstacles being put in their way. The head of UK shipping for Maersk said that it had taken on 34 cadets selected from 936 applications, which illustrates the demand out there for careers in this vital sector.

I want to remind the House what the industry brings to the United Kingdom. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the maritime services sector directly contributes £4.4 billion and 10,000 jobs to the UK economy. Shipping in general produces £11 billion and 113,000 jobs. The Baltic and International Maritime Council’s latest five-yearly report to the International Maritime Organisation states that the worldwide shortage of officers is 16,500, which could rise to 92,000 by 2020. That is the scale of the opportunity ahead of us, as a highly respected maritime nation, if we take the right decisions now for the future of our industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is always an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I declare an indirect interest, because if I did not, I suspect my father would be upset with me. For more than 30 years he was a full-time trade union officer for the National Union of Seamen, which is the maritime branch of the RMT. I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group and a very proud member at that.

It is scandalous that we have this problem. The number of UK seafarers has fallen by a whopping 60% since 1982. This is not an issue that has only just come about; it has been an historical issue. However, the number of UK ratings has fallen by a further 25% since 2011 and now stands at about 8,800.

Pay discrimination is outrageous, but before talking about that, I will talk about people coming into the industry without being trained. That is scandalous, especially when we have a deal under the tonnage tax, the SMarT scheme—the support for maritime training scheme—which makes it a requirement for companies to train ratings and officers, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned. It is scandalous that we are not doing anything about that.

Since coming to this place in 2010, I think I have met every Shipping Minister, along with Steve Todd, the senior assistant general secretary of the RMT, and on one occasion the then general secretary, Bob Crow. Shipping Ministers always say, “Yes, this is an issue. We’re going to deal with it,” but they do not deal with the problem. It is not even party political. Although the previous Labour Government at least commissioned the independent Carter review, I am ashamed to say that we did not do anything about a timetable to implement its recommendations. That was scandalous. I am not being party political, because we have to be honest. It is time for the Government to act.

The situation in my constituency is just grotesque. P&O North sea ferries run out of my constituency in east Hull, with a hugely declining number of UK ratings. The company is paying £4.70 an hour to Spanish and Portuguese seafarers, more than 300 of whom are employed on those routes, although the minimum wage is £7.20 an hour. That is scandalous. When I speak to the company about the situation, it tells me that it is not making much profit. Well, as my father always reminds me, we do not see many skint shipowners. [Interruption.] The Minister is wondering what I said: I said “skint”. I am told that shipowners do not have much money, but I think that the opposite is true. The reality is that there are an awful lot of unemployed seafarers in my constituency, people who are keen to be employed, but there are not many skint shipowners.

In the short time that I have left, I want to just mention that we are doing great things in Hull. Siemens is investing in offshore wind, and Mick Cash, general secretary of the RMT, has written to the Health and Safety Executive to raise the issue that some employers are looking particularly for seafarers to go into the industry. We therefore have a real opportunity to do something about this now. We hope that a cruise terminal will be opened in 2022. We will need more seafarers to manage that terminal—I nearly said to “man” it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) would have been unimpressed if I had. Let us just get on with it and deal with the issue. The situation is scandalous. It needs sorting out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Indeed I will. I recently held a roundtable meeting, which the unions attended, on precisely those matters. I have discussed recruitment with the trade unions, and I welcome the excellent briefing produced by my trade union friends. When I first became a Minister, I said to my officials, “I want to meet the unions regularly,” and they looked slightly nervous about it. During the course of those meetings, a union representative—I will not say who—said, “We never got this much out of Labour.” I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and particularly the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who called for this specifically in his contribution—that I will continue to work with the trade unions in exactly the way in which he has described. It is vital not only that we recruit people, but that we train them appropriately and allow them the kind of career opportunities that he called for.

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister commit to meeting a group of cross-party MPs, along with the RMT representatives, very soon to see what progress he has made following this debate?

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, I am happy to do that, perhaps under the auspices of the all-party group, which I have already met, but I am happy to meet again. That would be a useful vehicle for precisely that kind of discussion.

The fourth area that the debate touched on—this was referred to by a number of hon. Members—was what might be called the welfare and conditions that prevail in the maritime sector. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the conditions are appropriate. Some alarming claims have been made today, which I take very seriously indeed, particularly if people are not being paid the appropriate wage and if the circumstances and conditions in which they are working are not adequate. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) about the need to attract more women and getting the conditions right to allow us to do so. I hear what has been said about the importance of safety, and that is a fundamental concern for all of us who care about the sector. We will take this further. As a direct result of the debate—perhaps it will happen in the discussions that were just described—I am very happy to consider what more the Government must do. The work I am doing on the maritime growth study should fill some gaps and allow us to consider what more can be done on recruitment, as well as how we can approach skills in a fresh way and how the terms and conditions that apply across the industry can be improved.

The debate has served a useful purpose in allowing me not only to be the champion of the maritime sector, but, I hope, to be able to emulate the best of my predecessors, such as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, and leave some kind of legacy. I want to do that on behalf of our ports and the towns in which they are situated, our ship owners and our shipbuilders—we build ships and boats in this country, and shipbuilding is something of which we should be proud too—and fundamentally and most of all, what is dearest to my heart, on behalf of our seafarers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

A lot of work is currently being done with Network Rail and on that particular port and scheme. I will report back to my hon. Friend and ask for a direct report on that matter.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

T4. Hard working and dedicated rail workers on the east coast main line are worried about their jobs, following the ideologically driven privatisation of that line. What will the Minister do to ensure that those jobs are not put at risk?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Rail journeys have increased from 750 million to 1.6 billion and jobs on the railway are increasing, yet all Labour can do is start saying that somehow jobs will be cut. More services will be operating on that line than ever before, and that will mean more jobs.

East Coast Main Line

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

Indeed it is. The decision by Hitachi to base its plant in the north-east, bringing more than 700 new jobs to the area, has been universally welcomed.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Why is the only public operator effectively barred from competing and operating the line, despite having reinvested £800 million into services rather than into the pockets of shareholders?

[Mr McLoughlin]

For the sake of brevity, I will refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answers.

Sulphur Regulations

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea.

I am pleased to have secured this debate on a pressing issue that could have serious consequences for jobs in my constituency and the rest of the UK. I have several concerns about the regulations and several questions that I would like the Minster to address. I am worried that the EU regulations, which come into force on 1 January 2015, could put at risk over 350 jobs in my constituency and 2,000 jobs in ports across the UK. I am concerned that the European Commission and the Government have not done enough to measure the impact of the directive on local economies such as that in Hull. I am grateful to the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the UK Chamber of Shipping for their briefings on a topic that is clearly a concern for all. The UK Chamber of Shipping and the RMT have produced estimates on the impact of the implementation of the regulations, and it is unclear whether the Government have fully assessed the evidence and are satisfied that the regulations will not dramatically undermine the shipping industry. I hope the Minister can provide some assurances that the Government have properly investigated the evidence and additional costs associated with the regulations.

I am persuaded that in an attempt to do all that we can to protect jobs, shipping companies should be given more flexibility to implement new rules in a way that does not undermine jobs. What does the Minister think of that? I will, however, add a cautionary note for the shipping industry. I am conscious that it has had several years—I believe since 2008—to prepare for the changes and substantial amounts of tax relief, in the form of tonnage tax, to aid transition. I hope that the additional costs are not used simply to reduce the payroll bill and that the industry does not use existing loopholes in legislation to meet additional costs by recruiting low-cost crew at non- UK ratings. However, the Government have a role to play in the transition and I solicit the Minister’s views on the possibility of providing mitigating support to maritime businesses to ensure stability in the shipping sector.

The Humber is the UK’s busiest trading route and positive things are happening in the estuary. Companies such as Siemens and Associated British Ports are investing millions into Hull, and there is no doubt that affordable shipping between Hull and Europe is imperative to this investment. That is why we need certainty that nothing will undermine our local shipping industry and the economic development of our ports. We need our ports to be open for business and to ensure that exporters are not priced out of using ferries sailing out of Hull.

Over the coming years, shipping and freight to the Humber will be more important than ever. I am therefore worried by a report in the Financial Times, in which Jens Holger Nielson, chief executive of Samskip, a freight company that runs into the Humber, says in response to the regulations that they will

“shut transport routes and companies across Europe”.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend for shining a spotlight on such an important issue. In addition to the point that he has rightly made about the likely impact of the regulations on the shipping industry and jobs, are we not also likely to see forecourt diesel prices driven up, with all that that means, and the danger of thousands more lorries on our roads as the price of transport by ship goes up relative to road transport? Does he agree that the Government need to say what they have done to avert that and what they will do now to ensure that common sense prevails?

[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.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate, which is timely, because today the Freight Transport Association is celebrating its 125th anniversary. Does he accept that the argument that we need to focus on is how the regulations will be implemented, and the timing, because the UK Chamber of Shipping has accepted and, in my understanding, is content with the move on sulphur emissions?

[Karl Turner]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady; it is true that timing is the issue. Some argue that businesses have had long enough, frankly, and that some assistance has been provided through tax subsidies. However, as a Member for Parliament for east Hull, where unemployment is high, when businesses tell me that they are worried about job losses, I have to be concerned.

The Hull and Humber chamber of commerce has also expressed worries that the regulations will have a negative impact on the local road haulage sector—job losses in that sector as well perhaps. It argues that increased costs will inevitably be passed on to consumers, such as road haulage firms, and those firms may see it as necessary either to travel longer distances by road, with shorter sea crossings, again increasing CO₂ emissions, or to relocate to other areas of the UK where the implications of the fuel cost increase are less dramatic. Both options are damaging to the economy and indeed to the environment.

As I have said a few times in my remarks, no one has a problem with reducing sulphur emissions, but I am not convinced that the regulations will achieve that goal. I am not convinced that the Government have fully considered the evidence or the true impact that the regulations will have on jobs, the environment, our roads and the shipping industry. We absolutely have to ensure that sulphur emissions are reduced, but that needs to be balanced with growth in a fragile economy. The Government plan to review the effects of the policy in 2019, but I ask the Minister to consider a review much earlier, perhaps 12 months after implementation.

Hull is having a tough time and we need to work hard to protect every local job in my city. Our roads are at bursting point and the last thing that we need next year is heavier lorry congestion. I urge the Minister to push the European Commission for more implementation time and to do all that he can do to ensure that jobs and the environment are fully protected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

Does the Minister accept that the chamber of shipping is saying that ferry operators are concerned about job losses and about their businesses failing as a result? That is an issue for me, as Member of Parliament for east Hull. Will he address that directly—is there anything he can do as a Government Minister?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned. If he waits a few minutes I will tell him directly what the Government have done and are doing now.

The idea that is being put forward today, namely that these are new regulations and a crunch is coming—there is not; there is a date for implementation coming—is not supported by all of the chamber’s own members. On the contrary, some members of the chamber belong to the Trident Alliance, which is a coalition of shipping owners and operators who share a common interest and do not share the views being put across.

I accept that shipping is not the only source of pollutant emissions, but without the controls, polluting emissions from ships will grow significantly because of the reductions made by other modes of transport: unless action is taken, by 2020 shipping will account for more than half of all sulphur emissions in Europe.

As everyone has recognised, the limits undoubtedly pose challenges for shipowners, particularly for those whose ships operate predominantly or exclusively in an emission control area. The Government appreciate that some shipowners, and ferry operators in particular, have raised concerns about the cost of complying with the new limits. From our discussions, we are conscious that the impacts are not spread evenly, and that routes for multipurpose vessels—those carrying both passengers and freight—are likely to see the highest costs. We also recognise the importance of ferries and jobs.

Throughout the whole process we have therefore sought to implement the sulphur limits in a way that maximises the opportunity for the industry to minimise the economic impact. I became shipping Minister in 2012, and immediately in October of that year and again in 2013 I chaired round-table meetings of industry stakeholders, including from shipping, the ports, abatement technology—more colloquially known as scrubbing technology—oil refining and logistics sectors, to consider how we could make sure that people could work to comply with the regulations in a way that minimised regulation and cost. As a direct result, we commissioned a survey to look at the economic costs to industry.

Civil Aviation Bill

Karl Turner Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Passing the amendment would send a strong signal to our European neighbours that the UK attaches great importance to the issue, and would empower our Ministers and officials to go out to Europe and secure the necessary safeguards.

Our amendment seeks to write into law the role of the CAA in providing airports with advice and assistance on ensuring that dignity is maintained. Any move to a risk-based system reducing the uniformity of security provision between airports would make that all the more important. I hope that the amendment will be supported by Members throughout the House. If our aviation security regime is to command the confidence of all communities in this country, we must do more to ensure that they can be certain of being treated at all times with fairness, dignity and respect. This is a simple amendment, which I believe will help to achieve exactly that.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have heard today that the Deputy Prime Minister may be planning to visit my constituency. That has caused me to make various inquiries. I began by ringing the Deputy Prime Minister’s departmental office and I was told that if he is visiting Hull East tomorrow, it will not be on ministerial duties. I then received a phone call from Lib Dem HQ, telling me that they were very sorry and that there had been some sort of mistake as the Deputy Prime Minister will, indeed, be in my constituency tomorrow.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

This is a political point.

[Karl Turner]

I wonder whether you can advise me on this matter, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Gentleman is going on a bit.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Heaton-Harris, you should know much better, as you have many years of experience in Europe in addition to your time as a Member of this House. I am sure the point of order is coming to an end, and when it does I shall give a quick ruling.

[Karl Turner]

I am always very glad to welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to Hull East. Indeed, if he is visiting in order to campaign, I am sure he will do very well for the Labour party. What is the convention of this House, however?

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

We want to see competition in this arena and we also want to ensure that when our Government puts through fuel duty cuts, as we did last year, they get passed on. The evidence shows that they do, but I believe that my hon. Friend is right to highlight the situation, which we should continue to monitor. I can only reiterate to him—I know that he has campaigned hard and successfully on this in the past—that we will do whatever we can to try to ensure that motoring remains affordable.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

19. At a time when record petrol prices are hitting families and businesses very hard, does the Secretary of State at least agree that it would definitely help those struggling businesses and families if the Government reduced VAT on fuel to what it was before the Government increased it to 20%?

[Justine Greening]

As I think the hon. Gentleman will know, it is not possible to reduce VAT on fuel without reducing it on standard rated items across the board. I hope that he will welcome the steps we have taken in his local area to make it more affordable for people to travel over the Humber bridge, but his proposition that we can reduce VAT on fuel without reducing it on everything else is wrong. If we did, we would have a huge hole in our public finances that would undermine our investment for public services.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I am aware that my hon. Friend is a champion of the line, and we are certainly interested in proposals that integrate rail with other services. I cannot, of course, anticipate the assessment of the bid, but I look forward to receiving the bid, and I recognise and note his support for the scheme.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

T6. I recently met the roads Minister, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), along with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), to discuss the much needed improvements on the A63 and Castle street in Hull. I wonder whether he can give the House, and me in particular, an assurance that pre-construction funding will be announced soon.

[Mike Penning]

In the autumn statement we announced extra funding for road projects and for projects where we could literally press the button to allow growth to take place. In what I thought was a very amicable meeting with the hon. Gentleman and his colleague, we said that we were looking at new programmes. We are very aware of the effects of the road in question on local infrastructure, particularly the port, and as we go forward we will work with him and the local authority up there to see whether the project can go ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karl Turner Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I agree that on the face of it Bournemouth has a better beach than Horse Guards Parade, but there we are. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the transport challenges around the other venues. Plans to improve transport access to Weymouth during the Olympic games include temporary traffic management and a £5.7 million scheme to improve the Canford Bottom roundabout, which will include the installation of 70 additional traffic lights to control traffic flow. During this summer, the Highways Agency will be trialling the use of its traffic officers on the route between London and Weymouth as an additional means to manage traffic flows.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

16. What plans he has for future improvements on the A63.

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

The spending review announcement in October 2010 listed the A63 Castle street improvement scheme for potential construction in future spending review periods, subject to the statutory process.

[Karl Turner]

The Labour council has had productive talks with Associated British Ports and Siemens this week, but is it not about time the Government became enthusiastic about the massive investment in my constituency and considered bringing forward plans to improve the A63? We are desperate for that.

[Mike Penning]

The Government are very enthusiastic as well, and there have been discussions with colleagues in the area and the Secretary of State in past days. We have to accept the financial mess that the previous Administration left us in, but we will do everything we can. If there are huge investments going in, perhaps the investors would also like to invest in that infrastructure, as is the case in other parts of the country.