National Policy Statements

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Select Committee on Transport published its report on the national policy statement on ports when the last Government were in office. We reported in March 2010—indeed, it was the first national policy statement to be reported on. The cross-party Transport Committee is not influenced by which party is in power. We reported at the time of the previous Government and we registered several serious concerns, and concluded that, unless proper consideration was given to our recommendations, the national policy statement was not fit for purpose. We therefore made a very clear statement then.

Considerable time has elapsed and several changes have been made. We are now looking at the revised national policy statement, so my comments will refer to some of our criticisms and also to some of the changes that have been made since we produced our report.

The key change since that time is the decision to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission. It was decided that, following consideration by the infrastructure planning unit and the Planning Inspectorate, the Secretary of State would make the decisions. It was also decided to abolish regional economic strategies and regional planning strategies. Some of our criticisms were of the planning process and the lack of clarity. The changes bring more clarity to the system whereby decisions are made. The background against which the planning statement is being assessed is therefore now rather different.

Time has resolved another major criticism that we made. We were extremely concerned that the policy statement was made before the Marine Management Organisation, which was to examine port development below the threshold for the infrastructure commission, had actually been set up. The Marine Management Organisation has now been set up and consulted, so that major criticism and concern has been addressed.

We expressed several concerns about environmental issues, and the Government’s response states that our concerns have been considered in a different part of the statement—in the documents appended to it. We register the Government’s response. We still have some concerns, but we accept that the Government have pointed out another way of addressing them.

We were very worried that the Government were not providing an update on ports’ traffic forecasts, which are extremely important. There was some dissension about the forecasting of ports traffic that was proposed as a basis for the ports statement. The Government’s response has not been to accept the precise form in which we wanted those forecasts to be updated, but it states that they will provide

“new forecasts in the near future”.

In a spirit of reasonableness, we accept that that concern has been addressed. We will wait and see how those new forecasts are provided.

Those major concerns have therefore been addressed, at least in part. The changes go some way towards dealing with some of the major concerns that we, as a Committee in the previous Parliament, had when we stated that we did not think that the statement was fit for purpose.

It is very important that the ports policy statement is correct. As hon. Members have pointed out this evening, ports are extremely important: 90% of the UK’s trade by tonnage and 512 million tonnes of freight go through our ports, and ports traffic contributes £17.9 billion to GDP, taken together with the employment that it generates. Indeed, the direct employment is at least 132,000 jobs, with many more indirect jobs. The ports sector is extremely important and that is why having the correct ports policy matters.

I want to deal with some concerns to which we have not received a satisfactory response. I think it is important to register them. One is the absence of a definitive ports policy, other than to say that the Government’s policy on ports is market-led. The Committee in the last Parliament felt that that was not good enough, because ports are such an important part of a thriving economy. Little progress has been made since in defining a ports policy. In fact, the ports policy such as it is was defined in an interim policy set out in 2007, and the Government have now said that that interim policy, together with additional statements that have been made, is their definitive ports policy. I suppose that we could look at it that way, but it does not meet in full the point of concern that the Committee has raised, and I hope that we can see further progress on that.

The Committee also raised the concern that the policy statement on ports seemed to concentrate almost wholly on container traffic. While that is the basis of the ports’ trade, we are concerned that other developments, such as offshore wind, were not considered properly. I am still unclear where such additional developments feature in the Government’s statement.

I reiterate the concern that the Committee raised about the absence of national policy statements on national networks at the time that the ports policy statement was put forward. I accept that some progress is being made. We are now being told that the national network statements will be laid in January. That is progress, but it would have been better if it had been done before we approve the ports policy statement. At least we have had some assurances that those statements are coming.

It is important that we know the Government’s plans for other transport networks apart from ports, partly because of the economic importance of ports, but also because their impact on the economy, including the regional economies, is affected a great deal by how goods are transported to and from those ports. It is therefore necessary to look at road, rail and inland networks, and at the issue of multi-modal transport, and how that can be encouraged. It is important that we know how that will be addressed, and I hope that the Minister can give us some more information on that basis.

We heard evidence during our inquiry from the northern ports that they felt that southern ports were very much at an advantage because of the extensive public investment in road and rail networks around them. The Committee in the previous Parliament felt that that was a very important issue, and this Parliament's Committee is of the same view. I noted the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) this evening about the application from Liverpool for a turnaround cruise facility at the port. The application has been made because the possibility of such a facility, and the return of the cruise ships to Liverpool, is so very important to the regeneration of the city. I hope that when a decision is made on this issue—and there has had to be a consultation, as is proper—a reasoned approach will be taken, and recognition given to the fact that Southampton currently has 65% of the market for the turnaround facility, while Liverpool has only 5%.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

The hon. Lady of course has a constituency interest in this matter, and I represent a constituency close to Southampton. Does she appreciate that what is really worrying is that Liverpool received a great deal of both European and public money in order to build its port of call facility, and it gave undertakings that it would not use that facility as a turnaround point to start and end cruises? It now appears that it never had any intention of sticking to those undertakings, so if it were—bizarrely—to achieve retrospective permission to do what it promised not to do, surely it should have to pay back all the money and not just a quarter of it over a very long period, as is proposed.

[Mrs Ellman]

As a constituency MP I recognise the supreme importance of the turnaround facility to Liverpool. However, I also recognise that a reasoned judgment has to be made on the proper way in which to go ahead. The statements that the hon. Gentleman made about Liverpool’s intentions are not accurate, but this is not the place in which to pursue the detail of that. I hope that a reasonable decision is made. Liverpool City council has made an offer to deal with the very point that the hon. Gentleman has made, but that is for somebody else in another place to address. I simply ask for reason to be applied to resolve the issue.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I do not want to intrude on the private grief between Southampton and Liverpool. I represent Dover, which has a little less cruise business. It is also further away and can take a more dispassionate position. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that there is something of a state aid issue here and that that needs to be handled with extreme care?

[Mrs Ellman]

The state aid issue is a matter that will have to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. After discussing it with all the relevant parties, I hope that a reasoned judgment can be made.

Earlier today, when the Chancellor delivered his autumn statement, he referred to the regional economic significance of ports and made reference to the support that he intended to give to developments in the Mersey and the Manchester ship canal in relation to Peel Holdings. It is because ports have such an important economic effect on a region that the issues that I raise are so significant and I hope that the Government are able to consider them.

In light of the time that has elapsed since the report was compiled by the Committee under the previous Government and the changes and statements that have been made, I believe that the port statement should not be opposed. None the less, I want to hear from the Minister about how he will address some of the outstanding issues that I have raised tonight.

Coastguard Modernisation

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s views, but we took this action because the original proposals were flawed. They were not my proposals; they were the last Government’s proposals.

The point of introducing the resilience that does not currently exist is to end the scaremongering about safety. Safety standards are not good today, but they will be good from now on because of that resilience. In most of the coastguard stations that I visited around the country, including stations in Scotland, I was told, “We know that we have to cut the number of stations to nine or 10.”

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I recognise that significant changes have been made since the Government’s original proposals, but what work has been done to ensure that, notwithstanding the scale of the closures, local knowledge will be retained so that lives can be safeguarded?

[Mike Penning]

I fully respect the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, whose report helped me to decide how to proceed. The point of keeping one centre in a pair which regularly covers the topography of the other centre’s area is to retain the local knowledge about which so many of those who were consulted expressed concern. I know that there will be disappointment in some parts of the country, but the resilience to which I have referred is more important. We need a 21st-century coastguard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Minister of State is involved in a fares and ticketing review. We are determined to ensure that people are able to buy tickets and access the railway network in a fair way, which might include ticket offices, better arrangements for automatic sales and access through the internet. The point he has made is a valid one and I will pass it on to the Minister of State.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister recognise the importance of passenger experience in travelling and that that includes having staff at railway stations to provide safety and reassurance as well as a good service?

[Norman Baker]

Yes, we do. We are very interested in safety at stations for the reasons the hon. Lady rightly mentions. She will be aware of the secure stations programme. Around 90% of the railway network has been designated as having secure stations, which is well over 1,000 stations. We take that very seriously and want to ensure not only that stations are accessible physically, but that people have no fear of using the railway network so that we maximise the number of people who are able to travel by train.

Cost of Motor Insurance

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House expresses concern over the large increase in the cost of motor insurance in recent years, including in relation to young drivers; welcomes the report by the Transport Committee on the cost of motor insurance (HC 591) and its continuing inquiry into the reasons for this increase; notes that factors explaining the cost of motor insurance include the number and cost of personal injury claims arising from road accidents, assessment of risk, fraud, and uninsured driving; notes that the Government has taken some steps to deal with these issues, including a ban on referral fees in personal injury cases, but that more could be done; further notes that Ministerial responsibility for these issues is split across several departments; and calls on the Government to establish a cross-departmental Ministerial committee on reducing the cost of motor insurance and to publish a plan for dealing with the different aspects of this problem during this Parliament.

Members of the Transport Committee are signatories to the motion, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me to move it.

Many Members will have received letters complaining about the rising cost of car insurance. People with clean records who have driven for years without incident have suddenly found themselves facing big increases in their premiums, and young drivers are now being asked to pay about £3,000 for insurance, effectively forcing them off the road.

The Committee started looking into this issue in November of last year, and we published a report in March. It generated massive interest. People are extremely concerned about their premiums, but serious questions about how the insurance industry works were also raised, and, unusually, we decided to reopen our inquiry.

It is, perhaps, fair to say that motor insurance was not the Minister’s highest priority before our inquiry began, but I hope it has become a higher priority now. Many Members have campaigned on the cost of motor insurance, and I single out for tribute my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who has campaigned strenuously for the abolition of referral fees.

The AA’s regular survey of the cost of motor insurance shows that quoted premiums have more than doubled since 2006, reaching an average of £921 last month. The premiums faced by young people, and especially young males, are significantly higher—in many cases, about £3,000.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Did the Committee also look at the impact of the recent Test-Achats judgment on gender discrimination? At present, there is a significant disparity between insurance rates for young women and young men, but that case argues that the rates should, in fact, be the same.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Committee did not look specifically at that point, but I fear that if there is to be equity, it will be equity upwards, rather than lead to a lowering of premiums.

High premiums have a major impact on the lives of our constituents. Motor insurance is rightly compulsory, but for many people driving a car is a necessity, perhaps for getting to work, to college or to hospitals for appointments, as well as for visiting friends and family, doing the shopping or taking children to school.

I and other Members have received a great deal of correspondence from people wanting to give examples of the problems they have experienced. I received a letter saying the following:

“My partner has just tried to insure me again on our vehicle which is not a sporty flash car, to be told that it would cost him an extra £1,370.”

A lady from Birmingham wrote:

“My car was involved in an accident where a lorry collided with my car. The driver accepted it was his responsibility…My renewal was due and my premium had increased from £700 to over £2,000.”

These stories illustrate why the Government must act.

Surprisingly, the recent increase in premiums has coincided with significant improvements in road safety, which is part of a welcome trend of falling numbers of deaths and serious injuries on the roads. Why have premiums risen so much, therefore?

There is better access to justice, with no win, no fee arrangements. Those arrangements are being changed, but we must not return to a situation in which justice is available only to the rich.

There is also cold calling, where claims management companies canvass for claims, often using personal information obtained from unknown sources. Where is the regulation of data protection that is supposed to be in place? Claims management firms deserve special scrutiny. They encourage people to claim, and to make multiple claims when they might not otherwise have done so. Premiums in the north-west are 50% higher than the national average, apparently because of the activities of these companies.

Referral fees have been in the news. They are paid to a number of players in the industry as a reward for passing on business, thereby encouraging claims and sometimes inflating bills. They are not paid to insurers alone; a number of bodies are involved, including insurance companies, solicitors, car hire firms, claims management companies, medical experts and vehicle repairers. Although the Government have started to act on referral fees, what they are doing does not encompass all those sectors of the industry, and neither does it take into account how companies might try to get around the abolition of referral fees. There are now alternative business structures, where non-lawyers can buy legal practices. How will the Government ensure that companies do not get around the ban on referral fees through taking such steps?

Fraud is a major concern, including the staging of accidents by criminal gangs. That adds £80 to the average premium.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making some powerful arguments on issues that the Transport Committee has addressed. Does she agree that we need greater transparency in the industry if we are to drive down the costs of motor insurance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

Yes, and the Committee has called for greater transparency, but the Government did not comment clearly on that point in their response to our report. As we did not get a clear answer then, I shall repeat the question now: what are the Government’s views on greater transparency?

Some criminal gangs commit fraud by staging accidents, but fraud can also include giving false information. We commissioned a survey with Young Marmalade, an insurance company specialising in young people, and a third of young drivers said they had considered giving inaccurate information to insurers in order to try to get a lower premium. There are plans to give insurers access to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency data, but when will that be implemented? Whiplash claims are another source of increased costs and premiums. We need to find a way of identifying when such injuries are genuine.

One of the reasons for the high premiums faced by young people, and in particular young males, is the high accident rates among them. The accident rates for young males are 10 times higher than those for older people. Some years ago, the Committee looked into this issue and made a number of recommendations, including changing attitudes and enforcing a graduated licence scheme, but we are still waiting for the Government to respond. We support the “black box” idea developed by some insurers to monitor and assess the driving standards of young people so that that information can, perhaps, be used to calculate their premiums.

I am glad that the Office of Fair Trading is looking into the industry, and that the Government have started to act by starting the legal process to ban referral fees, but do we truly have any confidence that premiums will come down? I do not believe we have seen any evidence of that.

A great deal more needs to be done and that involves a number of Departments: the Department for Transport; the Home Office; the Ministry of Justice; the Department for Education, which springs to mind immediately when one thinks about road safety and attitudes; and perhaps some others. Diverse Departments are involved and responsible for this area, so a cross-departmental working party is required, and that is why I have brought this motion to the House. I hope that the Government will be able to agree to setting up such a working party, so that insurance premiums can become affordable and the growing outrage of people forced to pay extortionate rates can be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I welcome this opportunity to speak in the debate. I want to say a few words about young drivers, the insurance industry and Government policy. I have some sympathy with the excellent points about why the industry is being pushed into charging ever higher premiums, but the premiums young people are charged are very high indeed. Many would argue that that is for good reason. Premiums have been quoted this evening of £2,700 for a newly qualified male driver. I shall quote a few statistics that might substantiate that.

One in five young drivers will have an accident in their first six months on the road, and 17 to 24-year-olds make up 12% of insured drivers but 25% of claims. An 18-year-old is three times more likely to be involved in a car accident than a 48-year-old, and young drivers tend to be involved in more serious accidents than older people, with the average claim for a younger driver being three times more than that for older drivers. Men between the ages of 17 and 20 are seven times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on the road than all male drivers. I thank the road safety charity Brake for supplying me with that information. There is a clear cost to insuring young drivers.

More tragically, every year 3,300 young drivers and passengers are killed or suffer life-changing injury as a result of road crashes. In rural areas there is a lack of public transport so young people need to drive, and I am absolutely not discouraging them from doing so. Many wish to have the opportunity of independence from their parents and, not having public transport, take to driving, but we must ensure that young people are as safe as possible, not just for their sake but for passengers and other road users and pedestrians.

In my constituency in 2006 we had the tragic loss of life of four young girls on Llangynidr mountain, and this summer a young girl from Hay-on-Wye was killed in a neighbouring village in Herefordshire. Many of these tragedies can be avoided. I have worked with Brake and with Sarah Jones of Cardiff university on graduated driving licences, whereby restrictions are placed on newly qualified drivers. The proposals supported by Brake are, first, a restriction on the number of young passengers in the car. Often the excitement of first going out and having friends in the car leads to reckless and ill-considered driving. There should be no driving for young newly qualified drivers between 11 pm and 6 am, unless for work purposes. There should be zero tolerance of alcohol, and no driving on motorways. This is not a radical plan. Countries with a form of graduated driving licence include New Zealand, Australia, much of Canada and 48 of the American states.

[Mrs Ellman]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Transport Committee considered this issue in the previous Parliament and made precisely the same recommendation as he is making now? The then Government did not respond positively; perhaps this Government will.

[Roger Williams]

I was aware of the report, and I have met the Minister in this Government. While he understood my good intentions, he was not able to reciprocate positively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

We have heard many excellent contributions this evening. Members have reflected different experiences, but all have given us the same message: insurance premiums are too high, the insurance industry is dysfunctional and more must be done. I recognise the work that the Minister has been doing, particularly on uninsured driving, on referral fees, and on improving driving standards. I am pleased that the insurance sector has now adopted the Select Committee’s recommendation to fund a specialised unit in police service to detect and act on fraud.

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I recognise his good will and commitment. I do not wish to divide the House on the motion tonight, but I must warn him that the Committee will continue its scrutiny, and we look forward to the next occasion on which we can question him on what has been done in his Department and across government, because that is the only way we will make progress on this important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House expresses concern over the large increase in the cost of motor insurance in recent years, including in relation to young drivers; welcomes the report by the Transport Committee on the cost of motor insurance (HC 591) and its continuing inquiry into the reasons for this increase; notes that factors explaining the cost of motor insurance include the number and cost of personal injury claims arising from road accidents, assessment of risk, fraud, and uninsured driving; notes that the Government has taken some steps to deal with these issues, including a ban on referral fees in personal injury cases, but that more could be done; further notes that Ministerial responsibility for these issues is split across several departments; and calls on the Government to establish a cross-departmental Ministerial committee on reducing the cost of motor insurance and to publish a plan for dealing with the different aspects of this problem during this Parliament.

High Speed 2

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

That was a touching cameo of the brotherly love between Birmingham and Coventry Labour Members of Parliament. I am sure that if we had the opportunity to attend parliamentary Labour party meetings, we would see it displayed every week.

Time is short, and I do not intend to repeat what I have said in previous debates on High Speed 2. If hon. Members or others are interested, they can find what I have said previously on my website—I am not one of the Twitterati, but I am catching up with websites—at www.tonybaldry.co.uk/tag/hs2. As the House will know, the Transport Committee is undertaking an inquiry on the principles of HS2. I hope that it will pay regard to two points. The first is capacity. It is unclear to me whether the purpose of HS2 is to enable more people from cities such as Manchester and Leeds to travel by rail to London and back, or to allow people to travel faster to London at greater expense. All the statistics show train use increasing. That is probably not surprising, given the ever-increasing cost of petrol. Like other Members, I frequently take long-distance inter-city trains to see family members or, increasingly, as part of my other duties in the House, to visit cathedral cities. Nowadays, irrespective of the time of day at which I travel, the trains are always full, so it strikes me that what is needed on our rail network is greater capacity.

Greater capacity may mean somewhat unglamorous improvements to services that we already use—improvements such as longer trains, extended platforms and improved signalling. Rail campaigners in my constituency argue that if we need a new railway line for capacity, we should

“make the line compatible with existing rolling stock so it can be used to ease congestion on the whole network when required. The stand-alone design, (of HS2), means that if the West Coast mainline gets blocked, for some reason, you will not be able to reroute trains down the new line”.

The second issue that I hope the Select Committee will consider with great care is the business case for HS2. This is obviously a matter of concern to everyone.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reference to the work of the Select Committee. It has not yet reported on High Speed 2, so I do not feel that I am in a position to give any conclusions—they are not there yet—but I can confirm that the issues that the Select Committee is considering very carefully have to do with capacity, impact on the economy and environment, and value for money. There are a wide variety of views on all those issues, and the Select Committee is looking at all of them in the round. We will report in due course.

[Tony Baldry]

Of course, and as one of those who argued strongly that the Select Committee should undertake the inquiry, I have absolutely no doubt that the Committee will deal with the issues with great diligence. I am sure that the House looks forward to debating the Committee’s report and the Government’s response to it. I hope that the debate can take place here in the main Chamber, and not in Westminster Hall, which is where such debates are often held.

As the hon. Lady says, clearly one of the issues that the Committee has to look at is the business case. A considerable sum is being spent, and of course the money spent on HS2 will not be available for investment elsewhere in rail infrastructure; £30 billion is a very substantial amount, and we all need to be confident that the business case will stack up. Conservative Members who entered the House when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, as I did, always had a very high regard for the advice of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Over the years, it has readily embraced new ideas, so it is sobering that its verdict on HS2 is that

“There is a significant risk that High Speed 2…will become the latest in a long series of government big-project disasters”.

The business case for HS2 appears to be based on a number of assertions, such as people do not work on trains. I hope that the Select Committee will investigate those assertions. I understand that there are suggestions in official documents that the effect of HS2 will be to benefit London and the south, in terms of jobs and growth, rather than cities such as Manchester and Leeds. The contribution of the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) demonstrates that many Members representing inner cities are concerned about the differential regional impacts of HS2. I hope that the Select Committee will call for and examine those papers, as it is in a better position than most of us to challenge and evaluate the evidence on HS2.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The general rule is that we would expect to evaluate bids for contracts on their merits. Companies such as Invensys and, indeed, Bombardier have won many contracts on their merits, but we will look at whether we should, in appropriate cases, include wider socio-economic issues and factors, which some other EU member states routinely do in their public procurement processes.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister made a speech about the importance of investment in infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State provide some examples of how that might lead to more opportunities for UK-based train manufacturing in the short term?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. We are sensitive to the pressures that the UK train manufacturing supply chain—not just Bombardier but the component suppliers—are under, and the Department is urgently looking at some other projects that might be advanced. In particular, the industry proposed a project to modify the cross-country Voyager train fleet so that it could run under electric power, which would provide—if Bombardier were to win the contract—a substantial piece of work for the crucial design department in Derby. That is at the heart of securing the future of that business.

Coastguard Modernisation

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate, given that we have decided to retain one station from each pairing in order to respond to the concerns about local knowledge, there will inevitably be a series of questions such as his from Members representing the station in each pair that has not been selected for retention. A multi-criterian approach was adopted to the decisions about which station in each pair should be retained. I should be happy to explain to my right hon. and learned Friend the detailed logic behind the decision in this case.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

There is widespread concern at the prospect of the closure of coastguard stations, especially among the many people who use pleasure vessels and fishing vessels. Their concern matters as much as that of those in the commercial sector. I welcome the Government’s acceptance, in full, of the Select Committee’s recommendation of 24-hour cover in all stations, and their acceptance of the strong point made by the Committee about the significance of local knowledge. However, I must ask the Secretary of State whether he considers it credible that eight local closures will enable local knowledge and local team working to save the maximum number of lives.

[Mr Hammond]

First, let me restate my gratitude to the Select Committee for the time and trouble that it took over the inquiry. The hon. Lady will know, because she heard the evidence herself, that people who are closely involved with the service do indeed accept the need for change. As for local knowledge, it is precisely because the point about its importance was made so powerfully that we decided to look again at the original pairings of stations and see how the network could be organised around the retention of one station in each pair. Because of the way in which the pairs work, people working in either one of a pair of centres have full local knowledge of the entire coastline covered by both. We have addressed the concern expressed about local knowledge, while still building the resilience that the network needs for the 21st century.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

We are reviewing the full franchise process, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. As part of the franchise consideration, we are looking at longer franchises that may include that sort of issue in due course.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given the circumstances in which FirstGroup decided to relinquish the contract, how will the Minister address new franchises so that both the interests of the taxpayer and the welfare of passengers are heeded?

[Norman Baker]

That is an important and quite correct question, because the present franchise held by First Great Western was undoubtedly skewed towards the operator and away from the fare payer and the taxpayer. It is not a franchise that, frankly, the Government would want replicated. The whole process of franchise renewal is designed to eliminate that sort of unfair franchise.

High-Speed Rail

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

We are all agreed that we want the UK economy to grow, and that we want a greater rebalancing of the economy. That means giving more impetus to the regions. We are all agreed that we want to reduce internal aircraft flights so as to reduce carbon emissions. The question for the House is whether spending the same, or even a lesser, amount of money than is proposed for HS2 in other ways would give us the same or better policy outcomes.

The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) was right to say that the policy was put upon us, fully formed and out of the blue, shortly before the general election. This is the first debate in which the House has had the chance to give intensive scrutiny to this multi-billion pound project. That puts an enormous responsibility on the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and the Select Committee on Transport; on behalf of the House, they have undertaken to inquire into HS2 and the alternatives. We all need to look to the Select Committee to carry out an independent and objective inquiry. One thing that I have learned in my time in the House is that when both Front-Bench teams are in agreement, the Back Benchers have to start counting the spoons. It is always dangerous when both Front-Bench teams are in agreement.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

The inquiry being undertaken by the Transport Committee is of a strategic nature. Its terms of reference have been set out, and I would not want there to be any misunderstanding about the scope and nature of the inquiry.

[Tony Baldry]

I understand the exact terms of reference. In holding a strategic inquiry, the hon. Lady and her Committee are doing the House a great service, because the earliest that the House could consider this matter otherwise would be in the hybrid Bill Committee. Such are the curious rules of the House that many of us would not be able to submit evidence to that Committee. This is exactly the time when we need a strategic inquiry into the principles of HS2 and the alternative. As I said, when both Front-Bench teams are in agreement, there is always a danger that things can get overlooked.

Let me explain how it is possible for our country, in its understandable desire to incorporate and embrace what was in the 1960s called the white heat of technology, to get things really badly wrong. More than 20 years ago, my first job in Government as a junior Minister was helping John Wakeham to privatise the electricity industry. Part of my brief was responsibility for nuclear power. We had to consider whether we could incorporate nuclear power within the privatisation. I could not understand why no one had thought of the contingent liabilities of decommissioning the nuclear power stations and the cost of nuclear waste. I will not detain the House, save to say that I went back and looked at the ministerial papers and press cuttings of some 20 or 30 years previously, when nuclear power stations were first being built. No one, either in government or outside, had given any proper consideration to the costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations, or of storing and disposing of nuclear waste.

We are all here representing the taxpayers. I think this is the first debate in Westminster Hall at which Mr Speaker has thought it appropriate to be present. It was also telling that for quite a long time my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) was in his place. Unless I have badly misunderstood the routing of HS2, it does not affect Isle of Wight strategically, either in a nimby way or any other way. He was here, as we all are, representing taxpayers and the national interest. This is a project that will cost billions and billions of pounds. If we get it wrong, we get it seriously wrong. We all have a collective duty to get it right, so far as taxpayers are concerned.

I do not pretend to be a rail engineer. I do not pretend to know or to be able to make a value judgment on the benefits of HS2 versus the benefit of the Atkins or other reports. I hope that the Transport Committee and others will start to give some independent and objective analysis of that. I hope that they will pick up the rather important point made by the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), with a little prompting from me: the scheme could have a detrimental impact on parts of the regions. Birmingham might benefit from the line, but Coventry might not; Leeds might benefit, but Wakefield might lose out. All those things have to be properly assessed.

This is not a debate that can be dealt with in set-piece forums such as this. We are talking about an issue that the country will live with for years and years. It behoves Parliament to get it right, and it behoves us, as Back Benchers, to ensure that the structures of the House, and especially the Select Committee, subject the project to the intellectual rigour and investigation that it needs, so that present taxpayers and future generations get the right answers.

Coastguard Service

Louise Ellman Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson]

I have it in writing from a serving coastguard officer who has asked me not to give his name, so I am not going to give his name.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Would my hon. Friend give way?

[Mike Penning]

Who said it?

[Bill Esterson]

I am going to give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mrs Ellman]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that the Select Committee, which is about to open an inquiry into this issue, has received similar concerns from coastguards who feel that they may be victimised? The Committee has written to the chief executive of the MCA to seek reassurance that nobody making any form of representation will be victimised.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I think that that is important. Staff are making those allegations, and I know they have made them to other Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady is upset by some of the truths I have just said. Candidates made statements to coastguards—not to me, but to coastguards—that the proposals were in their long-term interests and that our coastlines would be safer, and then had to retract them because of public pressure. That happens to be a fact, and I am sorry that it upsets her. I am a consensus politician, and I work with people from all parties, but that does not change the fact that the electorate in those areas are cynical about the somersaults done by some of the candidates. However, I shall move on.

[Mrs Ellman]

Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that the Transport Committee is about to conduct an investigation on this very issue? That follows concerns expressed from all parts of the House and a session that the Committee had with the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in which we put certain questions to him, but were not satisfied with the answers.

[Albert Owen]

Absolutely. That will be my next point, but it does not detract from my first.

My second point is that the proposals from the Government and the MCA should be scrapped. The all-party Transport Committee is inquiring in detail into the workings of the MCA, and that inquiry is a good basis for the beginning of a debate, not the end of a consultation process. Detailed arguments from maritime experts, coastguards and people from coastal communities can be fed into the inquiry, which will be thorough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about what the service consists of and the problems that it encounters. That suggests to me that the idea that the consultation document is about modernising the coastguard service is only partially correct. Again, that was underlined by the evidence recently given to the Transport Committee by Sir Alan Massey, who made this curious statement:

“For my agency, I am required to find a 22% budget reduction in my programme between now and 31 March 2015. In seeking to find those savings, we have had to put forward a number of savings options. One of them does affect the coastguard modernisation programme.”

As I read it, that means that there was a coastguard modernisation programme and that the proposals for making savings have affected it. That may have been a misstatement, and it may deserve further analysis, but if the proposals are about savings that could affect a modernisation programme as opposed to being about the modernisation programme itself, that should be the basis for discussing the consequential examination of the proposals, and not otherwise.

[Mrs Ellman]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the proposals could be based on cost savings rather than safety, which makes it so important that we should consider all the proposals in detail, and consider all the representations?

[Dr Whitehead]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern. Indeed, if that is the basis on which the proposals were made, I believe that a careful examination should be undertaken of the consequences. If it cannot be shown beyond doubt that there will not be a substantial reduction in safety and call-outs, and that there will be a substantial reduction in confusion over place names and so on, the case is seriously flawed.

The consultation document sets out what the savings might be, suggesting that they will be in the region of £130 million over 25 years. That sounds a substantial sum, but it represents savings of less than £5 million a year. Those savings, which are not enormous, will result in substantial and fundamental changes, going from a system of area-by-area coastguard stations to one that has two centres, and daytime-only call-out centres in a reduced number of areas throughout the rest of the country. That, it seems to me, is not a supportable way forward for the future of the coastguard service.

I join other Members in realising that the service needs to be modernised. I understand that we are in difficult financial times, but there has to be a plan B for the service. It should be urgently reviewed as a better way forward. I commend all Members and others who have been involved in looking at what that plan B might be, and I am pleased that a further six weeks’ consultation has been agreed. However, if we do not seriously consider alternative arrangements to what at present is a muddied and uncertain document, we will regret it at our leisure.