Cruise Ship Safety

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on securing this debate. He will acknowledge that I have met Rebecca’s family, and I have made promises, which I will keep.

I pay tribute to Rebecca’s family. They have had a tragic loss, which has been exacerbated by not knowing what actually happened to her. However, that has not stopped them campaigning for justice for Rebecca and for other victims in not only cruise ships but the whole maritime fleet.

Cruising is a boom industry; it is popular. My hon. Friend mentioned the figures: 1.7 million Brits went on a cruise this year, and the figure is 20 million around the world. The vast majority of them have cruised in safety, although I accept my hon. Friend’s point. The figure of 1.7 million is due to rise to 2 million in the next three to four years. We must not be complacent. There are things that we as a nation have control over and things over which we have no control. Sadly, Cunard has recently announced that the three Queens have been re-flagged outside the UK. Weddings were a particular issue for cruise lines. I got married in an old-fashioned church, but these days people want to get married in myriad different places, including on cruise ships. Under British law, people cannot get married on a British ship, but I will amend the legislation as soon as I can so that people will be able to marry on board a ship. Weddings can be held in many different places in this country, but not on a British ship, which is ludicrous.

There is no doubt that the infraction proceedings and the mess I inherited from the previous Administration on differential pay has meant that we are having some ships flag away. That is very sad, and I have done everything possible to help, but the blame lies firmly with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Nautilus union. They took the British Government to the European Commission for not implementing legislation. I hope that they have seen the error of their ways, because we are now seeing British jobs and British ships being flagged abroad.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that crime takes place not only on cruise liners, but in merchant fleets around the world. One of the most serious crimes, rape, has taken place, and has clearly not been investigated properly. Cases of missing persons, as in the case of Rebecca, have also not been properly investigated. The simple truth is that the country in which the vessel was flagged is not capable of doing the sort of investigation that we and Rebecca’s family would like. As far as I can work out, it did hardly anything; it was very half-hearted. I am sure that Disney is conscious of its image, but it was more interested in getting the ship back to sea than in investigating the case of the missing member of their crew.

I pay tribute to Rebecca’s family and the dignity that they have shown. I made promises about what I could do immediately, which included writing to the Bahamian authorities and asking them to inform me exactly where the investigating was going. I also instructed the marine accident investigation branch to register the UK as a substantially interested body. I have instructed the branch to register a substantial interest in every case where there is a British citizen involved on any ship anywhere in the world. That is a significant move. It is not something that we had been planning on doing, but this particular case has opened our eyes as a country. We are using the skills of the marine accident investigation branch, which is world-renowned. If a British citizen happens to be on holiday on a cruise liner—not on a beach—they should get the protection that we would normally expect from a British Government.

We have also been supportive of the Cheshire police, to whom I pay tribute. They have taken on the mantel and been heavily involved, but they have been frustrated by the way the case has been handled. We and the Foreign Office will continue to support them in the ongoing investigations.

Last year, I attended a conference of red ensign Crown dependencies in Jersey—I am the Minister responsible for the red ensign not only in the UK but in other Crown dependencies. I stated that flag states have a detailed, moral and ethical responsibility towards those who travel on their flagged ships; I do not think that point has been highlighted in that way, and I shall continue to emphasise it. At the conference, a senior police officer made exactly the same point as that raised by Rebecca’s family and my hon. Friend. Who takes responsibility for an investigation into something that did not happen on a flagged ship? That is a difficult question, and we have had many meetings to look at where the responsibility lies.

My hon. Friend alluded to the Americans and, like me, President Obama is in an interesting position. Although I have a large number of flagged vessels, I do not have any cruise ships under me, and neither does President Obama. When we talk to the rest of the international community about how to join investigations together and be taken seriously, we must be careful not to preach to people about things for which we are not responsible in the same way. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, the American flagged fleet is small and insignificant in world terms, which is unusual for such a huge nation. That is because many years ago, America flagged off many of its ships to Panama and the Marshall Islands for political reasons. We must not be hypocritical in telling countries what they should do when we do not have responsibility for cruise ships.

As I stated earlier, however, this issue goes beyond cruise liners. It is crucial that people feel safe on a ship, whether they are at work or travelling for leisure, and whether they are on a cruise liner or, speaking more loosely, a cargo freighter going round the coast on a regular basis. The issue is also crucial for women—I will be slightly sexist on this point—because historically women did not serve on ships in the way they do today. I have had the pleasure of presenting the cadet of the year award for the past two years—I have managed to survive that long in this job—and each time the merchant navy cadet of the year was a lady. That shows where the industry is going, and the skills and expertise that women can bring to it. At the same time, however, women need to be protected. Sadly, I have read about an instance of a female crew member who was raped. The incident was not investigated properly and was followed by a suicide. That did not happen in our territorial waters, but that is not the point. Such things do happen.

I promised Rebecca’s family that I would do everything I can to help, and that I would go to the top when looking at international responsibility. The International Maritime Organisation is based just across the river in a Department for Transport building—my colleagues will love my mentioning that—which is the only United Nations establishment in the United Kingdom. As promised, I wrote to the IMO’s outgoing secretary-general detailing not only Rebecca’s case but the other cases that we have heard about. I had a follow-up meeting with the secretary-general and his officials, together with the incoming secretary-general from Japan, who will take over in the new year. That meeting was very positive and unlike in previous attempts by the US, we appear to have started to pull a consensus together.

The IMO safety committee agreed guidelines previously at the 89th committee, and we will table a motion, to which I hope other member states will agree, asking the security council within the committee to look formally at the whole issue on an international basis. That will not, of course, take away from the responsibilities of individual member or flag states within their territorial waters, but it will start to implement a correct procedure for events that occur on what we commonly call the high seas. That is hugely important to Rebecca’s family and others who, in many ways, have had their lives destroyed by events on the sea.

The international community can no longer ignore its responsibility to ask, through the IMO, how we can better deal with such situations. Countries used as flags of convenience—for want of a better word—need to cope with the investigations that are necessary when certain events happen, as sadly we know they will. Some of the ships are like small towns; the largest has 7,000 guests and 2,000 crew members. That is bigger than many of the towns we represent; it is like two wards in my constituency, all on one ship. When there is such a cramming together, there will be good and bad people there, just as in any other society.

People go on holiday, just as I did as a young man when I went to Benidorm all those years ago. They want to have a good time, but others spoil it for them. That happens, and there are criminals in our society. If someone rapes, they are a criminal; if they are involved in crime on a ship, no matter where in the world, they are a criminal. It is therefore important to pull together and look at how to address the situation. The crux of my hon. Friend’s argument is that where we do not have responsibility for the ship and the flag nation is not capable of addressing its responsibilities, we must look at how the international community can pull together.

I passionately believe that we have some of the greatest police authorities in the world. The Association of Chief Police Officers has shared guidance on best practice, which is used extensively around the world. My hon. Friend will probably agree that we also need to name and shame some of those cruise operators that do not take their responsibilities—for want of a better word—as carefully as they should.

We must not, however, denigrate all ship companies. I have a cutting in front of me from the Evening Standard. It mentions a P&O-registered ship that had a man overboard the other night in the middle of the Atlantic ocean. A passenger saw what they thought was someone in the water and raised the alarm. The ship dispensed three lifeboats and many lifebuoys, made a complete U-turn and—miracle of miracles—the man was pulled out alive. I think that P&O should be praised, and particularly the captain of the ship involved, the Ventura. The ship obviously had a code of best practice and a set of skills in place so that it could respond to such an event.

I have also heard of instances where a ship has hit a trawler in the English channel and a fisherman has died. The ship knew it had hit someone, but carried on. Those are two extremes in an industry that is expanding not only because there are a greater number of cruise ships, but because of the sheer size of the ships to which our ports now have to adapt. The largest ship in the world, the Emma Maersk, can function with a crew of 13 or 14 people. How can they respond to certain situations?

We must also not take away from the responsibilities of the one person who I have not yet mentioned—the captain of the ship. The captain of a ship on the high seas is the sole person responsible for the ship. If the ship is flagged by any country, including the UK, that country also has responsibility, as does the international community.

We have fulfilled the promises I made to Rebecca’s family in my office a few weeks ago, but we will not be complacent in any shape or form. We will push on. There is an IMO conference in London later this month. There are some indications that, as I hope, our proposals will be supported, and we can show the rest of the world that, yet again, the UK is leading in safety on the high seas.

Question put and agreed to.

National Policy Statement (Ports)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Written Statements

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

Having considered consultation responses and the report of the previous Select Committee on Transport, I am today laying before Parliament the national policy statement for ports in England and Wales, pursuant to section 5(9)(b) of the Planning Act 2008, together with the Government’s response to the Committee.

I am also publishing, on the Department’s website, a written response to the consultation and an updated version of the appraisal of sustainability that had been published as part of the consultation process.

The ports industry is a vital contributor to this country’s economic recovery and success. Well over 90% of trade by tonnage passes through sea ports, and so the importance of a clear planning framework for their future sustainable development can hardly be overstated.

The NPS gives full prominence to the importance of development in sympathy with the environment, while also stressing the national need for developers’ commercial judgments to be respected in what continues to be a successful, market-oriented and responsible sector.

It has been agreed with the House that the same procedure as proposed in the Localism Bill will be followed for the NPS. The Secretary of State intends to designate the NPS after a period of 21 sitting days has elapsed, or following a debate in the House of Commons if the House wishes one, and approves the NPS, within that period.

Public Transport (Disabled Access)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Westminster Hall

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

As always, it is a pleasure and honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. May I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), not only for the work that she has done today, but for her career at the Children’s Society and Centrepoint? She has been a stalwart of the disability lobby for many years, and I am sure that she will be here for many years to come.

It was a pleasure listening to the debate. It is a shame that some colleagues have not stayed. There is a problem with this Chamber sometimes; people say their bit and then disappear, which I think is wrong, no matter which side of the House they are from. The debate was going well until the brand new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), stood up. I welcome her to her post. Perhaps in future she will listen to the debate a little bit more, rather than read a prepared speech, which was a party political rant. The issue is not party political, and we had agreed before the debate started that the previous Government had done brilliantly when they were in power. Previous Governments have tried hard. We were left with a difficult economic situation. One of reasons why the previous Government had not done more was that it was difficult and expensive to do so. If we all admitted that, we would get a proper debate in the future.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Wigan. I am not the Minister responsible for the portfolio; I do roads and shipping. The Minister responsible is away on other ministerial business, and in my response I will not be able to answer directly many questions that have been raised by hon. Members today. Each individual will be written to by the Minister responsible and the officials.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to the Minister for stepping in at short notice to cover his colleague’s brief. Will he take a request back to his colleague to meet me and a small number of representatives from some of the campaigns that I have mentioned to put to his colleague directly some of our concerns and proposals? I am concerned that the issue could get lost as part of a wider Government agenda.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. One of the things in the many notes that were being passed back and forth here was that that would take place and that I would put my colleague on the spot, because the hon. Lady asked for a working group. Yes, we will have a working group while other proposals go forward. That is certainly important.

In my constituency—we are all constituency MPs at heart—I have raised such issues to my own station, where the lift is out of operation. The station is managed by London Midland. I have had detailed and quite strong conversations before I became a Minister, and certainly since.

There is often no sense as to why certain things happen. A profoundly deaf and blind constituent of mine had long been campaigning for a suitable bus for a disabled person to stop in my town centre, and it is there and has happened, which is great. However, the stop is next to a river and the railings have been taken down. Probably no one would believe that, but imagine someone who is blind, like my constituent, getting off the bus where the railings have been taken away and there is a river. Although it is not deep, we know what the problems would be. What was the logic of that? Where were the brain cells when that decision was made? Who knows what engineer decided to do that, but, as a constituency MP, I shall find out.

The points that have been raised today cross a spectrum of disabilities. Very often we talk about those who are wheelchair bound. The problem is that there are a plethora of different types of wheelchair. A lovely young man called Jack asked if he could do his work experience with me in the House of Commons—this story relates to what the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said about the state of the Palace and its lack of accessibility. I said yes to the work experience and a risk assessment and an access assessment were carried out. The answer was then no, because they could not accommodate the size of Jack’s wheelchair. Well, in the end we did. It was a long-drawn-out route around the Palace, as I was in Norman Shaw at the time, but we did it. So often, we are told why we cannot do something instead of how we can do something.

Jack and one of my closest friends who sustained some of the worst injuries in the London bombings and survived spoke to me about the matter. They said, “Don’t keep wrapping us up in cotton wool. We’ll tell you how we can do things. We’ll tell you how we can get there, rather than you telling us.” That is why working groups and the different lobby groups are so important.

Interestingly, when it comes to access into buildings, I was told that we should ask disabled people how much access they need because we are paying through the nose—Jack’s words not mine—for the works. A whole industry has grown up around access into buildings for disabled people. Actually, the whole matter could be dealt with much more simply and easily.

Why on earth would they want to put the toilets two floors up in Cambridge? I know exactly where the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) is talking about because my daughter is studying at the Anglia Ruskin college in Cambridge and has a Saturday job in the place mentioned. The question that we must ask, as constituency MPs and Ministers, is why. Tell me the reason why that has happened and why we are in that position? As I mentioned earlier, I will pass on any question that I cannot answer this afternoon to my colleague who will then respond in writing.

All front-line rail staff are supposed to be trained, but will it make any difference if they do not have the will, inclination or empathy to help? One thing that we can all do is to say to young people, “Let us be your voice.” That is what we are here for. They do not want to fill in survey forms; they have had enough of that. I say, “Just give us a little whisper and tell us on what train or on what bus a member of staff was rude to you or did not do what they should have done.” It is amazing, colleagues, what a letter or a size 10 boot from an MP can do to energise employers to look at what their staff are doing.

[Dr Huppert]

When the Minister argues that we should offer to be the voice of some of these people, I assume that he would also support the various parliament-type organisations that enable disabled people to be their own voices and to represent themselves much more strongly.

[Mike Penning]

Such organisations do a fantastic job, but we need to ensure that there is access to this place. The all-party parliamentary groups, of which my hon. Friend is a member—I was chairman of several all party groups when I was a Back Bencher—are about access. They are not just talking shops. They are there to say that people have the right to come forward.

It is a requirement of rail employers to ensure that their front-line staff have the right sort of training.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been generous with his time. I am interested in his point about writing letters. If I forward a letter to him from Disability Action in Islington concerning the cancellation of the step-free access programme to the London underground, I am sure that he will be straight on the phone to Boris Johnson who will make sure that these programmes are reinstated. Have I got a deal there? Is that okay?

[Mike Penning]

I will do a deal with the hon. Gentleman. If he writes to me, I will pass on his letter to the Minister responsible who will then be in contact with Boris. I am trying to think of the station that has had the lift installed.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Green Park.

[Mike Penning]

That is right. The lift cost £25 million. One issue that has been raised is the age of our network. I do not know whether that applies to our buses. Actually, the situation in London has dramatically improved because all buses have disabled access now. Although we have more modern trains, our stations and platforms are a massive issue for all constituency MPs.

[Jack Dromey]

I thank the Minister for his constructive response to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan for a wider discussion to take place and the establishment of a working group. That is welcome indeed. May I just ask him about the specific issue of the changes being proposed by London Midland? Given that the proposals are now on the Secretary of State’s desk, will he facilitate a meeting with the RNIB, Mencap and the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign because it is important that their voices are heard before a final decision is made?

[Mike Penning]

The point that I was going to get to is the urgency of some issues, including the one that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. It is the Minister of State who is responsible for that issue. I will put a note on her desk tomorrow asking if that meeting can take place. I am not responsible any further than that, but I will do what I say and anyone who knows me will say that that is the case.

I thank the hon. Member for Wigan, who is relatively new in the House, for giving the Minister a list of the questions that she wants answered; it is ever so helpful. Notes are flying back and forth and I must have 20 notes sitting on my desk here. Clearly, I will not be able to answer all of them in the four minutes that I have left and I am not going to try. I do not wish to have a pop at the hon. Member for Nottingham South. I remember sitting in the same seat as a shadow Health Minister for almost exactly the same amount of time that she has been in the House. It is an honour and a privilege to be in this place whether in government or in opposition. Sometimes it may seem difficult, especially when one thinks of the huge number of civil servants backing the Minister and writing his speeches for him. However, I must say that I have not read the speech that they wrote for me. Well, I read it last night and did not like it. They will get used to me; I am just that way.

Let me stress again that all the points that have been raised are about tone and about people’s rights. I know that we are not allowed to indicate who is in the Public Gallery in Westminster Hall, but we are privileged that people have come here, sometimes in very difficult circumstances, to express their rights and to say, “Why am I getting a bum deal compared with other people?”—I do not know how Hansard will work that one out, but there we are. The situation is fundamentally wrong, but it is not easy to resolve. I hate the word “targets” but we have targets for 2020, which the companies will have to meet. In the hon. Member for Wigan’s constituency, there will be a franchise change in 2013. I am conscious of her question, and the Minister responsible will respond to it. I also need to know what rail operator she refers to. Perhaps she can write to me and let me know. We got rid of guards vans in 2004. If that was a comment, it might have been sarcastic, but it was also manifestly incorrect. There are no guards vans to travel in.

The rail companies operate a taxi service—I do not like it because it is a cop-out for them—and the people to whom the hon. Lady referred should have been offered a taxi for the short distance that we are talking about. Instead of one person waiting to be shuttled to their destination, which is an appalling situation to be in, common sense should have prevailed and a taxi should have been ordered to take all four people to their destination. If the hon. Lady can write to me and tell me the name of the company, it would help. People are out there checking up on these companies. It is a huge rail and bus network, but there are people out there checking out what is going on and whether promises, commitments and franchise agreements are being met.

Instead of being typically British and just putting up with things because that is the way we are, we should perhaps be more like the German transport people whom I met earlier today. They would not put up with this because they have a completely different attitude. They expect a service and they tell people in no uncertain terms where they should be. Let us speak up on behalf of our constituents. Constituents need to complain to their MPs and their MPs should tell us. If that happens, perhaps we can have a service for the 21st century that everyone deserves.

Marine Operations (Weymouth)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. When we entered the House in 2005 neither of us would have dreamt that I would be standing here as the Minister and you would be in the Chair.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on initiating the debate. He served gallantly in the Coldstream Guards when I was a humble guardsman in the Grenadiers. I was moved by his question about whether we would get rid of the company headquarters. As a humble guardsman who never commanded a section let alone anything else, I can say yes, we would have done so many a time, because at my level we never understood what was going on.

Let me touch briefly on how we reached the current position, where we are in the consultation process and the decisions we have taken. I pay tribute to the community of South Dorset. I know that part of the world well, having spent most of my holidays as a young child on the beaches of Durdle Door. I dive at Lulworth now, although it is a bit too cold for me as I get older, and South Dorset is still one of the most beautiful parts of this great nation.

The community coming together to fight for what they believe in is what community spirit is all about. In the scrapbook that my hon. Friend gave me—I use “scrapbook” in its traditional sense; I do not mean that it was not a good thing to produce—I see so many press cuttings of rescues and lives being saved, and we are going to enhance and invest in that volunteer part of the coastguard. The RNLI, whose college in Poole I visited recently, does amazing work, all funded by people’s gratitude to the institution. The RNLI covers the whole of the island of Ireland and is the only organisation in the Republic that has “Royal” in its name. I have met three transport Ministers for southern Ireland, and they have paid tribute to the RNLI’s work.

When I inherited this position nearly 16 months ago, there was a set of plans on my desk for a reorganisation of coastguard co-ordination centres. It had been around for years. It was there when the chief coastguard, Mr Rod Johnson, arrived, and he had been in post for nearly two years. I understand why the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) is not here—it is a half-hour debate and I have debated the subject many times with him—but he freely admits that the proposals had been discussed. Members of the coastguard had, believe it or not, been in industrial dispute for years over pay and other issues. Their starting pay of about £13,500 is unacceptable for someone in an emergency service, and that was one of the things we looked at.

I had a choice: start from scratch or say, “We’ll go with a consultation but I promise the public and Members that we will come out with a set of proposals showing that we’ve listened and that the service will be different from the one we went in with.” I think that everyone accepts that the proposals the Secretary of State announced to the House in the summer were radically different, but contained the principle of resilience in the system that had not been present until then. Many people say to me, “Minister, this is just about saving money,” but we are investing huge amounts in the system to address the fact that we have a national emergency service with no national resilience.

When my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset and I served in the armed forces, the one thing we all relied on was resilience. When I was on the borders in Northern Ireland, I would be told on the system, “We will get someone.” I appreciate that there have been problems with communications over the years. When Bowman first came in for the military, there was a lot of concern about resilience, and when I visited an exercise as a new MP, I was told that Bowman stood for “better off with map and Nokia”, but it has developed a lot and I have seen it in use in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We needed to say to the public, “Let’s be honest with you.” We all have huge respect for the work of the professional staff and volunteers—predominantly they are volunteers—in Her Majesty’s coastguard. I pay tribute also to other lifeboat crews. Many lifeboats, particularly on the south coast, are not RNLI ones, and it would be improper of me to omit them from the praise.

In the responses to the first consultation, people were saying, “We know you’re going to have this new resilience and a new national co-ordination centre, but there will be a massive loss of local knowledge.” However, in the local coastguard stations I visited, some people said, “Save us; don’t look at any modernisation,” but others said, “We think there should be about eight, nine or 10 coastguard stations, not 18.” A good half dozen of the submissions, including from Belfast and Falmouth, were about how we could have a proper national resilient service. So I thought, “If the coastguards are telling me that they accept that 18 isn’t necessarily the way forward, and that eight or nine is, how would it work?” Then it became obvious that a pairing system had been in place within the coastguard for several years, for resilience purposes. Because the coastguard could not have national resilience, it created a pairing system in which one station would cover for another if it was short of staff, if communications went down or in the event of repairs or conversions. When I was at Swansea the other day to meet the coastguard, the station was completely switched off, and Milford Haven covered the whole area.

[Richard Drax]

Bearing in mind that we have only 10 minutes left, we all understand where we are in the history. The issue now is whether the Minister can offer any light on whether he will move the new MOC from the favoured location in Solent to us. Our place has the history and environment to support such a centre. We also have buildings ready to go, which will save much money. That is what my constituents are looking for guidance on.

[Mike Penning]

I apologise, but I was answering the questions that my hon. Friend raised about local knowledge, resilience and so on. I have 10 minutes, and I assure him that I can answer his question.

We decided that we would change to a pairing system in which one of the pairs would be dropped, the two extremities—the Western Isles and Shetland, which were never paired before—would stay in 24-hour operation and we would drop one of the MOC national headquarters, because in the end, I could not condone how much two would have cost. We went to a second consultation on four specific points: whether Swansea or Milford Haven would close, whether Liverpool or Holyhead would close, whether the Western Isles and Shetland should run 24 hours and whether there should be one or two MOCs. That consultation has just finished.

I have listened carefully to the points that my hon. Friend has made—in his position as a Back Bencher, I would do exactly the same—but if I stood here today and said that I was willing to reconsider, I would have to reopen the whole consultation process, because this topic was not part of the consultation. To make that decision, I would have to consider several things. We said in the original consultation that we would like the MOC to be in the Portsmouth-Southampton area, for logical reasons. The MCA has a large footprint in that part of the country, particularly in Gosport at Daedalus and at its own headquarters. From a cost perspective, there was an obvious logic to building a new MOC headquarters on existing Department for Transport facilities, which is why we chose that model.

It would be difficult for me to change my mind in light of what I received from the people of Weymouth and my hon. Friend during the second consultation. I would have to change my decisions after not only the first but the second consultation and then reopen the consultation process on the MOC. I could not do that. It would not be cost-effective given the efficiencies that we need, particularly as we already have a large estate footprint available.

I am happy to be here to represent the Government and say where we are. I hope that I have answered most of my hon. Friend’s questions. Although I understand that he is, rightly, representing his constituents—I am also pleased to see the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) here; as another Minister, he will understand—I cannot give that light at the end of the rainbow and open up the whole process all over again for a further consultation. The reasons why we came to our previous conclusions still exist. All the premises in the Weymouth area to which my hon. Friend refers are premises that we do not own. Other Departments might, but we do not, and we would have to do an analysis.

MCA headquarters are in the area where we propose to build. We might put the MOC within that building so as not to expand our empire, which I am trying desperately to avoid. We may be able to facilitate that. The Daedalus site in Gosport is huge, and the Department for Transport uses little of it; it already operates on a helicopter basis, and we own it.

I know this is difficult. I am the bearer of bad news. As a Minister, I always try to be as positive and helpful as I can with colleagues across the House, but I do not want to give my hon. Friend and his constituents the feeling that it is possible that we might change our minds and reopen the consultation on where the MOC will go, mostly because that was not part of the second consultation in the first place. The decision where to put the MOC was based on the first consultation; the only relevant decision in the second was whether to have one MOC or two.

I know that that will disappoint my hon. Friend and his constituents, but I reiterate that the issue of local knowledge in people who rescue was addressed many years ago in adaptations to the pairing system. Some stations have been down for months while work was being done on them, and the other stations have coped. However, what they could never do, to go back to an earlier point, was be controlled centrally by division or brigade headquarters—or even regimental; the numbers are not huge—and provide the sort of pay, training and promotion prospects that we would all like for anybody working within our constituencies.

Part of this is about money—there is no argument about that; I have had to make considerable savings in the Department—but actually, it is about resilience. The ex-Second Sea Lord is the chief executive. He has served his country all his life. The chief coastguard has been in the coastguard for most of his working life. They would not be sitting with me discussing the plan if we thought that there was a danger. There is a danger in leaving things as they are. We will phase in the changes. We are not going to wake up one morning to find it has all been switched off and closed. We will ensure that the IT and the communications systems in particular work before we phase out.

Understandably, staff members are leaving the MCA at the moment, particularly at the stations earmarked for closure. I cannot blame them. They are quality people; other jobs are becoming available, and they are taking them. However, I cannot recruit new people to those coastguard stations knowing full well that I am going to close them. We will look carefully at manning levels, but some stations might close slightly earlier than predicted, simply because we cannot man them.

[Richard Drax]

I hear the Minister’s argument. Clearly, my constituents and I do not agree, but we are listening to him. It is his decision, and he is saying that there is absolutely no chance. If that is the case in black and white—“Forget it”—it would be useful to hear that. Also, can he give any reassurance that our rescue helicopter on Portland will be there for the foreseeable future and is not under threat?

[Mike Penning]

I cannot say anything about the helicopters because, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, a criminal investigation of the procurement process is ongoing. At the moment, we do not know where our helicopters are likely to be. The Ministry of Defence has decided to withdraw, so it will be a civilian matter run through the Department for Transport and the MCA.

I did not want to be this brutal and straightforward, but I must. Where to put the MCA in the south was not part of the second consultation. That decision has been made. It will be in the Solent area. Although I respect enormously the work done by the community for the second consultation, I am afraid that that matter was not part of the second consultation, and sadly, I am not willing to reopen the consultation.

[Mr Lee Scott (in the Chair)]

Before I call the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) to introduce the next debate, I remind hon. Members that unless they have put in to speak in a half-hour debate, only the lead Member and the Minister will be able to speak.

High-volume Semi-trailers

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Written Statements

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

Further to my statement of 30 March 2011, Official Report, column 23WS, the Department for Transport has today published its response to the consultation on a proposal to allow a 2.05 metre increase in the length of semi-trailers and a maximum overall length for articulated heavy goods vehicles of 18.75 metres.

The research underlying the consultation proposal suggests that high volume semi-trailers have potential environmental, safety and congestion benefits: they would allow up to 13% more loading space than current articulated lorries, resulting in fewer journeys needed to transport the same volume of goods. The research predicts that by 2015 this would reduce lorry miles in the UK by 100 to 180 million a year, meaning reduced congestion, reduced air pollution and reduced carbon emissions (by around 100,000 tonnes a year reduction). The research also found that there would be a net decrease in casualties of around 1.6% from the reduction in lorry miles.

However, the evidence provided during the consultation exercise has identified a number of areas which merit additional investigation. These include possible effects if the number of longer semi-trailers introduced is significantly higher than that predicted by the research and the impact assessment attached to the consultation document; the impacts of longer semi-trailers on road infrastructure and design and on depot and distribution centre infrastructure and design; the impacts on SMEs of allowing longer semi-trailers; and the effectiveness of additional vision/sensor/safety systems fitted to improve detection of vulnerable road users.

The research underlying the consultation proposals was comprehensive. To gather further evidence on such impacts will therefore require a trial of longer semi-trailers in operation. The Department therefore intends to proceed with an operational trial of longer semi-trailers in order to gather practical evidence. Trailers taking part in the trial will operate under Vehicle Special Orders issued under section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The Department considers that the number of vehicles permitted in the trial will need to be limited, but that the number permitted should still allow meaningful evidence to be gathered on the likely take-up of longer semi-trailers across the vehicle fleet as well as their impact on infrastructure. This would require a trial of vehicle numbers that allows operators to swap a sufficient percentage of their fleet over to the longer semi-trailer to enable them to remove standard trailers from their fleet and make an effective comparison of performance.

The responses to the consultation also indicate that different businesses would wish to choose between additional trailer lengths of up to 1 metre and up to 2.05 metres, depending on the nature of their business. The trial provides an opportunity to validate the impacts of each length. The current trailer parc for articulated vehicle above 40 tonnes in the UK is estimated at around 100,000 trailers. The Department intends to proceed with a trial of up to 900 trailers of an increased length of up to 2.05 metres; and 900 trailers of an increased length of up to 1 metre, 1,800 trailers forming just under 2% of trailers on British roads.

Our baseline research shows that the ability to operate longer semi-trailers would provide clear benefits to business and a spur to efficiency and growth. We expect the trial itself to offer a net present value of £33 million, largely due to the financial benefits operators should see over the 10-year length of the trial (around £1,800 per vehicle per year). We would expect many of these benefits to flow through to the consumer.

Participation in the trial will be on a voluntary basis and at the participants’ own risk; there is no guarantee that the use of the longer semi-trailers will continue to be permitted beyond the end of the trial period. The trial will run for 10 years, to allow those businesses wishing to participate the opportunity to cover the costs of investment in the longer semi-trailers. Expressions of interest are invited from today, with the trial starting in January 2012. Information on how to apply can be found on the DfT website.

However, the Department wishes the trial to be closely monitored, to ensure that any significant issues, particularly on safety, that arise are addressed quickly and to ensure that the trial is meeting the Department’s objectives. The Department will therefore appoint an independent contractor to monitor and review trial progress. The contractor will report to the Department on a four-monthly basis; at the end of each trial year the Department will review progress towards objectives, including considering any changes to the length of the trial and the numbers of trailers involved in the trial.

Although many of the responses from vehicle operators supported the development of tractor units with a safer more aerodynamic frontal design, it was evident from the majority of responses received from vehicle manufacturers that they are unlikely to progress with the development of improved frontal designs at this time. Therefore, the Department has decided not to include tractor units with an extension of up to 0.4 metres for improved frontal designs in the trial. However, we are keeping the situation under review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

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

In March I published a feasibility study and impact assessment on longer semi-trailers, undertaken by consultants including the Transport Research Laboratory. The research, which is available in the Library, includes consideration of the potential road safety implications.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Many streets in my constituency are already unsuitable for long heavy goods vehicles, and the thought of even longer vehicles trying to get down narrow city streets will horrify many people. As the Minister knows, blanket lorry bans are not possible in many urban areas, for all sorts of reasons. May I urge him to think again, and to reject the proposal to allow even longer lorries on to totally unsuitable streets in urban and rural areas?

[Mike Penning]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but he should note that because the turning wheels of longer semi-trailers are at the back, their turning circles are much tighter than those of existing lorries. I know that because I used to drive heavy goods vehicles myself. However, I will look into the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and we will announce our proposals when the House reconvenes next month. Then at least the industry will know exactly where we are going.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Has the Minister considered the environmental impact of very long vehicles, particularly in relation to small rural roads, and the safety implications for pedestrians and cyclists of elongated public service vehicles in the form of articulated buses?

[Mike Penning]

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

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

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

[Mike Penning]

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

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

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Surely the best way of improving road safety is to put all transport on to rail, but will my hon. Friend tell me how safety can be improved on roads such as the A64? What specific plans does he have in that regard?

[Mike Penning]

I shall have to write to my hon. Friend about the A64. As for moving more transport on to rail, the industry rightly says that trains often take goods to the rail hubs, and trucks—which will now be the longer semi-trailers—take them from there to the distribution centres and supermarkets. When the longer vehicles are introduced, there will be fewer traffic problems, fewer lorries and more rail transport, which is what we want.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the importance of the voice of the passenger to decisions about rail investment; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

T5. Businesses have been encouraged by the announcement of a Humber enterprise zone and the Government’s commitment to finding a sustainable solution to Humber bridge tolls. Will the Secretary of State give a green light to potential investors by announcing when the upgrade to the A160 will take place?

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

I genuinely apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Because he was asking about the Humber bridge, I assumed that he was asking about tolls. I will write to him specifically on the A160 as soon as I return to the Department.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

T7. Following the Government’s consultation on the future of the Dartford crossing, will the Minister consider extending the local person’s discount scheme to include my constituents and the wider Medway area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

It would be a pleasure to meet the family, and I praise the work they are doing. This tragic loss was the result of a medical condition that is very difficult to diagnose, and we need to do a lot of work prior to diagnosis so that people are not driving with this terrible illness.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Will the Department for Transport carry out a full risk assessment before removing emergency towing vessels from the waters around the Hebrides and Orkney and Shetland?

[Mike Penning]

I met the hon. Gentleman recently to discuss this. We have made an assessment. The contract ends at the end of this month. I have worked closely with all local communities and the Scottish Government to try to find out whether there is more funding. We do not have the funding for it. The present contract, which was brought in by the previous Government, is a disaster for the taxpayer and the local community. I am still willing to look at other proposals, but they will have to be brought forward quickly.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Would my right hon. Friend like to join me on one of the most beautiful and picturesque railway lines in the country, between Liskeard and Looe, to see for herself how our rural railways support coastal communities and the tourist industry?

Maritime Incident Response Group

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Written Statements

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

As part of the comprehensive spending review that the Government set out last October, we announced the intention to consult interested parties about a review of the maritime incident response group (MIRG) funded by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).

Since it was established in 2006, the MIRG has responded to just six fire incidents and has not had a significant impact on the outcome of any of those. Since February the MCA has consulted those fire and rescue services providing the current MIRG capability.

Feedback from the shipping industry suggests that the most valued service provided by the MIRG is their initial fire assessment advice. The MCA had therefore initially hoped that the fire and rescue services providing the current MIRG capability would be able to provide such a service, but agreement on this has not been possible. The Government therefore intend to establish alternative arrangements for such a fire assessment and advice service using commercial salvors.

Under the new arrangements professional personnel will be deployed to an incident to make an assessment of the status of a fire and to provide advice on the best course of action and—as in many cases today—reassure port authorities that a ship can be safely accepted into a port so that shore based fire fighters can attend to the fire. This approach recognises that international legislation already requires that all ships’ crews are trained and equipped to fight fires on ships.

The new service will not require funding from the public purse as costs will be recoverable. A 90-day notice period will begin today and the existing MIRG arrangement will end on 14 December 2011.

Swansea Coastguard

Mike Penning Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate, and a pleasure, at this time of night, to see so many hon. Members in the House to listen to a debate about a very serious subject that the hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) knows I take very seriously within my portfolio. Earlier, I apologised to him personally for the fact that my office had not informed him that I would be in his constituency last Tuesday—an error for which I take full responsibility.

When I took up this wonderful ministerial position following the general election and my appointment by the Prime Minister I found many documents on my desk, one of which was about the modernisation of the coastguard. It is not traditional to have a shadow spokesman present in such debates, but the current shadow Minister was the Minister with my portfolio when the original consultation proposals were put on the table. The situation that I inherited in this part of the world was that there were three MRCCs. I have to emphasise to the public that these are co-ordination centres, not the places where the people who physically carry out the rescues are based. I think there has been some confusion about that around the country. The volunteers are certainly not touched by this; in fact, their roles will be enhanced and there will be more equipment and more people to facilitate the work that they do.

I inherited the situation that we would go from having three co-ordination centres in Wales to having one. Nobody disputed that at any time when I went round to each of the coastguard centres. Everybody knew that the coastguard needed to be modernised. That had been the subject of dispute for many years, with huge disruption to a national emergency service. As the hon. Gentleman said, we therefore made the decision to go with the original proposals and we went out to consultation on that basis.

I have said from the outset in all the debates, publicly and in the meetings I have had with hon. Members from various parts of the House and in places that I visited around the country, that we would come out of the consultation with a different set of proposals, because otherwise there would have been no point in having the consultation—it would have been a sham. We have experienced sham consultations in this House over the years—I certainly did as a Back Bencher—and I would not allow that to happen. I was absolutely adamant that we would go out and listen and ensure that we came out of the listening process with a 21st-century emergency service that had a resilience it did not have when we went in, and that we would look carefully at the concerns of the public and, probably more importantly, the coastguard—the experts who are there doing the job day in, day out—about the future requirements.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to my constituency, where we have Brean, which is a holiday destination, Berrow, and Burnham-on-Sea. Burnham-on-Sea is unique—it has peculiar tides and very swift and difficult changes on the mudflats, where any number of people and vehicles will become stranded over the summer. I have visited the volunteers who make up the local crews for Burnham-on-Sea coastguard and the Burnham area rescue boat. They have such a hard job to do, and they are very alarmed, as are local people, about the closure of Swansea, which would leave us in Somerset looking to Milford Haven, which is 60 miles to the west.

[Mike Penning]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. If she bears with me, I will address those concerns as part of my response to the hon. Member for Gower. More importantly, the concerns were addressed to me only on Tuesday when I was in Swansea, and I will come on to that.

As I was saying, we were determined to come out of the consultation having listened to the concerns of the public, Members of this House and, importantly, the coastguard. When I went around the country, the first station that I went to was Liverpool. Just as on Tuesday, there was a picket. I pay tribute to the picket that happened in Swansea when I was there. As it was described in the press, it was a silent picket. The people were unbelievably generous to me. When I went down to them after I had driven in to explain the process to them, they listened intently and thanked me for coming. That is the response that I have had all around the country.

[Martin Caton]

My feedback from the Minister’s visit has been very positive. People felt that he was really listening to them. He has just said that meaningful consultation is important. I hope that he will really listen to what the people told him in Swansea, to what I and my colleagues have said tonight and to the submissions that we will all make to the consultation.

[Mike Penning]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As I said to the local journalists, I would not have been there if I was not willing to listen. Having done the first consultation in the way that we did, I would not have gone through this part of the consultation, with the Secretary of State’s permission, if I was not willing to listen, because there would have been absolutely no point.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell me whether, in the consultation process, any of the voluntary coastguards along the south Wales coast, the north Devon coast and the north Somerset coast have said that they—those who do the job on the ground—feel that Swansea should be closed and that Milford Haven would be more relevant and appropriate? My Porthcawl coastguards are not saying that.

[Mike Penning]

I will continue to take interventions and am happy to do so all night if colleagues want to intervene, but it will affect how much I can speak and whether I can respond positively to all the comments, which I hope to do. I will answer this intervention. The consultation does not finish until 6 October, so it would be wrong and improper for me to comment on any of the submissions until then. Just as in the first consultation, all the submissions will be published online so that everybody has access to them. That is only right and proper. That is not always the case with consultations that are done around the country, but we said that we would do that and we did it with the initial consultation. The second part is different from the first consultation because it is restricted, which I will come on to, but people will know exactly what the emergency rescue crews are saying and what others are saying.

One of the first things that was said to me in Liverpool was that people had been arguing about this for years and that they knew they had to modernise. The Public and Commercial Services Union, which was involved in the negotiations long before I became the Minister, said that there were issues to do with pay, retention—which I know has been alluded to—and recruitment. One can see why there are problems with recruitment in some areas, considering that the basic starting salary is about £13,500 a year. That makes it hard to recruit good- quality people. As much as we rely on people’s determination to serve their community, they have to pay their mortgages and bills. We said that we would look at that. Right at the end of the meeting in Liverpool, one of the senior coastguards stood up and said to me, “We said years ago that there should be nine stations.”

Most of those who responded to the first consultation did not question me about an individual station. They did not say that I was a nasty, horrible person, that I should not be doing this job or that I was only acting for party political reasons. If people look at the changes around the country, they will see that there are no partisan politics involved at all. If anybody wants to raise that point now, they may do so. There is a smirk on the face of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). If she wants to show me anywhere in the country where I have used party politics, I will give way to her.

[Mrs Moon]

The Minister gives me the opportunity to respond, but I must tell him that there is a certain cynicism in south Wales that a party political decision has been made in relation to the choice between Swansea and Milford Haven.

[Mike Penning]

I thank the hon. Lady for her honesty, but she should take a look at what I did around the country. The Western Isles is a Scottish National party constituency; Holyhead is in, I believe, a Labour constituency; and I have shut Brixham in the west country, which is in a Conservative area. I have taken huge amounts of flack, but people should look around the country before throwing those sorts of accusations at me. I knew the hon. Lady was alluding to those with her smirk, which is why I gave way. I have not taken that approach in any shape or form. If I had done so, why am I looking at Holyhead in the way that I am? The Labour Government were going to close two and leave one in Wales, but I will definitely come out of this procedure with two in Wales, no matter what happens.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

I am not going to give way, because I have exactly five minutes left. I wanted that answer out, because I saw the hon. Lady’s smirk.

[Martin Caton]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

The smirk was not from the hon. Gentleman, and that accusation was not put to me at Swansea at any time when I was there. I was praised at Swansea—they said that all the way through, I had handled the matter in a non-party political way. That is the way I will continue to handle it.

[Martin Caton]

The Minister has spent most of his time speaking of the original consultation exercise. I have put many questions to him this evening, and as he says, he has only five minutes to respond. Can we get on to the latest consultation exercise and the points that I have made in this debate?

[Mike Penning]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. For the avoidance of doubt, there are eight minutes remaining.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

We have eight minutes left, and I have taken many interventions. We would have been a lot further on had I not done so, but that would not have been fair to hon. Members.

The hon. Gentleman has made many points, and I will answer as many of them as I can. Many of them were made in the consultation process. Although I am unable to answer all the points today, when the consultation is over we will respond. All the points that the hon. Gentleman has made tonight will be part of the consultation.

I was trying to build a picture of the coastguard around the country and of the people who actually do the job. I have said to myself, and to Sir Alan Massey, the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and to my chief coastguard as we have gone around the country, that the Government know that 18 is not the figure that should remain and that the figure should be around about eight or nine. That was put to us in submissions from around the country. In Belfast, it was put to me that there should be eight. I asked the Belfast coastguard, which works very closely with the Swansea coastguard co-ordination centre, why it had chosen in its submission to keep Swansea and not Milford Haven. Everybody who was there will know that Belfast said that its submission was based on the cost of closing Swansea compared with the cost of closing Milford Haven.

To answer one of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I came back to London and asked for those costs to be analysed. I felt that if we were going to do this right around the country—hon. Members should remember that we had not come to our full conclusions on which stations should stay open and which should close, and whether or not that would mean having part-time, “day manning” stations, or 24-hour stations—I needed to make sure in my own mind, for when I stand before the House and others, that the MCA’s early cost analysis on the choice of Swansea or Milford Haven was right. When the figures came back, I was told that that analysis was not right. I was told that if we were to come out of Swansea completely, it would be a very close fiscal decision between Swansea and Milford Haven.

We then completed the process, Mr Deputy Speaker—

[Geraint Davies]

You’ve been demoted, Mr Speaker.

[Mike Penning]

Sorry, Mr Speaker. We have known each other for many years, and I am sure you will not take offence. Oh, dear.

We looked at the main concerns, which included 24-hour stations and local knowledge. In the Secretary of State’s statement, we accepted those two points. We felt that leaving the station open as what I, as an ex-fireman, would call a “day manning” station was not right and we had to come up with a formula that would allow us to come down to the numbers that we needed to come down to while having the national resilience that we were looking for and a maritime operations centre or headquarters that could feed out in major incidents. So we made two decisions. The first was to come down to the key 24-hour stations and to have one MOC, not two, which actually will give us enough money to keep stations open 24 hours a day.

The second decision was obvious. It was obvious to me when we were doing the work that, if we were worried about topography, as I call it, being an ex-fireman, and local knowledge, which was the general concern, we ought to look at the pairs—or the twins or whatever we want to call them—which cover for each other regularly. That is how they have been structured. We did not have national resilience, which is why the coastguard co-ordination centres were paired off. They covered for each other. Some were paired off quite arbitrarily. For instance, Belfast was paired with the Clyde. But they did it and it worked. We decided that, if those were the criteria for pairing, we would take one of the pairs away. They are in the consultation now because initially the proposals did not include Swansea. However, having decided to move one of the pairs, logically we had to consult on Swansea and Milford Haven, as well as Liverpool and Holyhead—Liverpool was in the consultation with Belfast and the plan had been to close Holyhead—the 24-hour centre in northern Scotland and the Western Isles and the single MOC. That was the basis of the consultation now.

[Jonathan Edwards]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

No, I am not going to give way because I have time issues.

On Milford or Swansea, I have listened carefully to hon. Members’ points, particularly on local knowledge, the skills, the amount of work that the centres cover and so on. I can tell the hon. Member for Gower that, when I was there on Tuesday, the Swansea centre was closed. The co-ordination centre was closed—Milford was covering Swansea that day.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

No, I am not going to give way. I have given way quite a bit.

[Martin Caton]

Had there been an emergency, Swansea would have taken it on because pairing does not work.

[Mike Penning]

No. From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says that pairing does not work. He is wrong. It was not open. It was covered by Milford Haven—[Interruption.] It was covered by Milford. That is a fact. No one can argue with that. Had there been an emergency, Milford would have covered it, just as the pairs have covered for each other around the country. [Interruption.] He says, “No, no,” from a sedentary position. I understand his concerns. If I was in his position, I would probably be fighting the same way, but this has to be based on evidence, and the evidence is that these two stations co-ordinate more and work closer together than any other two in the country. That is why Swansea switched off on Tuesday, when I was there, and Milford took control.

Hon. Members have talked about the concerns of constituents around the county, but on that day Milford had control. That is a fact. No one can take that away. Whether or not there was a crisis—[Interruption.] Look, I am an ex-firefighter. If a control centre is open, it is open. If there are appliances, there are appliances. The cover on Tuesday was from Milford, as has been the case on many occasions. I will let the hon. Member for Gower know when that has happened previously.

[Martin Caton]

indicated dissent.

[Mike Penning]

I was there. I saw it. Sadly, he did not. The hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) was there. She knows. It is a fact. [Interruption.] It is not rubbish—it is a fact. Sitting there and talking about an emergency service in such a way and just saying “Rubbish” is ludicrous. I know about this. I have visited all these people. Milford covered and does cover on a regular basis. The pairing system works. It is one of the reasons why even the Opposition Front-Bench team have looked at our proposals, which are a million times better than the proposals that they had. Instead of sitting there and saying silly things from a sedentary position, Members should have a proper debate. That is what I have tried to have all the way through. We should try not to be partisan; we should try to be honest about what is available now.

On Tuesday, as on many other occasions, Milford covered while we held the meetings. If Milford goes down, Swansea covers, and vice versa. We are looking at—

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Business Plan)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce the publication today of the business plan 2011-15 for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).

The business plan sets out the services the agency will deliver over the course of this Parliament and the resources they will have available. Alongside the four-year business plan, the agency is also publishing a set of performance indicators for 2011-12 which describes a framework of measures by which the MCA’s performance will be assessed.

Both the business plan and the performance indicators for 2011-12 will be available electronically on the MCA’s website, and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Transport

Mike Penning Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Karl MᶜCartney]

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has for improvements to the A46 (a) within and (b) bordering Lincoln constituency.

[Official Report, 5 July 2011, Vol. 530, c. 1163W.]

Letter of correction from Mike Penning:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) on 5 July 2011.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mike Penning]

Within the Lincoln constituency, the Highways Agency is responsible for the stretch of the A46 between the A1434 Hykeham Roundabout and the A57 Carholme Roundabout. Beyond Carholme Roundabout, the A46 is the responsibility of Lincolnshire county council.

The only improvement currently programmed on this section is adjacent to the A46 at Teal Park. The site between Whisby Roundabout and Hykeham Roundabout is being jointly developed by Lincoln city council and Lincolnshire county council. It will necessitate improvements to the A46 to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic. The development is due for completion in July 2012.

To make precise the extent of the improvements to the road, the answer should have read:

[Mike Penning]

Within the Lincoln constituency, the Highways Agency is responsible for the stretch of the A46 between the A1434 Hykeham Roundabout and the A57 Carholme Roundabout. Beyond Carholme Roundabout, the A46 is the responsibility of Lincolnshire county council.

The only improvement currently programmed on this section is adjacent to the A46 at Teal Park. The site, immediately east of the A46, south of the Whisby road junction, is being jointly developed by Lincoln city council and Lincolnshire county council. It will necessitate improvements to the A46 from a point north of the existing roundabout with Lincoln road and Doddington road, to a point south of the existing junction with Whisby road to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic. The development is due for completion in July 2012.