Drivers and Diabetes

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Riordan, as either a Back Bencher or as a Minister of the Crown. I hope to provide a little good news for the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)—it is easier to say Hemel Hempstead, but I mean no slight on the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and congratulate him on securing this debate. I have been a Minister a little longer than some others who have held the post over the years—the average life expectancy of a Minister in my job is eight months, so a year and a bit is an exception. I have taken a particular interest in the case of Mr Campbell and, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, in the involvement of the European Union in this great country of ours.

I will summarise the details of the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and endeavour to address some of the issues, particularly those relating to Mr Campbell. At the moment, the law is specific, which was not done on my watch—although it is my Department and the buck stops with me. When the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency gave the licence back to Mr Campbell, it messed up. I know that it wrote to him, and I have a copy of the letter, which could have been worded better and showed more empathy and understanding about the effect that the decision on his licence would have on Mr Campbell, his family and the company for which he worked. I apologise for that, and if Mr Campbell were present today, I would apologise to him personally. We need to address problems as we go forward. I cannot right the wrongs of the past, but we can try and ensure that they do not happen again. We must look at how best to address such situations, and avoid the foot-dragging to which the hon. Gentleman—probably quite rightly—has alluded.

The law in question concerns epileptic fits, diabetes and visual impairment. The consultation by the DVLA has been well taken up and a lot of work has been done. However, the situation is complicated, because the law includes those three areas. The areas of visual impairment and of fits are more complicated than that of diabetes, but all three issues have been rolled into one. The hon. Gentleman is right: ideally, we would have produced proposals to address all three areas by now, but, if I am honest, we will be unable to do that by the October deadline. As I have said to my officials, we will produce proposals on diabetes, which will be based on clinical advice. I will be subject to criticism from those involved in the other areas on which we are not yet ready to introduce proposals. My view, however, is that if we are ready to introduce proposals in one of those areas—by October, we should have a proposal on diabetes—we should go ahead and remove the blight that affects not only the hon. Gentleman’s constituent but many other people around the country.

It is imperative that we do that that without affecting road safety and, as the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks, that is the principle from which we start. The UK has a good record on road safety—indeed, we have the safest roads in the world. A new report on the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads last year indicates that we are now doing even better. Over the years, we have struggled in some areas of road safety to get the right results, particularly concerning serious injuries for motorcyclists, but—as a biker, I declare an interest—we did particularly well in that area last year.

Of course, there are too many deaths, and we need to look at the core of the issue, which we are doing in the road safety strategy. It is, however, absolutely imperative that we do not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Medically, the treatment of type 2 diabetes has moved on in leaps and bounds to say the least. I was a shadow Health Minister for three and a half years and I took a particular interest in the public health side of things. Soon, we will be moving away from injections altogether, because there will be aspirators, and we can make it much easier for diabetic patients to get on with their lives and address their insulin issues.

The issue of hypos is important, as are other matters such as visual impairment. My point of view as a non-medically trained Minister is that a clinician must decide whether someone in the groups that we are talking about—particularly group 2—is fit to drive. Hopefully we will bring forward proposals on diabetes in October. We are further behind in the other two areas and, as the hon. Gentleman said in his remarks, we need more consultation on those issues, in particular on the control of epileptic fits.

There is some concern from the road safety lobby that we will be reliant on people addressing their need for insulin treatment themselves. Two members of my family are reliant on insulin—one is a type 1 diabetic; the other is a type 2 diabetic. They sometimes get it wrong, and everybody understands that. We must have full confidence that if diabetes is controlled by insulin, the condition is stable and the clinicians are happy with the situation. If that is the case, we should be able to agree in October that after medical assessment and agreement—which will be continually assessed as things progress—we will allow insulin-reliant diabetics in the classes mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and particularly those in group 2, to drive. I said that there is some good news.

That will not, however, address the problems experienced by Mr Campbell. Under the present rules, the DVLA was right to take his licence away and fundamentally wrong to give it back and not to pick up the mistake sooner. Everybody makes mistakes, but it is crucial to ensure that such things happen as little as possible, because they have such dramatic effects on people’s lives.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether statistics are available to show whether diabetics who are reliant on insulin are more likely to be involved in an accident. As I understand it, we do not have such statistics and when the European Commission looked into the matter, it used the fact that there was no evidence available to change its mind. As hon. Members will realise, I am ever so slightly Eurosceptic, so it is great news that UK plc is again allowed to be in control of procedures and safety on our roads. Our borders are open to anybody from the European economic area or the EU who wishes to drive in this country, which is right and proper.

I fully accept that other countries have moved faster than us, but they do not have roads that are as safe as ours. Many of their Ministers and officials come to see me to see how we manage to have such safe roads. If they were slightly more vigilant in how they enforce road safety, the position might be different. In the area that we are debating today, they may have got things right a little more quickly than us. I fully accept that there is an anomaly between on the one hand drivers with grandfather rights and overseas drivers and on the other hand UK citizens who are being penalised. I think that we will be able to wipe that away very soon—in October, I hope.

[John Thurso]

I am extremely grateful for the reply that the Minister is making, in terms of both the tone—I am sure that my constituent will have noted his remarks and be grateful for them—and the good news in respect of diabetes. The Minister has mentioned October. Will that be when the Government promulgate the change to the regulations? Am I therefore accurate in saying to my constituent that he might look forward to being able to take the medical exam in October, permitting him to go back to work shortly thereafter?

[Mike Penning]

I think that Mr Campbell should be at the front of the queue in October—I think that that is the least we can do for him. I hope that he sees that the Minister understands what went wrong and is trying to address the matter as soon as possible. Yes, we will move the relevant orders in October, when the House returns from recess. The process will start in October in relation to the particular area of diabetes, and more work is required in the other areas. I hope that people understand that I need more time on the other two medical conditions.

[Mr Sanders]

I want the Minister to be under no misunderstanding about this. It is critical that whatever change is brought in enables people with diabetes to be confident about declaring to the licensing authority that they have the condition, because we do not know how many people there are with the condition who, fearing the loss of their licence, do not declare it.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point, which is one of the reasons why I have moved as quickly as I can on this issue. I want members of the public, after they have been diagnosed with diabetes and start treatment, to be confident about coming forward and saying that they have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes—or whatever the condition is—and about being assessed fairly, so that either they can carry on driving in whatever categories they are designated as being able to drive in or they understand why, at that moment, their licence needs to be revoked and withheld from them. That will happen in some cases.

I can refer to my own experience with my father-in-law; I am sure that he will not mind my doing this. He was a complete scallywag about admitting that he was a type 2 diabetic in the first place, despite what all the doctors were telling him. He said that he could address the situation through his food intake or with tablets. Eventually, we convinced him that he had to go to insulin injections. In fact, it was not me; it was his daughters who eventually convinced him. They said, “You’re going to kill yourself if you’re not careful.” At the time, his medication had not been got right to the point where he could be allowed to drive. His diabetes was not controlled, so he had regular hypos.

People need to be able to have confidence that once their condition is addressed—if it can be—the independent medical practitioner assessing them will either allow them to drive or indicate to them what levels they need to be at to get their licence back. At the moment, there is a grey area. People think, “What do I need to do? Where do I need to be? Will I ever get my licence back?” The issue of fairness is fundamental. I think that that is what the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, who secured the debate, was saying. I will use an old-fashioned term—natural justice. I use it as much as I can as a Minister. There is an ex-Minister in the Chamber now for the next debate. I hope that all Ministers, when they look at the effect that they are having on a constituent anywhere in the country, look at whether justice is being seen to be done.

Licences are often taken away for the right reasons. I understand why they are taken away, but I do not think that we explain particularly well either the rationale for that or the likelihood of the situation changing. As I have said, the Government will produce new proposals in October. We want there to be an open, clean discussion in which things are explained. We want people to be told, “This is where we need you to be to get your licence back. You can’t have your licence back at the moment because you haven’t reached that point.” However, there is a link between visual impairment and diabetes, so in some circumstances people would be unlikely to get their licence back. My father-in-law is now registered blind, because of his diabetes. It was not treated early enough; he admits that that was his fault and nobody else’s. As a result, he will never get his licence back. We need to be honest with people, which is where natural justice and fairness come in.

I hope that I have been open and honest. We are proceeding as fast as we can. The representative groups for the other two medical conditions will criticise us for not moving as fast on those conditions as I have just announced that we are on diabetes. That is simply because I do not yet have the evidence base behind me to be confident enough from a road safety point of view—I am thinking of the driver as well as their loved ones and other road users—to move forward. As soon as I can move on the other categories as part of the review and the consultation, I will do so, but I hope that in October Mr Campbell will have some control over his future income and his life.

City of Liverpool Cruise Terminal

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Written Statements

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

The Department for Transport is today launching a consultation on the proposal to remove its objection to lifting a grant condition which precludes the use of the City of Liverpool Cruise Terminal for “turnaround” operations—that is, the beginning and/or end of a cruise voyage.

This condition, which limits use of the terminal to port of call visits only, was originally imposed on the grant for the terminal, which opened in 2007, by the Northwest Development Agency because of concerns expressed by the Department about potentially unfair competition with other cruise terminals which have not received such public subsidy.

The Peel Ports terminal at Langton Dock in Liverpool may currently be used for turnaround operations, but it is argued that it is an unattractive prospect—both aesthetically and operationally—and has already lost traffic as a result.

Liverpool city council is proposing to make a partial repayment of the grant, staged over 15 years, amounting to approximately £5.3 million, in return for lifting the turnaround prohibition. This amount is abated from the original grant funding to take account of the time that the terminal will have operated with the restriction, and the fact that port of call visits will continue to deliver the benefits for which the grant was originally made.

It will be for Liverpool city council to satisfy the European Commission, if necessary, that having regard to the continuing regional benefits from overall operations at the terminal, no parallel repayment of European funding is required.

I consider that the repayment proposal by Liverpool city council can be justified taking into account the prospective regeneration and other benefits to the Merseyside area and, on this basis, I am consulting on the possibility of removing the objection. I am inviting comments by 15 September and will then consider responses carefully before arriving at a final decision.

Dartford-Thurrock River Crossing (Charges)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Written Statements

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

I am publishing today, a consultation paper on proposals to change the charging regime at the Dartford-Thurrock river crossing. The proposals concern new possible charging rates according to type of vehicle using the crossing.

The Dartford-Thurrock river crossing is a key part of the strategic road network. It consists of two two-lane tunnels carrying traffic to the north, and a four-lane cable stayed bridge (the Queen Elizabeth II bridge) carrying traffic to the south. The crossing spans the River Thames between Dartford and Thurrock, forming a trunk road link (the A282 trunk road) in the M25 orbital motorway.

A road user charge has been collected at the crossing since 2003, using the powers in the Transport Act 2000, in order to manage the high demand for use of the crossing. The Department for Transport (DfT) revised the charging regime in 2008 following public consultation. Details of the current charging regime are set out in the A282 Trunk Road (Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Charging Scheme) Order 2008 (Statutory Instrument No. 1951).

In recognition of the strategic importance of the crossing the Government are committed to tackling the current and forecast performance issues affecting the crossing. As part of the spending review, the Department announced that, subject to consultation, prices would increase from £1.50 to £2.00 in 2011 for cars, rising to £2.50 in 2012 and that prices for other vehicles would also increase. The proposal to increase the charges at the crossing is both a measure to manage demand and to help to fund transport investment. For this reason I am today launching a consultation on proposals to change the charges.

The consultation makes reference to, but does not include detailed proposals for, other short, medium and long-term measures to be taken forward in this spending review period in relation to the crossing. In the short term we are announcing an initial six-month trial of a protocol for suspension of the charges during periods when the severity of congestion is such as to constitute an emergency, and charge suspension would help to ease that congestion.

In the medium term our objectives are, the introduction of a free-flow charging scheme and a review of options for additional crossing capacity.

I am pleased to announce that the consultation will run until 23 September 2011. Everybody with an interest is invited to take part. A consultation document and instructions for responding can be found on my Department’s website. An electronic copy has been lodged with the House Library. A public notice marking the publication of these proposals will be posted in the London Gazette and the Dartford Messenger on 30 June and in the Thurrock Gazette on the 1 July and copies of all the documents will be made available for public inspection at the offices of Dartford borough council and Thurrock council.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

2. What recent representations he has received on varying national motorway speed limits.

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

My ministerial colleagues and I have received a variety of representations, including via the red tape challenge to the highways regulations, on the subject of varying the motorway speed limit. The issue raises interesting aspects of our current behaviour, and we will continue to look at it.

[Stephen Mosley]

The maximum motorway speed limit in several European countries, including France, Italy and Germany, is currently greater than 80 mph. In order to help deliver the economic benefit of reduced journey time, will my hon. Friend consider increasing the motorway speed limit to 80 mph?

[Mike Penning]

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

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

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

[Mike Penning]

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

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

May I press the Minister a little further? What analysis has he done of the extra fuel usage and CO₂ emissions that would result from increasing the speed limit from 70 to 80?

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman should also have listened to what I said. I did not say that we had conducted the consultation; I said we would balance various aspects during the consultation, and I am sure he would like to take part in that consultation and in our discussion about what is the right balance.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to improve the flow of traffic in urban areas.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Karl Turner]

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

[Mike Penning]

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

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

The Humber local economic partnership recently submitted a bid for an enterprise zone based around both sides of the Humber—the green port in Hull and the Able UK site on the south Humber gateway. The A63 will be key to linking that. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about the enterprise zone? Will he work in a joined-up way across Government to progress the A63 development?

[Mike Penning]

We work across Government on all such projects. We accept that enterprise zones will bring in more investment and growth, which is what we need to get out of the financial mess that we are in. I am sure that we will meet other Ministers and work forwards, but we have to go through the statutory process first.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

17. Whether he plans to bring forward proposals to prevent unplanned industrial action on London Underground.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

This morning the Transport Committee asked the Government to withdraw their modernisation proposals for the coastguard and consult on revised plans. Its report is very clear:

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

Despite failing to do so before now, will the Secretary of State finally listen to coastguards up and down the country and abandon his dangerous and reckless plan to close more than half of Britain’s coastguard stations?

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

We welcome the Committee’s report. If the hon. Lady looks at it carefully, she will see that it actually says that the status quo is not acceptable and that coastguard stations need to close. The process we inherited from the previous Administration had been sitting on their desks for years. We said right at the start of the process that we would listen and come up with proposals after consulting. It is a shame that they did not do the same.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

T4. Will the Minister meet me to discuss performance issues on the Medway valley line, which runs through my constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

T8. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to mitigate the effects of foreign hauliers who use their advantage of being able to buy fuel more cheaply on the continent to undercut British companies?

[Mike Penning]

We have a commitment to bringing in lorry road user charging to level the playing field. It is important, however, that we do not penalise our own truckers with whatever scheme we bring in. We are in ongoing negotiations with the Treasury and we are committed to introducing a scheme in this Parliament.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will no doubt have seen the reports in yesterday’s newspapers about Willie Walsh of British Airways having suggested that as a consequence of the fact that a third runway will not be built in the south-east at Heathrow, he will increase BA’s business in Madrid. Is that not rather ironic?

Maritime Training Scheme

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Written Statements

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

The Government’s principal objective in supporting merchant navy training is to facilitate an adequate supply of UK maritime expertise to meet the nation’s economic and strategic requirements, by assisting organisations providing merchant navy training. In this difficult economic period, the Government have decided that it is right to review the continuing requirement for Government support for training and skills development in this sector and how best to spend any continuing Government funding.

In my written ministerial statement of 8 December 2010, Official Report, columns 24-26WS, I announced my intention to commission a review and I can confirm that today I have launched an invitation to tender. The successful bidder will present its findings to an independent panel, which will report to me by the end of the year and make practical recommendations on how the economic requirement for trained seafarers in the UK can be best met, having regard to current financial constraints.

The terms of reference for the review are as follows:

To review the UK requirement for trained seafarers at sea over the next decade;

To review the UK requirement for trained seafarers ashore over the next decade;

To examine the extent to which the above requirements have to be met by UK seafarers;

To review the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing funding arrangements and the future need for Government intervention to ensure the supply of trained seafarers;

To identify options for supporting the training of seafarers and make recommendations which address the issue of value for money and are reflective of future UK requirements for trained seafarers;

To examine whether previous training targets are reflective of future needs.

Roadside Facilities (England)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Written Statements

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

This statement is to inform the House that following closure of the roadside facilities policy consultation on 2 July last year, I have reviewed the responses and I am introducing a change to the policy to permit the development of truckstops on the motorway network.

The consultation identified strong support from the haulage industry for the development of truckstops. Proposals for dedicated truckstop facilities will now be considered in the context of existing and/or proposed rest facilities on the strategic road network, and will be determined on their individual merit. This will include truckstop facilities that can be accessed direct from motorways—motorway truckstops—which are a type of facility not permitted until now. Where there is evidence to demonstrate that demand for lorry parking exceeds supply, the development of truckstop facilities at existing service areas would be viewed favourably. Proposals for motorway truckstops are unlikely to be supported if they would prevent a potential motorway service area (MSA) being built.

Detailed advice on the mandatory and permitted features of all categories of truckstop is set out in the table that is attached at appendix 1 to the written copy of my statement.

These changes supplement DfT Circular 01/2008 (April 2008). Aspects of policy not touched on in this statement will continue to apply.

I am currently considering ways to reduce regulation, increase competition and improve still further the quality of motorway service areas. To this end, I have instructed officials in my Department to identify those elements of the policy that might instead be better determined at a local level through the current planning system.

I have also instructed my officials to work with the Department for Communities and Local Government to consider how best to take these issues forward in the context of the national planning policy framework. Separately, we will produce an associated DfT technical note, setting out requirements in respect of road safety and operational issues.

This approach accords with the Government’s twin aims of decentralisation and localism, reducing the burden of bureaucracy and strengthening local accountability. It will encourage competition and, through this, improve service for users.

Appendix 1

Truckstops serving the strategic road network—features and levels of provision.

Rail Services (Hastings)

Mike Penning Excerpts

Friday 17th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to respond to the Adjournment debate this afternoon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) on securing it, although sadly she has probably drawn the short straw, because I am the duty Minister—I have responsibility for shipping and roads. She does not have the mechanic with the oily rag responding to this debate. I apologise to her for that, but that is what happens on a Friday. She has been lucky in the ballot, but perhaps unlucky in many other ways. I am sure that the Minister of State would be more than happy to meet the action group and the hon. Members responsible for that part of Kent as we move forward.

My brief says how wonderful it is to live in Sussex and that part of Kent. As someone who fished on the beaches of Hastings on many occasions as a young man, I can honestly say that it is a beautiful place to visit as well. Indeed, the tourism industry is very important to that part of the world. However, we are not talking about living there; we are talking about ensuring that the economy grows, and I am very well aware of the social deprivation that still hinders growth in that part of the country.

My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that the history of the line goes back a long way. The lack of investment probably started right at the outset, because the Hastings line was built in a hurry in the 1850s, and it was not built particularly well, even when connections were made with it. It was not part of a network and it meandered from village to village. It was almost a forgotten line, even when it was being built. It was the Brighton line that attracted a lot of investment. The Department is well aware of the problems that still exist on the line from Tunbridge Wells to Hastings.

My hon. Friend should not underestimate the power of the argument that she makes on behalf of her constituents. It has been heard loud and clear in the Department, and I suggest that it would not hurt if the campaign were to up the ante. The case is obvious: there are real logistical problems and they affect growth. There are also real problems with investment, and my hon. Friend mentioned the difficult financial situation that we found ourselves in when we formed the coalition a year ago.

I know that local residents and MPs would like not to have to involve Thameslink in these discussions, but I am afraid that we have to, simply because Thameslink represents a major piece of investment to which the Government are committed. It will have an effect on the income of whoever is running the franchise in that part of the world and, as the Secretary of State said in his statement, it would be difficult to go ahead with a long franchise without knowing what is going to happen to Thameslink and Crossrail. It would be foolish to do so. We have seen too many franchises issued over the years without a proper cost analysis and without any evidence base. We are conscious of the need for a sustainable, longer franchise. My hon. Friend referred to the integrated Kent franchise, which is commonly known as the IKF. Until I started to read this brief last night, I had no idea what the IKF was, but I certainly have now. We will be looking initially at a shorter contract, until the business case has been formatted. We shall issue a much longer one once the financial situation has been addressed, and once Thameslink is up and running.

Many hon. Members come to the House and simply ask for more money. It was excellent that my hon. Friend appreciated the financial problems and asked where other money could come from. I have had more than one conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on the subject of road funding, which is in my portfolio, and he will know that match funding is very much the way forward. I will take back to the Minister of State the ideas about match funding, and I am sure that that can be discussed in the meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye will be seeking with the Minister. I do not personally understand the consequences of such arrangements in rail terms, but I know that match funding represents an exciting way forward for roads.

The McNulty report looked carefully at why our railways were so much more expensive than those elsewhere in Europe. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the fact that they are 40% more expensive. We must ensure that, in providing a 21st-century service, we take out some of the costs that are squeezing prices up and making life difficult for commuters. I also know that timetables are a real issue, and we will look into that matter in relation not only to the shorter franchise but further ahead as well. Understandable concerns have been expressed about Cannon Street; my briefing refers to an historic battle. According to what I read, there should not be a carte blanche “no” to Cannon Street. That matter needs further discussion, and local commuters and MPs should be involved in that.

Network Rail is committed to making improvements, and my hon. Friend mentioned some of the smaller ones that are being made. They illustrate the investment that is taking place. They will shave off a limited amount of journey time, except of course when we experience really difficult weather conditions such as those that we saw over the Christmas period. I fully take on board what she and others have said about the communication between the rail operator, the commuters and the local community not being up to scratch at that time. The report commissioned by the Secretary of State came to that conclusion as well.

There is no way that the Department—the Secretary of State, the Minister of State or me—is going to hush anything up. My hon. Friend is doing exactly what I would do—and have done in the past on behalf of my own constituents who are on the east coast main line. Sorry, I mean the west coast main line: if we were on the east coast main line, we would be some way away from my constituency! It is right and proper to raise the issues and the concerns of constituents rather than debate only the technicalities of the case. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to do that.

It is going to be difficult for me to address EU funding in this debate. If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will arrange for the Minister of State to write to her. EU funding always seems something of an anomaly to me. I see how much money we contribute and I understand that when it comes back, it tends to go into areas of social deprivation and need. It is often perceived that the south-east does not fall into that category, yet we all know that there are deprived areas in the region. There are some in my own constituency and many more in my hon. Friend’s.

In this Adjournment debate, it is right not just to talk about how much we would like to spend and how easily it could be spent, as we do not have that sort of money available. There are obvious constraints around Charing Cross, Cannon Street and London Bridge, which has had extensive works going on, and also physical constraints—the line coming in and out of London, particularly around Guy’s hospital; the major roads around the Strand; and, not least, the great river that flows past this great Palace—which considerably affect where and how we can bring trains and lines into London.

There is an obvious alternative to an expansion of those stations—particularly the investment from Transport for London and the Mayor for the underground. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about Thameslink and its effect in curtailing what and how quickly things could be done. I think she will have to accept that Thameslink is a major piece of infrastructure, for which London has waited for some considerable time—it has been talked about since I was a lad, growing up in this great city. The Government’s decision to go ahead was courageous. We know it will have some knock-on effects, but it is not a complete block on investment elsewhere. What it must do, probably for the first time, is lock in better services coming into London from the south.

As we go forward, it is imperative that everybody is consulted. The Government do not want consultations for the sake of having consultations, as we want the public to feel engaged with them. I am going into detailed consultations at the moment on the future of the coastguard. At some stage, I suspect I might be accused of doing a U-turn, but we said at the start that if we believe in public consultations and public involvement, we cannot be completely arrogant and come out at the other end with identical processes to what went in at the start. When it comes to the consultation on future franchises and services, it is imperative that the public—that means everybody involved, from action groups to local MPs and local authorities, and, indeed, commuters—feel that they have engaged fully with it.

My hon. Friend referred to the Cinderella line. When I first read my brief, I must admit that I at first thought, “What is this Cinderella line?” Many people have strong feelings about this and will receive no consolation from me saying that it is not a Cinderella line, but a line that has an in-built historical problem stemming from the 1850s. There are limited claims that we could put in the limited funds available. Whatever schemes go forward, the early franchise agreements—I know this was a disappointment to my hon. Friend—have to be slightly shorter than we would have liked so that they can be locked in with other contracts, particularly with Thameslink.

It was important to raise this issue. I am sorry it is happening late on a Friday afternoon when everybody has disappeared. I apologise to my hon. Friend that the Minister of State is not here. Any of my hon. Friend’s points that I have not covered will be responded to in writing, and, as I have said, I am sure that the Minister of State will be more than happy to see her and any other Members representing her part of the world, along with their delegations. I commend her for standing up for her constituents as she has this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Coastguard Service

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Dr McCrea. This is the latest in a long series of debates on the coastguard service and I look forward to debating it again with the Minister.

With the coastguard station, police officers, community support officers and the second fire engine under threat in Crosby, it struck me as odd that the Government had not carried out a risk assessment of the impact of such cuts on public safety. I want to look at the co-ordination between the emergency services and see how police, fire and ambulance services will carry out their duties without coastguard staff, who have immense local knowledge and years of experience. There will also be an impact on the RAF mountain rescue service, the British Transport police and the many volunteers who carry out vital rescue services up and down the country. I plan to look at the ability of other emergency services to support the remaining coastguards to carry out their duties following the cuts to their budgets.

In the spirit of “Have I Got News For You”, I have brought along two guest publications. The Royal Yachting Association’s members’ magazine stated:

“It is clear that changes to the current system are needed to improve the safety of boaters.”

Will the Minister tell us how organisations such as the RYA were involved in drawing up the original plans?

The second guest publication, Firefighter, is probably well known to the Minister because he has a distinguished record in the fire service.

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

I would not go as far as that.

[Bill Esterson]

Well, he has served in the fire service.

Firefighter states:

“Voluntarism, good neighbourliness and a desire to perform ‘public service’ have a limited place in the fire and rescue service on safety grounds.”

I raise that comment because cuts in budgets and staffing have led to the expectation that some of the work of the emergency services will have to be delivered by volunteers. The question is whether that is a safe or acceptable risk for the public. It would be helpful to see how the emergency services and public safety will be affected by the planned cuts. Coastguard staff at Crosby work closely with the police, fire, ambulance and search and rescue services.

I have a number of questions for the Minister, some of which he will be able to answer and some of which he may have to refer to his colleagues in other Departments. The proposed changes to the UK-wide service will have a huge knock-on effect and this debate aims to tease out some of the wider issues, many of which have been briefly addressed in our previous debates.

There is a disagreement between the Minister and many coastguard staff and stakeholders about whether an adequate risk assessment was carried out as part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency plans. It would be interesting to hear what assessment was carried out of the impact on other emergency services and on their ability to continue to support the coastguard. I include in that assessment the impact of funding cuts on voluntary organisations, including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution—an organisation’s ability to raise funds may suffer as a result of the economic climate—and local volunteer services such as the Southport rescue service.

I attended a consultation meeting at which more than 200 people were present, including representatives from the Southport rescue service. Concerns were raised by the shipping industry, the oil and gas sector, search and rescue volunteers and pleasure craft users. Will the Minister tell us how far those sectors were involved in the drawing up of the original plans? It is said that staff were not asked for their views, and that has been repeated right the way through this process and by many hon. Members here today. Could the Minister confirm whether the plans were drawn up by former front-line staff with no recent operational experience? Will he tell us whether the police, fire service, ambulance service and volunteer search and rescue teams were asked for their views before the plans were drawn up?

The lack of front-line involvement in drawing up the proposals is a key flaw and a matter of grave concern for hon. Members here today and the staff and public who rely on the coastguard and other emergency services. It is at the heart of the difficulty that the Government face during this process.

The way in which Ministers pushed ahead with the proposals is similar to the way in which so many other policies are pushed through by the Government—too fast and too soon. They failed to engage with stakeholders and staff and they failed to involve the other emergency services when they drew up the plans. That led to many of the flaws that have been so graphically illustrated during the consultation. It would have been far better to get the proposals right in the first place and not to have the plans systematically dismantled by staff, volunteers, maritime experts, commercial and leisure users and the general public.

Like many other places in the country, the Merseyside fire and rescue service is set to lose its marine service as a result of Government cuts. I would be interested to hear what discussions have taken place between the MCA and the fire service about the work done jointly between coastguards and river and coastal fire and rescue boats, and what the impact of the cuts will be. Has the Minister spoken to his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government about the cuts in the fire service and has he raised concerns about the impact of the cuts on Merseyside and elsewhere in the country?

Did the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government ask the Minister or the Secretary of State for Transport whether the cuts in the fire service would have any effect on the coastguards and what the impact would be on public safety? These questions would have been addressed if the fire service had been asked to help draw up the plans for the coastguard.

Co-ordination between rescue services would have helped to deliver changes without compromising safety. This story appeared in the Liverpool Echo on 5 March:

“Four people had to be rescued from a pilot boat that caught fire on the River Mersey today. The alarm was raised at around 3.10 am that the crew of the Dunlin were drifting in the river after the fire knocked out the engine. The New Brighton RNLI boat was launched to save the people onboard, who were transferred to another pilot boat, the Petrel. Firefighters tackled the blaze on the water before the stricken Dunlin was towed back to the landing stage at the Pierhead. The fire crews finished dampening the smouldering boat down at around 6 am. No-one on the Dunlin was hurt.”

There is praise there for the RNLI and the fire service, but after the cuts, will the RNLI have the contacts to respond? Will the coastguard be able to direct the RNLI or another rescue team to the scene in time?

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. His example ties in with the concerns that I was expressing about the co-ordination of rescue services and about getting them to the scene in a timely fashion.

That point was illustrated by the example I gave concerning the Dunlin which suggested that a combination of organisations work together to effect speedy rescue services; that all of them are affected by Government plans; and that all of them have raised questions for a variety of Government Ministers. I hope that we will start to get some answers from the Minister today.

The suspicion remains that the reorganisation has been rushed and that the cuts to police, fire, ambulance and voluntary agencies that provide an emergency response have also been rushed. The cuts to all the emergency services are possibly the worst example of cuts that are happening too fast and too soon, as they will undermine the ability of the emergency services to protect the public.

The issue of local knowledge applies to all emergency services. When discussing co-ordination of emergency services, it becomes a critical issue. The loss of Crosby coastguard station would mean that the police and fire services, working with search and rescue volunteers, would be ever more crucial in identifying where incidents take place. The cuts to police, fire and voluntary organisations mean that those organisations will not be in a position to provide a replacement service for the coastguard service. That brings me to another question that I want to put to the Minister—how will that replacement service be provided? I would like an answer to that question.

The Government must now come clean on the estimates that they have made about the increased time that it will take to reach maritime incidents as a result of these closures. If the coastguard at Crosby goes, if the local fire service loses its river service and if the funding for the RNLI and other voluntary rescue services is under pressure, what will happen in incidents such as that involving the Dunlin? How will co-ordination of services happen in future? What assessment was carried out before the proposals were published? Was the RNLI asked to help draw up the plans? Did the Minister ask his ministerial colleagues about the impact of cuts to organisations such as the RNLI and whether the funding of such organisations would be affected by the slow-down in economic growth that has resulted from the Chancellor cutting public spending?

[Mike Penning]

Evidence was given to the Transport Committee the other day by the RNLI, but what evidence is there of any cuts in the RNLI services anywhere in the UK and southern Ireland? If there is no evidence, the hon. Gentleman is scaremongering and frightening communities around the country. There is no evidence at all.

[Bill Esterson]

I am glad that the Minister has asked me that question, because it highlights the fact that that was the sort of issue that was not considered when the plans were drawn up. The reason that I raise the issue is—

[Mike Penning]

indicated dissent.

[Bill Esterson]

The Minister can shake his head, scowl and express his dissatisfaction all he wants. However, the reality is that in a downturn—in tough economic times—charitable giving falls. He must know that; I think that everyone in Westminster Hall today must know that. I am interested to know what assessment was made of the impact of the downturn, not only on the RNLI but on all the voluntary organisations that provide emergency services. That is the key question and I had hoped that I had asked it clearly before.

[Mike Penning]

The specific point that the hon. Gentleman is making is that there are likely to be cuts in the service of the RNLI. The RNLI gave evidence to the Transport Committee only the other day and I myself have met local and national representatives of the RNLI on numerous occasions, and there is absolutely no evidence that such cuts will happen. To suggest that they are likely is scaremongering. As I say, I have met the relevant bodies and the Select Committee has taken evidence on this subject, so the hon. Gentleman must not scare the public by saying that there will be cuts to RNLI services.

[Bill Esterson]

I do not need lectures from the Minister about what I must and must not do. He should really think through what he is saying before he makes that sort of comment, because I am asking questions about the kind of assessment and analysis that was carried out about the impact of these plans, and about the process that was gone through when the original proposals were drawn up. This issue is of grave concern to many staff, many members of the public and many people who rely on the coastguard. It is about what analysis was done on a range of issues related to the ability of all the emergency services to protect the public. I am asking about that.

I say again that in a downturn—in tough economic times—charitable giving falls. We have already seen evidence of that. I do not know what the situation is with the RNLI. That is why I am asking the Minister about the RNLI. It is a very important question and I would be very worried if the Minister did not consider it so.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure, Dr McCrea, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing the debate, although most hon. Members linked it to matters wider than the link between the emergency services and the coastguard service. I pay tribute to their ingenuity in doing so, and I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for bringing her knowledge to the debate. I know how difficult that must have been, and she did so courageously. We may not agree on everything, but I promise that we will remain friends.

The Government set out the consultation process, we extended it, and we are reopening it so that the report of the Select Committee on Transport can be included in our thoughts. We will almost certainly have another consultation process because, as I have said since day one, as has the Secretary of State, what comes out of the process will not be the same as what we went in with, because we are listening. We have said that from day one, and I have said that as I have gone around the country. How that can be deemed a U-turn is strange. We did not say at the start that we would not come out with something different. Perhaps Her Majesty’s Opposition would prefer me to ignore everything that is said in the debates, be rigid, ignore public opinion, and have sham consultation, which is what happened under the previous Administration.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I am conscious that colleagues have, rightly, used most of the time available, and I am also conscious that I may repeat what has been said again and perhaps again and again, but I will not give way because I have about nine minutes left, and I want to cover the issues, especially those that are slightly different from those that arose around the country.

I praise the hon. Member for Sefton Central, because the debate is important, and its title has helped me. I was not aware that there were problems regarding the roles of the Merseyside fire and rescue service and Her Majesty’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency on the Mersey estuary, especially involving mud rescues. That was interesting, but I understand now, and with some impetus from the debate and perhaps a bit of size 10 from me they will be resolved. Clearly, there is duplication in who co-ordinates the service.

May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall that although I represent a landlocked constituency, I was a member of the fire and rescue service in Essex, and was based at a coastal station for many years? About the third major incident that I went to was a freighter fire. As the shadow Minister, my friend the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—he is my friend—knows, that is one of the most frightening experiences.

We heard that there is often a difference of opinion between the crew of a ship and the firemen about how best to put out a fire. That is not surprising, because firemen have a habit of chucking a huge amount of water at fires—that is what we are trained to do—and if you do that to a fire on a ship, it tends to sink. Such instances have happened around the world. There is a debate about what should be done about fires at sea. It is right that that debate is taking place, and it is happening around the world. The truth of the matter is that it is enormously dangerous to put fire crews on to ships at sea to fight fires, and we must make a decision between lives, cargo, pollution and other issues.

I met Roy Wilsher, the country’s lead fire officer and Chief Fire Officer of Hertfordshire the other day and we discussed where we are with the agreements in place, and where we should be.

[Albert Owen]

As an ex-merchant seaman, but a humble rating, I understand the dangers, as does the Minister from his perspective. My point referred to a master mariner—they must decide whether to abandon ship, or to protect cargo or the environment—who raised directly with me the importance of coastguard stations’ local knowledge. That is why I raised the matter in this debate.

[Mike Penning]

Such concerns were properly raised in the debate, and the shadow Minister raised the issue of fighting fires at sea, which was also important.

Another issue was the future of emergency towing vessels, and negotiations are continuing. We intend to terminate the contract, which costs £10 million a year, in September, and I am fixed in that position, because if I move one iota, the commercial sector and everyone else will say that I have gone soft, but they do not have to cough up the money. The key is where the risk is.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I apologise, but I cannot give way. I am sure that there will be another debate on the subject fairly soon. During the remaining five minutes I will not be able to answer all the points that have been raised, but I will write to every hon. Member about any specific points that they raised, and particularly those issues that do not come within my portfolio.

We have a legal responsibility to co-ordinate the work with other emergency services, and I know that that happened when I was a humble fireman. My previous history was praised, and I was proud to be a fireman but, as when I was in the Army, I did not rise far through the ranks.

Interestingly, although during these debates colleagues have not been saying, “Save my station and close someone else’s,” that is not quite what we have heard from the coastguards themselves in the larger and more detailed submissions that we have received. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) referred to my visit to Bangor. It was a wonderful visit, and it was like groundhog day, because I had not been in the Province since I had served in another way. She rightly said that the proposals on the service’s future nationally, not just on individual stations, were detailed and indicated clearly that no change is not an option, as the coastguards are saying, and that nine or 10 stations is the optimum number. The shadow Minister said that some stations should not close, and it would have been interesting if he had said which ones should close, because that would have been informative, especially as most if not all the proposals were on the table when he was a Minister.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does the Minister accept that the response from the coastguards about closing one station or another is because he has moved the starting line? I know from my coastguard and others that if he started with a blank sheet of paper, he would not get the same answer. Does he accept that?

[Mike Penning]

I would like to accept that—I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from—but I cannot, because the proposals were on the table before I was the Minister and even before the shadow Minister was the Minister. There has been discussion about the matter and people have buried their heads in the sand for years and years. My hon. Friend asked whether, if we had a blank sheet of paper, the format of coastguard stations around our coastline would be as they are now. No, they would not. We must all accept that.

My hon. Friend asked me to retract what I said about only Falmouth carrying out international rescue. Falmouth is twinned with Brixham, and I fully accept that it picks up when Falmouth goes down, and that regular exercises take place—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend said from a sedentary position that it takes responsibility. Yes, it does, but it also regularly carries out exercises. Falmouth made it clear to me that it is the centre for international rescue. It gave evidence in its submission on the future of the coastguard.

I honestly believe that this is the way that consultation should take place. Political parties may play different games, but we will come out with a national emergency service with the resilience, pay and training infrastructure that it needs and deserves. I hope that everyone understands that the Government and the MCA are acting for the right reasons, and not just to make cuts. The issue was on the table years before cuts were thought about. What we need is a 21st-century service.

Greenock Coastguard Station

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark). It is one of many debates on the subject in which we have engaged in the last few months, and that is right and proper, because the Government are making a very important decision.

May I take the first opportunity that I have had to pay tribute to David Cairns, whose Inverness constituency contains the Clyde maritime co-ordination centre? He was very active in the campaign as it is now, but long before these proposals were made he had engaged considerably with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and had visited the station on many occasions, particularly when the Ministry of Defence indicated that it was likely to withdraw the lease and that, in this respect, we would be homeless in that part of the world. His attitude to his constituents was exemplary, as was the way in which he conducted himself during our debates. He will be sorely missed by the House, and whoever replaces him—I understand that the writ for the by-election was moved today—will have a very large pair of shoes to fill.

Although I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate—and I also congratulate the hon. Members who are present for sticking around when they could have disappeared this afternoon—I should point out that the consultation process has ended, even though we extended it considerably, and all representations from all parts of the coastguard community as well as from the public and colleagues in this House will be carefully considered.

All the information will be looked at, as will all the concerns. Let us take the costings, for instance. It is difficult for a coastguard representative or member of the Public and Commercial Services Union to work out the modelling costs. That will be undertaken by the Department, and we will publish all the consultation documents on the website. There are a lot of them, and we will publish them online because we do not want to chop down too many trees. We will also reopen the consultation for a very short time to allow for the Transport Committee report to be taken into account when we draw our conclusions. Finally, the Secretary of State has announced that we will make our announcement before the summer recess.

We realise how emotive this subject is. I come from an emergency service background, so I know very well how emotive issues involving the emergency services in general are. I am enormously proud to be an ex-fireman, and it is a great honour and privilege to be the Minister responsible for Her Majesty’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency and everything to do with it. The MCA is world-renowned. If my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) was not being so nice, I am sure she would want to tell me about the fantastic international work done at Falmouth on behalf of the coastguard nationally in this country.

But we are talking about a co-ordination centre, and we are in the position we are in today because a set of station cuts and closures were made over a series of years. I do not think anybody in the Chamber or in the country would claim that the current structure has any logic at all. I have gone around the country visiting stations, and my chief executive, Sir Alan Massey, has been to every single coastguard station during this process, and we have had some robust discussions; I had such a discussion when I was up by Liverpool. Everybody knew that these sorts of changes were coming down the line, however. The previous Government had the current proposals on their desk, and they have been discussed with the PCS for almost two years; I have a record of the dates when those meetings took place, and I myself met and held discussions with PCS representatives before these announcements were made.

We knew in advance, therefore, that we needed a reconfiguration of the coastguard service, so that we have the resilience, training and communication systems that are required, as well as a pay structure that is fit for the 21st century. Anybody who has visited a coastguard station in this country will know that one of the first subjects the staff talk about is pay and career, because £13,500 a year as a basic salary in an emergency service is unacceptable. That is one of the reasons why we are looking at this reconfiguration and realignment of the way the service works. That is a fact; this topic was discussed with me because there was a dispute that I inherited when I first became the responsible Minister, and which had been going on for several years. It is unacceptable that such a dispute went on for such a long time.

We must also look at the geography—at where the co-ordination centres are located. We are talking specifically about the Clyde today. The Clyde station is twinned. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran might be aware that each of the coastguard stations, apart from the Western Isles and Shetland, is twinned with another station so that they have some resilience. The Clyde station is twinned with Bangor in Northern Ireland, so if the systems go down in the Clyde and the local knowledge—which I accept is there—disappears, Northern Ireland will look after that coastguard area. I have visited Bangor and put the following point to its staff: if local knowledge is so important—and I accept that it does have importance—why are there such huge geographical distances between twinned co-ordination centres? Interestingly, in other parts of the country twins are ridiculously close, such as Brixham and Falmouth. That makes it very difficult to have a national co-ordination facility, and we do not have it; there is no national resilience within the coastguard service in the UK today. We need to look at that.

The very first visit that I made—I know I am going to repeat myself, but some of these comments need repeating—was to Liverpool, on 13 January. A robust and free debate took place, and I do not think I held much back; nor did some of the coastguard representatives, who included volunteers as well as full-time staff. Interestingly, during that debate—the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) was there—one of the senior members of uniformed staff said to me, “But Minister, we’ve been talking about nine co-ordination centres for years.” I said, “Please put that in writing—be part of the consultation.” I also went to Bangor, where a very detailed report was put in.

[Bill Esterson]

I remember the exchange about the nine co-ordination centres extremely well. It was an informal proposal put forward by members of staff there some years ago. It is important to put it on the record that they had suggested it to the agency at an earlier date.

[Mike Penning]

That is exactly the point I am trying to make: this has not come out of the blue. The coastguard representatives there, in front of the hon. Gentleman, me and everybody else assembled there, said that they had previously suggested having nine centres around the country. If the hon. Gentleman remembers, I said to them, “I’m talking about eight, you’re talking about nine. We’re not that far apart, are we?”

On 9 March, I visited Bangor, in the Province, where a detailed presentation and submission was put to me suggesting having 10 centres around the country. As I have said before, three types of submission have been made in this lengthy consultation process. One suggests that we should leave things alone, and that everything is okay. Another says, “Leave us alone”, without making any real comment about anybody else. Then, there are the really detailed submissions, such as that from Falmouth, which I also visited. They say, “We know there needs to be change—standing still is not an option. We’ve said that since day one, when we started the consultation, but actually, we think the figure for the country as a whole should be about 10.” There have also been discussions about how many national co-ordination centres, or maritime operations centres, there should be. The suggestion arising from the consultation is two; others have suggested one. I do not think anybody is suggesting that there should be none—at least, not in the detailed submissions. There is no national co-ordination at the moment, and I think everybody accepts it is needed.

We are proud of our extended coastline, and we should perhaps look at how other countries are dealing with their co-ordination centres. I must stress that this issue is purely to do with co-ordination—the wonderful volunteers who carry out the rescues, and the RNLI and others, are not affected. In fact, we are going to enhance those services by providing them with more investment and more full-time staff. So, naturally, when I first looked at our proposal, I examined how other countries with an extended coastline structure their co-ordination centres. I looked at other English-speaking countries that might have replicated our approach, and Australia, for instance, has one centre. Spain, I believe, also has one; Norway has two; France has seven. It is not feasible for us to stand still and say that what we have today, in this ad hoc procedure, is suitable going forward.

The consultation was put out and there were discussions with the PCS. These proposals, in one shape or form, have been around for about four years. Evidence was given to the Select Committee, and a letter was published in The Guardian only the other day from the former chief executive of the MCA, saying that Ministers had fudged this issue for years and it had not been addressed. We are determined to bring the coastguard service and the MCA into the 21st century—to have a fully resilient service with a pay and career structure that is fit for the service and its dedicated staff.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for securing this debate. I very much welcome, as I am sure coastguards all around the UK do, the fact that this was a genuine consultation exercise. You have repeatedly said that the current proposals are not a done deal and the Secretary of State underlined that only a few weeks ago. It would be of enormous help to coastguards in Falmouth and all around the UK if you could share with us what is going to happen once your response to the consultation is published—you promised this before the recess. Will alternative proposals be introduced? If so, will they be further consulted upon?

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot share anything and I cannot offer any response, but I have a feeling that the Minister might.

[Mike Penning]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that we understand exactly what my hon. Friend is trying to say to the House.

It is very important that we understand exactly what the Government’s position has been from day one. Of course I am going to be accused of doing U-turns, cartwheels and so on, but I said, and the Secretary of State said, that these proposals were not set in stone and that the consultation is a proper one. We said that we wanted everybody to be fully involved in the future of the coastguard service. I said from day one that what comes out the other end of this consultation process will not be what we go in with, but that we cannot end up with the status quo. The service has to modernise, it has to have proper resilience and it must be fit for the 21st century.

[Katy Clark]

I asked a number of questions about the criteria that were used. The Minister might not be able to give a response today, but will a response be given at the end of this process outlining the basis on which decisions are being made? It is not at all clear to those working in the coastguard service why particular stations have been chosen and others have not, so will the criteria be made publicly available?

[Mike Penning]

Of course. I was still responding to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth and when I have finished dealing with it, I will discuss the points that the hon. Lady has raised. In that intervention, I was asked specifically what will happen later in the process. We will announce our proposals once we have taken into consideration the Select Committee’s report. That means that I will have to reopen the consultation, but I stress that that will be just to allow that report to be taken into consideration. If I did not do so, I would be insulting the Select Committee and there is no way I intend to do that. The Government will announce their conclusions before the summer recess—as we have said all the way through, they are likely to be different—and then I will reopen the consultation. That is the right and proper way to proceed if we want to work with the public, with the service and with Members of this House. It is different from the way in which a lot of consultations have historically been carried out over the years, but I do not think this will be a one-off; I think that the Government will take this approach on a regular basis. I recall a consultation on my local general hospital in which 85% of respondents said they did not want the hospital to close, yet it was closed in any case. No consideration was given to people’s concerns. Does this approach mean that everybody is going to be happy? No, of course it does not. However, proper consultation will take place again once we put forward our proposals.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise for arriving so late to the debate and I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It would be very helpful if he gave a commitment at the start of that consultation to avoid compulsory redundancies at every stage in the process from there on in.

[Mike Penning]

I hope that there would not be compulsory redundancies, but I cannot give that commitment and I am not going to stand at this Dispatch Box and mislead people. The PCS has known that all the way through. It is important to understand that there will be job losses if we reduce the number of co-ordination centres, although I hope that such job losses will not be compulsory. I have gone through redundancy, despite my union fighting to help me, so I understand where people are coming from. However, if I am going to increase salaries, training and career prospects, I have to find that money from somewhere and that money will come from the savings we are finding. There are quite significant costs up front, particularly for the resilience we want to put into the system. The Treasury has been generous and I have money, but I cannot carry that forward—I must make savings. To be fair, the union—

[Dr Whiteford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I want to clarify the point that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned in her intervention, because if I am not careful I will not finish one intervention before I take another. I know we have a few hours, but everybody will understand if we do not speak for the whole time.

It is really important that we do not get bogged down by the fact about the Select Committee because, as anyone who has been a Minister knows, a civil servant cannot go before a Select Committee and criticise Government policy. That is not the protocol; it is not what happens. The job of a civil servant, if they go before a Select Committee, is to support Government policy. That is why civil servants at the grade of those we are talking about do not go before Select Committees. I took advice from the Cabinet Office and I ensured that we were in absolutely the right position. I bent over backwards to ensure that the Select Committee could go to any station it wished and talk to any member of staff, but I could not have uniformed staff criticising Government policy. They are fully entitled to fight through their union representatives for what they think is right, but a Select Committee is not the right and proper place to do that. Anybody who has served as a Minister knows that. We can go back through Westland if we want, and see those differences.

[Dr Whiteford]

I agree with the Minister that it is very important that we have a coastguard service that is fit for the 21st century, but I would put it to him that all the other emergency services in Scotland are devolved and one way to protect smaller stations, such as Inverclyde, might be to amend the Scotland Bill to devolve the operation of the coastguard agency in Scotland. That would mean that the services could properly address our vast coastline, in line with people’s expectations in Scotland.

[Mike Penning]

I do not want to disappoint the hon. Lady, but the Scottish National party has absolutely no chance of my breaking up a national emergency service such as this one. That will not happen. If we go down the avenue of saying that we can break up the service and that it can be operated in a completely independent little station, we will move completely away from the needs of the service. The service needs national resilience. If we do not have that, we are not offering the service that our constituents—including the hon. Lady’s constituents—deserve. It cannot happen.

When I visited the Western Isles, I saw that when the power goes down—I understand that it does so on a fairly regular basis—volunteers go up to the wireless towers on the hills and operate them manually. That is the situation we are in in the 21st century. There was a lightning strike at Falmouth and they luckily managed to keep going, but there is no proper resilience to lock in the service. In our part of the world, the police love the VHF system we operate because they operate on Airwave and although we use some of it we have a very good radio system. However, what we need is networking.

I am sure that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran is aware that at Clyde we have a hub that comes into the existing building, but we cannot stay in that building. That is one reason for the decision. We have talked about costs, and of course costs are involved—there is no illusion about the fact that costs are involved and there would be significant costs if we had another station in Clyde that was not in that building. Even if we stayed in that building, there would be considerable costs, and we cannot do so, as the Ministry of Defence has decided that it wants to be gone from that building in Clyde by 2013. We will have to move from that building. There are significant costs that we will publish and put out there, but I am in the middle of the consultation and I will not jeopardise that. Judicial review or something similar could be pushed against me if I broke into the consultation in the middle of it. I am trying to be as open as possible.

[Bill Esterson]

I assume that the Minister has finished with the previous interventions. Let me make a few points about learning lessons regarding future consultations and advice. First, there is grave concern among coastguard officers that at one point he advised them that they could give evidence in public to the Select Committee.

[Mike Penning]

No, I did not.

[Bill Esterson]

Well, he will get his chance in a moment to answer my points, but that has categorically been stated by a number of coastguard officers. I think there is a lesson to learn there about the advice given by Ministers.

The other point is that we should listen to front-line staff when drawing up proposals on such important issues as these emergency services and we should include their ideas. The Minister mentioned what happened at Crosby when he visited: the ideas of those staff were not put into the consultation document and were not part of the proposal, and that is of concern to staff there.

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The Minister is winding up the debate on the future of Greenock coastguard station.

[Mike Penning]

May I just place it on the record that I openly said at Crosby and as I went around the country that I wanted coastguards and the public to engage? I am quite careful about my words, even though I regularly speak without notes, as I am doing now, and I did not say that those staff could give evidence to the Select Committee in oral session, but I did say that they could submit written evidence. I also said that to the Chair of the Select Committee when I went before it last week in what was also an interesting session.

I have just been informed, a few moments ago, that there will be another Adjournment debate on this issue—on a slightly different subject very close to this one—for an hour and a half next Tuesday morning. It is key to this issue that we make sure that things are done correctly and I am willing to take into consideration all the submissions, but keeping the status quo is not an option. Nearly every detailed submission has accepted that and it was accepted by the previous Administration before I became the responsible Minister. I have been very impressed by the time and effort that many of the stations have taken not just to say, “Look after me, guv,” or “Protect me,” but to suggest what the service needs to look at and look like in the 21st century, and I pay tribute to everyone who has submitted evidence to the consultation. It will reopen just to allow the Select Committee report to be considered, and the Government will make an oral statement to the House before the summer recess on the future of the MCA.

Question put and agreed to.

Ship-to-Ship Transfers

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Written Statements

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

I wish to inform the House of a further development concerning the Government’s legislation to regulate ship-to-ship transfers of oil carried as cargo.

As I explained in my written ministerial statement on 30 March 2011, Official Report, column 26WS amending regulations have been drafted, and work is in train to ensure that these amending regulations take account of representations made—including representations arising from an extension, over the period 9 February to 10 March 2011, of the review of the Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) Regulations 2010 for the benefit of Suffolk residents and bodies.

The conclusion that I drew from the main review which was carried out in July-September 2010 was that the provisions prohibiting all ship-to-ship transfers outside harbour authority areas will be replaced by provisions restricting ship-to-ship transfers outside harbour authority areas to a single designated area within the UK territorial sea and establishing a system of permits issued by the MCA, giving effect at the same time to the new chapter 8 of annex I to the MARPOL convention.

Having taken account of all the representations made, both in the main review and in the extension of the review in February and March, I have again come to the conclusion that this is the appropriate course of action and that the designated area for ship-to-ship transfers (other than in harbour authority waters) shall be the waters off the Suffolk coast where ship-to-ship transfers are already carried out.

The recognition of these waters off the Suffolk coast as a suitable area for carrying out ship-to-ship transfers is based on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s and the industry’s actual experience of the successful use of these waters for ship-to-ship transfer operations over a number of years without pollution of the seas and coasts. The MCA will continue to monitor such operations closely to ensure they are carried out to the highest possible safety standards.

I shall place an addition to the analytical table previously provided in December 2010, which summarises the points of substance made in the written representations and the meetings held with interested parties during the period of the extension of the review in February and March, in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department’s website.

As I also indicated in my written ministerial statement on 30 March, the amended Merchant Shipping (Ship-to-Ship Transfers) Regulations 2010 are intended to come into force on 1 October 2011. In common with other new domestic secondary legislation, these regulations will contain provisions setting an automatic expiry date and requiring them to be reviewed in a specified number of years.