Driver and Vehicle Agency (Northern Ireland)

Naomi Long Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing the debate this morning. It is an important subject for all the people in Northern Ireland. I welcome the Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill)—to his new position. I also welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden).

Northern Ireland is a public sector-led economy. Last week, we were pleased that the Prime Minister came and led on an international investment conference. Importantly, private sector jobs should supplement jobs in the public sector. We want to see a fair and equal distribution of the private sector jobs that we hope will flow from the Prime Minister’s visit and the visit of international investors last week. In this debate, we are all telling the Minister and his Department, “No decentralisation of services.” There is a dichotomy of policy, in that the Government and the Northern Ireland Executive believe in decentralisation because it can underpin the bedrock of the local economy, but by the same token, taking jobs away means centralisation to us. That issue needs to be explored, answered and corrected.

The current proposal to centralise vehicle registration and licensing services in Swansea will remove 324 full-time equivalent posts from Northern Ireland, which in real terms will have an impact on about 380 employees, and will also have an impact on the services provided.

As a result of an intervention by the then Northern Ireland Minister of the Environment, my party colleague Alex Attwood, with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), a consultation was agreed and launched by the Department for Transport. The support of the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland for retaining those jobs and services remains constant and has been backed by all political parties in Northern Ireland, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Londonderry. A strong case has been made for not only retaining the jobs in the DVA, but expanding services in Northern Ireland by transferring work for UK customers to Northern Ireland.

The impact will be felt in Coleraine, where the headquarters are based, and in areas such as Armagh, Ballymena, Belfast, Enniskillen, Derry, Omagh and Downpatrick. Under the proposal, my constituency of South Down will see the removal of services and jobs at the Downpatrick office, which has traditionally been the County Down facility for people to tax their car for many generations. Downpatrick is the main centre of public administration in South Down, and any reduction in staffing numbers will have an impact on its economy and on future services that might be attracted to the area. At the same time, we are trying to pool resources and administrative services to complement the role it has always had as a centre of public administration.

I appreciate that the constituency of the hon. Member for East Londonderry will be worst hit by the removal of services from Coleraine, but the injustice and disproportionate nature of the proposal will be felt by people whose jobs are affected and by people throughout Northern Ireland who rely on the services delivered by those offices, including those in my constituency.

The Minister will be aware of the representations made by me and my colleagues, including the former Minister of the Environment and the new Minister of the Environment, Mark H. Durkan. In the initial reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, I was advised that the proposal to withdraw jobs from Northern Ireland was in response to the need to bring vehicle licensing and registration up to date and into line with developments in IT systems in Great Britain, and to provide a much-improved service. However, in his second reply, he outlined that the removal of 380 jobs from Northern Ireland would achieve significant savings for UK taxpayers.

Will the new Minister therefore clarify the reasoning behind the proposal? Is it simply a cost-saving exercise that will obviously have a disproportionate impact on staff in Northern Ireland, as well as on the wider community that relies on the services provided, or is it about developments in IT systems, through which local people will also lose jobs and services? If the Department for Transport is looking at the proposal as a means of cutting costs, it should consider the views of those employed in the service, who are some of the most dedicated people in the public service of Northern Ireland.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for securing the debate. It is right that all parties are giving support on the issue. Does she agree that if the proposal is about modernising how the service is delivered, such a modernisation could be delivered in Northern Ireland without the need for closing the base there? We can already deliver a high-quality service, and modernisation would simply aid us in doing so, as well as allowing the further transfer of UK services to sites in Northern Ireland.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her useful and beneficial intervention. Obviously, if there is to be modernisation, an idea which none of us rejects or opposes, it could take place in Northern Ireland facilities—the headquarters in Coleraine and the other offices. In fact, we could take services that currently take place in Britain and, I have to say, perhaps do them much better, more efficiently and more diligently.

I want to move on to the views of the staff who responded to the consultation. They say that the existing closure programme has had a serious impact on services offered by the DVLA to the motorist in Great Britain. It is unclear whether those services can be properly managed, but no doubt they could be if they were brought to Northern Ireland.

Interestingly, a commissioned study by Oxford Economics has estimated that the DVLA proposal for the removal of services from Northern Ireland would have a direct negative impact of £14.5 million in gross value added terms, as well as an impact of £7 million on workplace wages in the Northern Ireland economy, which, given the size of Northern Ireland, is a remarkable statistic. The removal of £22.2 million from the Northern Ireland economy will have an impact on all its sectors, notably wholesale and retail trade, accommodation spaces, food services, entertainment and recreation, plus financial services, property, housing and the supply industries—and all that at a time of economic downturn, although there might be a slight lift that we would all welcome.

The figures I have cited for what would be removed from the Northern Ireland economy do not add up to what the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon stated would be significant savings. Surely, a more acceptable form of improvement would be to upgrade the DVA’s IT systems. We must ask why the IT systems in Northern Ireland have been neglected, and not upgraded as a matter of necessity over the years. We ask that question because that has been replicated in other service areas. Some people say that, over recent years, some areas might have been prepared for privatisation and others for closure. For me, it is simply a case of downgrading a service and undermining the economic stability that exists in Northern Ireland.

I understand that staff working in the DVA feel that the service has been vigorously, systematically and aggressively underfunded for many years by the Department for Transport, despite which the staff have actively sought to provide the Northern Ireland motorist—whether the ordinary person with a car, someone working with agricultural machinery or people in the haulage industry— with an excellent level of service. That under-resourcing has left the staff open to the business criticism and the challenges in the current DVLA proposal for the future of vehicle registration and licensing services in Northern Ireland.

I am sure that, following the consultation that ended on this proposal on 11 September, the current Minister of the Environment in Northern Ireland will meet the Minister separately, as will a cross-party delegation of MPs from Northern Ireland. I hope that we can relay our serious concerns to him and demonstrate that the move will have a disproportionate impact on services, people and jobs in Northern Ireland.

Given the 100% opposition to the move and the strong case that has been made for the retention and the expansion of the services, I urge the Minister and his Department immediately to review the position, retain the jobs and, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry said, visit the office in Coleraine and pay a snapshot visit to the other offices. They should do that in conjunction with the local Minister of the Environment, Mr Durkan, who has a clear picture of what is going on and who has been steadfastly opposed to the closure.

Air Transport (Northern Ireland)

Naomi Long Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) for his chairmanship of the Committee generally, and particularly for his interest in aviation and aviation policy. Such issues have consumed a lot of the Committee’s time, whether it is the aerospace industry, aviation strategy or APD, which reflects the importance of aviation to Northern Ireland’s economy.

As an island off an island, our peripherality can be countered only by having good, quick connections. The hon. Member for Vauxhall made the point well that those of us who have on occasion laboured by boat, train and car to make the same journey would not swap an hour-long flight for the alternative. We certainly could not do so if we were seriously going to do business in the House or anywhere else. As a form of business travel, flying is the only viable option for people from Northern Ireland to make contact with the south-east.

I recognise and welcome the Government’s analysis of the contribution and benefits of aviation to the UK economy. That is especially true in Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency of Belfast East, where aerospace companies such as Bombardier and Thales directly employ many highly skilled workers. Their employment contributes to the rebalancing of the economy, which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has said is a priority for the Committee and for the Northern Ireland Executive. I believe all of us who represent Northern Ireland want to see that happen. Aerospace is a particularly important marketplace for us to sustain growth.

The tourism industry, both inbound and outbound, relies heavily on aviation, as would be expected for an island economy. Due to the relatively small number of direct flights to other international destinations, our connectivity to other parts of the UK is crucial if we are to ensure our connectivity with international destinations. Such connectivity contributes heavily to UK economic activity, and passengers who pay APD on both parts of their journey are particularly affected.

APD has a detrimental effect on the continued development of a thriving tourism sector in Northern Ireland by placing a cost burden on business, not least because of our unique position of having a land border with another EU state, placing us in direct competition with a much lower-tax economy. We have to be cognisant of that when we make decisions, and I will elaborate on that later.

I will start by addressing connectivity to and through the UK hub airports, and I will then reflect on what the Committee says about connectivity to the airports within Northern Ireland. Airports are recognised as devolved but there may be things that the UK Government can do to encourage more work on connectivity within Northern Ireland.

The UK is one of the best-connected countries in the world, and the Government are right to state that the broader the range of destinations served and the higher the frequency of flights to and from those destinations, the better connected we will be. That is particularly crucial in the context of Northern Ireland. It is vital for us to get access to the south-east of England and, through the main hub airports, to the rest of the world. On connectivity to the south-east, the overall gross value added of Northern Ireland is only about 80% of the UK average. Successive Governments have nominally committed to a policy of regional convergence, but London and the south-east are still regarded—I argue, protected—as the main drivers of the UK economy. Only three UK regions are net contributors to the Treasury, and Northern Ireland is the most dependent of the remaining nine.

Clearly, an active regional policy by Government is necessary to promote a more even distribution of economic activity throughout the UK. In the interim, it is imperative to ensure that the regions have good access to London and the south-east to assist with economic competitiveness. Northern Ireland’s unique position means that aviation is essential to that connectivity. There are no other appropriate means of transport to access mainland UK or other onward destinations quickly and easily for business purposes. On onward connectivity, as we rebalance the Northern Ireland economy, it is vital that we encourage and support indigenous businesses to expand their exports, attract new foreign direct investment and so on. Ease of travel and the frequency and cost of flights are always factors in our ability to maximise potential. Direct access to the main hub airports in the south-east is vital.

I concur with the Chair when he said that the Committee was concerned about delays to do with the Heathrow issue, and I will elaborate on that. Demand for landing slots for international flights is placing pressure on national connections, which worries us, as one of the most affected regions. If Glasgow loses its landing slot, people at least have the option to step on a train, but if Belfast loses its landing slot, we are talking about a three-day hike, so the issue of our connectivity is much more serious. Future proposals need to be evaluated not in isolation, but in terms of the economic impact in Northern Ireland and other remote regions of the UK, because equitable access to London is crucial. The lack of a decision on an additional runway at Heathrow or of a new hub airport—I am fairly indifferent to which option is pursued—has an impact on landing slots, which is important for Northern Ireland passengers in two ways.

First, the focus of the airports on through passengers is intensifying, because of constrained capacity, and both Heathrow and Gatwick now levy charges on passengers who arrive in those airports as their final destination from other UK airports, which adds to the cost of travel. Such charges might be relatively small at the point of introduction, but they will have an effect, because, as the pressure increases, the charges will increase. Furthermore, we often find that charges will increase as people’s tolerance of them increases. The charge is applied to transit passengers, but Northern Ireland has few through carriers, so most people arrive there as a destination, then have to change flights completely—they are not technically transit passengers, so they end up having to pay the charge.

Secondly, as others have mentioned, the flight connections between Belfast and London, and their frequency, are placed at risk as the pressure for landing slots—at Heathrow in particular—grows; they are at risk of being replaced by more lucrative long-haul routes. The Chair of the Select Committee has already reflected on the evidence given by Willie Walsh of IAG, but his twin reasons for the continued need for regional flights were to feed the passenger capacity of onward internationals and because of a lack of a fleet of international jets ready to take on the extra slots. That was not an option therefore, certainly in the short term. The reality is that the frequency with which the airline would want to fly between Belfast and London would be based more on its onward connections than on the convenience of those who travel for business and other purposes.

We heard good evidence about the possible constraints from the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Business Trust, and so on. We heard that frequency is almost as important as capacity for flights between London and Belfast, so that people can have more flexible travel arrangements. As already mentioned, Members from Northern Ireland will often struggle still to be in the House for the close of business at the end of the day, because the last flights leave so early. Not to join the bandwagon, but easyJet is one of the latest flights to leave and one of the few to allow us, for example, to vote in the House on a Wednesday night and still get back to Northern Ireland on a Wednesday night. There is an issue about the routes and, although we understand about public service obligations, it may need to be looked at in future. Any threat might not be imminent, but if the matter of Heathrow and capacity in the south-east is not resolved as a matter of urgency, the pressure on slots for flights to Northern Ireland will continue to increase.

I hope that something will be done as a matter of urgency. Given that the need for resolution is of acute importance to Northern Ireland residents, I regret the apparent lack of urgency in the approach taken. I have read the Government response to our first recommendation, and I understand the need for an evidence base and the reference to the Airports Commission, but the response goes on to mention that any decision will be “highly contentious” and that the decisions have been under discussion since the early 1990s. I suspect that the contentious nature of the decisions has had more impact on the time frame than the lack of an evidence base. Most people in Northern Ireland feel that that has been more the guiding factor, rather than the difficulty of the decisions to do with the airport.

Connectivity to airports within Northern Ireland is also important. Those are largely devolved issues, which was reflected in the Government response to the report, but that context is important. We are pleased to see commitment to creating lower-carbon methods of reaching airports in Great Britain, which we hope will be encouraged in the devolved Administrations. The Northern Ireland Administration do not have a climate change action plan, unlike the rest of the UK: Scotland has its own plans, and England and Wales are covered by what happens in Westminster. Northern Ireland sits outside those arrangements, and some impetus to drive something through the Assembly would be good.

Northern Ireland will obviously not benefit directly from high-speed rail. In case the Minister does not already know, I voted in favour of high-speed rail, which I hope will make him slightly more sympathetic to my other points. Investment in public transport is good and wise investment, and I say that as someone who comes from an engineering background. High-speed rail will not directly benefit us, but in Northern Ireland, by contrast, all our airports are within one mile of an existing rail line, and yet none has a direct connection to that railway. Someone arriving at Belfast City airport terminal can see the railway, but cannot reach it directly; people have to leave the airport site and walk across a dual-carriageway bridge and through some streets to get there. Relatively modest investment by the Northern Ireland Executive, therefore, could enable connectivity between the rail network in Northern Ireland, limited though it is, and air travel. We want to see the Government and the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland work on developing such access to identify funding and other opportunities.

The lack of ease of access to Belfast International airport in particular remains a problem, and one that has received attention as a result of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s aviation inquiry. The road network serving the airport fails to meet the needs of Northern Ireland in pursuing inbound tourism and international investment as key drivers. We need to have an adequate and well-maintained road infrastructure to have onward connectivity within Northern Ireland and with the rest of the island, which is our main economic partner in terms of exports and other things. Improved infrastructure could attract more customers and international carriers to the International airport, improving our connectivity with the rest of the world. Road access to Belfast International is extremely poor in places, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall, who uses it regularly, is aware. Travelling from Belfast and after leaving the M2 motorway, one must proceed along seven miles of two-lane single carriageway, passing through a small town to reach the airport. The road is relatively straight and safe, but high traffic volumes during peak periods result in delays and an increased chance of accidents. No proposals or meaningful discussions have been forthcoming about upgrading the road. In our discussions with the devolved Administration, we have stressed that it should be examined.

First impressions are hugely important, and our public transport connectivity creates a generally poor impression, although we might have benefited slightly over G8—no one could actually get to Enniskillen, certainly by public transport, even had anyone wanted to go there to protest. It is something that needs to be addressed.

I next want to touch on air passenger duty, because we cannot discuss aviation strategy without looking at APD, which has a disproportionate effect on Northern Ireland passengers. The Committee spent considerable time discussing the issue, and some changes have happened, in respect of the International airport in particular, on the back of one of our previous reports. People frequently gave us evidence about the impact of APD. If we are to rebalance Northern Ireland’s economy, it will primarily be not by cutting the public sector, but by growing the private sector. In my view and that of a growing number of people, the APD regime is a significant obstacle to that. It is a commercial challenge to Northern Ireland businesses and conflicts directly with the positive measures that are being taken to boost tourism and related employment to encourage foreign direct investment and so on. It adds to the cost of indigenous businesses, particularly those seeking to grow their export markets.

The Committee received evidence from a large fish processor in Northern Ireland who exports to the far east, and finds APD a huge burden on his business. Being able to take his product to international markets and build relationships with those markets and clients is crucial for him in growing his export base. But in his evidence, Mr Rooney said that APD effectively consumes part of the budget he sets aside for travel, so the number of his mission journeys is limited by APD. If it did not exist, or were lower, he could travel more frequently to sell his products. He is very successful at getting them into the market when he has made those connections.

At best, APD adds to the cost base and, at worst, it could jeopardise connectivity between Northern Ireland and other UK and international markets, impeding our efforts. The levy was originally relatively affordable, but it has increased significantly, particularly on long-haul flights. Since 2007, the increases have been very steep—up to 260% for short-haul flights—and between 2008 and 2011 the number of passengers carried by Virgin Atlantic, for example, decreased by between 7% and 8%, but the amount of APD paid by its passengers increased by more than 45%.

Hon. Members will be aware that since I have been in Parliament I have raised the issue frequently—the Treasury would say relentlessly. I apologise that much of what I am saying today has been heard before, but until it is acknowledged and dealt with it bears repeating. I want to focus on what happens in Northern Ireland because of its uniqueness. It is an effective demonstration in microcosm of APD’s impact more widely throughout the UK.

When I have raised the issue with Treasury Ministers, I was scolded for not acknowledging the Government’s work on direct long-haul flights. I will not make that mistake again. I acknowledge that that was real progress, and I am glad the Government moved to devolve that and in the first instance to reduce it so that we retained the United Continental flight as our only long-haul direct route. Of the 600,000 passengers it carried in the last six years or so before the decision, 40% were inbound tourists and business visitors, so it was crucial to retain that connection to north America.

The route’s success is a tangible demonstration to others. The hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned direct flights to Canada. We had those seasonally, but have since lost them. It would be good if they were restored, given the huge diaspora to Canada. It provides a good evidence base for other airlines to consider direct flights from Belfast. APD placed the direct flight in jeopardy simply because the rates are so much lower in Dublin, which is less than two hours away and, in contrast, has good road links. That is a challenge that we must face in developing our infrastructure.

I give credit to the Government for responding to the work of Northern Ireland MPs, the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Ministers, businesses and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s report on APD by reducing the levy on direct long-haul flights and for devolving the matter to the Assembly. That change was important and very welcome, but affects around 2% of Northern Ireland passengers. It does not help with the unfair burden on Northern Ireland of APD more generally; for example, on regional flights, or because of the double duty that is paid because our access to main UK hubs often requires separate flights due to the limited number of through carriers. We pay short-haul to get to London and we pay long-haul to go from London. If we had a through carrier, we would simply pay long-haul, even if we stopped in London, but because we do not have seamless ticketing, we end up paying more and that should be looked at from the perspective of fairness.

The case for reviewing APD is strong throughout the UK. For island nations, connectivity and aviation are crucial. The situation is more acute in Northern Ireland because we have a land border with another EU member state and the price-sensitive advantage in the Republic of Ireland has directly affected Northern Ireland. It was initially a bigger issue with international long-haul flights because the extra time needed to get to the airport made it worth while, but when flying on even a moderate flight of, for example, four hours it is almost as quick for many people to go to Dublin as to International airport or elsewhere to pick up their flight. The savings may make it sensible financially to make that slightly longer journey, and that will be an increasing challenge.

APD also affects tourism because it reduces the cost for people flying into Dublin, and when they do so as inbound tourists it is very difficult to get them to cross the border to spend time and stay overnight in Northern Ireland. We are trying to grow our tourism, and the tourism offer has improved dramatically in recent years, but it is still difficult to get people who have flown into another jurisdiction to come north and spend time in Northern Ireland, which is what I really want them to do. Getting people to Belfast in the first place is hugely important.

When APD was first introduced, it was a means of taxing aviation to try to reflect the environmental impact. I have no objection to aviation paying its fair share in that regard. It is important that it does and that tax takes account of issues such as climate change and seeks to effect behavioural change. However, there is no realistic alternative in this case so it has become punitive for travellers.

I recognise the importance of addressing the deficit and do not dismiss it in the slightest, but international evidence suggests that tax on aviation is such a constraint on other revenue that it outweighs the benefits economically. The hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to that. The Irish Government committed to abolishing the tax equivalent of APD because it viewed it as a barrier to growth and tourism, despite it being set at €3. Most significantly, the tax in band B of APD covers flights of 2,000-4,000 miles at around £60 and £120 for economy and business-class passengers respectively. Comparing that with the zero charges that the Irish Republic is introducing shows the difference that it can make to the cost of a flight.

A PricewaterhouseCoopers study earlier this year indicated that significant economic benefits could be reaped from the abolition of APD. It estimated that APD would boost GDP by 0.46% in the first year, and amount to about £16 billion in the first three years and create almost 60,000 jobs in the UK in the long term. One of the most interesting facts in the report was that the abolition of APD would pay for itself because the increased revenue from income tax, VAT and higher employment and business growth would outweigh its loss. That is without the peripheral benefits, including more tourists coming to the UK and airlines expanding their networks within the UK. It suggests that in the first two years, the Government would gain increased revenue of about £500 million and about £250 million each year thereafter until 2020.

That study builds on previous studies by Oxford Economics, which suggested that abolishing APD would raise gross value added by between £1.8 billion and £2.9 billion because of the boost in the aviation and tourism sectors from increased passenger numbers, and would create 40,000 to 60,000 new jobs. The extra income available for consumers from lower airline ticket prices would also provide a stimulus to consumer spending, so additional spin-offs were predicted. To date, the Government have not accepted those studies so the answer is for the Treasury to commission its own independent cost-benefit analysis, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall suggested, to look at the impact of APD in the light of research.

I will not try to draw the Minister too far. I have frequently tried to do so in correspondence, and he has resisted effectively. I am sure he will do so again today, and I respect his deference to the Treasury, but I hope that he will take the opportunity to reflect on the fact that for most of us APD has been by far the biggest issue in aviation and connectivity, and pass that on to the Treasury.

I want to raise one more issue: the impact on the environment and people of having an airport nearby, particularly the impact of noise. I welcome the recognition of the need for a fair balance between the negative impacts of noise and the economic benefits of flights, but I am concerned that the main mechanisms for addressing those issues seem to be about engagement between airports and local communities. That is extremely valuable in building relationships and aiding understanding, but it does not necessarily improve the situation.

We would like to see independent monitoring of noise contours, with an independent body able to make decisions on how aircraft noise should be controlled in highly populated areas. The introduction of an independent body would increase public confidence and ensure that the existing noise monitoring undertaken by airports has a degree of independence, which it is currently not perceived to have. That would also provide a more robust approach and give additional transparency, as those who are making the decisions about monitoring and about the frequency and timing of aircraft movements would be removed from having commercial interests in the decisions.

The mapping and monitoring of noise exposure at designated airports is very helpful, but it should be considered for extension to airports with any significant neighbouring residential population, so that anyone living with aircraft noise is aware of the impact on their health. In particular, when there are schools nearby, that needs to be carefully considered. In my constituency, the George Best Belfast City airport is a hugely important economic driver: it is a good employer, employing more than 1,000 people, both directly and indirectly, and it creates jobs and opportunities for the city of Belfast. There is no doubt about that, but those who live close to the airport, under the flight path, find it difficult to deal with the effects. There are issues relating to how those effects, and the environmental impact, are monitored at a UK level, and it would be helpful for us to consider those in light of evidence that the Committee received. I thank the Minister for his attention to what we have said, and I look forward to hearing his response.

Select Committee Inquiry (Aviation Strategy)

Naomi Long Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

That issue will be considered, as the terms of reference for our inquiry specifically include it.

We would like to hear about how we could improve the passenger experience and operational resilience at UK airports. We invite views on the constraints of increasing UK aviation capacity and on environmental concerns.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous with her time. Air passenger duty is an issue that the Select Committee on Northern Ireland has looked at in respect of regional aviation. It is important to share that information, as we heard witness after witness presenting evidence on the impact of APD not just on aviation but on the growth of tourism in the UK generally and its impact on the wider economy.

[Mrs Ellman]

The Committee would be very interested to receive evidence along the lines that the hon. Lady mentions, given the importance of looking at the significance of aviation for economies—regional as well as national.

Coastguard Service

Naomi Long Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing this debate on such an important topic. My constituency of South Down in Northern Ireland has two fishing ports, so I know just how important the Bangor coastguard station is. I know of the necessity of maintaining a service that has developed a comprehensive knowledge of our seas. It is important that we keep the coastguard station in Bangor to protect those who use the seas around the island of Ireland, and those who use our coastal and inland waterways, including, in the case of Northern Ireland, those who use inland locations and are subject to search and rescue. Many of the people involved and those in other emergency services risk their lives to protect not only those in the fishing industry, but people involved in recreation and tourism.

The Government will announce their decision by 19 July and it is fair to say that the process has been marked by uncertainty for many people throughout Northern Ireland. Such uncertainty must give cause for concern regarding the outcome. The Government now seem to be re-evaluating and rowing back from their initial proposals. It is clear that they underestimated the value of the local knowledge developed over time by our vastly experienced coastguard personnel, and that they were prepared to risk losing this vital asset. I ask the Minister: was that really the purpose of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s proposals, or did it have better thoughts at heart about protecting the service?

It is vital that the Minister and the Government listen to those experts who have spoken up during the consultation and arrive at a decision that safeguards those who use our waters. I and other hon. Members from Northern Ireland believe that there is a duty to protect our coastguard station in Northern Ireland and to ensure that it can operate at full-time capacity. I recently attended a meeting hosted by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in Bangor, which the Minister, along with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, also kindly attended. It was made clear to the Minister, via a range of robustly made proposals by staff, that it was possible to retain the coastguard station in Northern Ireland on a full-time basis by using other measures and means. I and other hon. Members from Northern Ireland would like to hear the Minister’s response to those proposals in advance of the final outcome, because it is particularly important.

The other key point is that the Bangor coastguard station co-ordinates closely with the Irish coastguard. We would, therefore, lose out on that vital resource for protecting all of Ireland’s waterways. I recently had the opportunity to raise the issue with the Taoiseach—the Irish Prime Minister—and it is clear that closing or downgrading the Bangor station would be a great loss not only to the people of Northern Ireland, but to the people of the Irish Republic. Indeed, it is our coastguard that is nominated by the Irish Government to respond in the case of an emergency off the Donegal coast. It cannot be overlooked or ignored that our service operates on a cross-border, north-south basis on the island of Ireland.

Another difficulty in shutting the service and depending on a coastguard station in Liverpool—I use these words with caution, considering the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central—is that the island of Ireland operates with the Ordnance Survey at the point of origin, which is totally incompatible with the English mapping system. That is another reason why we need a full-time coastguard station in Northern Ireland.

All those concerns have been reflected during the consultation process. Indeed, I am reminded of the words of the chairman of the North West mountain rescue team in Northern Ireland, who expressed concern that the closure of the station would adversely affect the relationship between the Northern Ireland coastguard and the Irish Republic.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

The hon. Lady has referred to the fact that the Northern Ireland coastguard also covers Donegal, but part of the reciprocation for that is access to the Irish Republic’s search and rescue helicopters. Does she share my concern that a breakdown in those closely maintained relationships on the island of Ireland could cause political difficulties and jeopardise some of that close co-operation?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that important point. I discussed the issue with the Taoiseach last week. He mentioned the need for greater north-south co-operation and made the point that the proposals could jeopardise services and the reciprocal agreement, which is vital for the running of an important maritime rescue service on the island of Ireland.

The chairman of the North West mountain rescue team said:

“The local knowledge and the rapport the NI coastguard have with the Republic’s coastguard means that we get a very effective and efficient service and I would doubt that would happen if that local knowledge disappeared.”

There is no doubt that, if the service disappeared, that would jeopardise that vital north-south arrangement on an inter-governmental basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Thank you, Dr McCrea, for calling hon. Members from all four nations to make a contribution this morning. I join you in paying tribute to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for her contribution to the debate and for the courage she has shown not just today but over the year she has been a Member of Parliament. When I have been in the Chair, I have seen her contributions to debates on fishing, coastguard and coastal issues. She brings experience, knowledge and a forthright and honest opinion that we need in such discussions.

This is an important debate. The linking and co-ordination between the coastguard and other emergency services is just as important as the coastguard’s internal co-ordination among the different stations. It is absolutely vital that that happens. I welcome the fact that the Minister has been listening through the long debates we have had since December and that the Government are prepared to pause and to look again at the proposals and the consultations. That is what we were calling for originally, and I think we have achieved that.

If the Minister had taken up my offer of coming to Holyhead station, he would have been very welcome. He could have seen at first hand not just the best practice of that coastguard station, but the co-ordination with other emergency services that takes place. Throughout the process, I have argued that, as a local station, Holyhead is strategically important to the whole of the Welsh coastline and, indeed, the Irish sea. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) talked about the Irish link. That has been very important for Holyhead and RAF Valley. I want to talk about the search and rescue at RAF Valley, which is the headquarters of search and rescue for the whole of the United Kingdom. It moved there from a different part of the country because of the strategic importance of Anglesey to the whole of the United Kingdom—it is equal distance from many places in the north and the south—and also to the west in Ireland. Search and rescue at RAF Valley has been involved in scrambling to some very important rescues and incidents.

It is important and timely that we have this debate in an open and honest manner because although we are all talking about local knowledge and our local stations, we have been mindful—I pay tribute to every Member who has taken part in such debates since December—not to put down other coastguard stations. We have stressed the importance of our own areas and their strategic importance to the whole coastguard family in the United Kingdom.

In the short time available, I just want to give the Minister a few examples—I appreciate that we are rushed for time, otherwise I would have elaborated further—of the strategic importance of Holyhead in terms of search and rescue and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. On the record, I have to say that I speak regularly—on a weekly basis—with members, crews, volunteers and full-time crew members of the RNLI and that, as I indicated, I am a member of the RNLI’s general council. They are concerned that they did not get the opportunity to have their views put openly into the system, but that they were channelled through the RNLI. As I said, and as was pointed out in the evidence session to the Select Committee, only four or five out of 100 RNLI stations took part in the consultation. We have not, therefore, had a true flavour of the opinions of the RNLI.

[Naomi Long]

In Northern Ireland, many of those who work for the coastguard also volunteer for the RNLI, so the loss of personnel would have a direct implication for RNLI services.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Some people volunteer for both, or have members of their family who are in each of the emergency voluntary services. I want to echo the importance of that co-ordination. Time saves lives. Sir Alan Massey, the chief executive of the MCA, has said that there would be some time delay—he has been honest enough to acknowledge that. That could translate into the loss of lives if local knowledge and expertise is gone due to the closure of local stations.

We all want a modernised MCA with improved technology for the 21st century, but that must not be at the expense of closing local stations and losing local knowledge. I have been consistent in making that argument for many years. When my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) was the Minister and was given advice by the MCA, he carefully and rightly ignored it to an extent—not all of it—because this needed to be done properly. We now have an opportunity for a proper and open debate to look at all these issues. The consultation paper and the proposals, which the Government produced jointly with the MCA, did not allow that to happen. We have moved beyond that and we are having a better informed debate. The Government and the Minister can now come to the right decision, which is to retain the best coastguard services we have, retain local knowledge and enhance it with new technology and the best station personnel. They must improve the confidence, morale and abilities of station personnel, but also the co-ordination with the other emergency services, which are facing tough times themselves. As the Minister knows, the future of the search and rescue service has been put on hold and there is uncertainty. That causes great anxiety not just among the search and rescue people within the RAF, the MCA and the Royal Navy, but in the RNLI and other services—the family of search of rescue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) for being so generous in allowing me some time to make a few points. I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing the debate. Rescue co-ordination in Northern Ireland raises particular challenges, and I want to touch on them.

I think that everyone supports the idea of modernisation, but there is concern in Northern Ireland that the loss of the Belfast coastguard station would be a blow not just to the North Down constituency in which it is located, but to Northern Ireland as a whole. The coastguard in Northern Ireland is held in universally high regard, and I think that that has been the case throughout its history. While people often focus on rescue at sea, and that is certainly an issue for Northern Ireland, there is also the matter that the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) raised with regard to inland search and rescue, which is also co-ordinated by the Northern Ireland coastguard. It is worth noting that in Northern Ireland, unlike in other parts of the UK, there are only two category 1 responders to emergencies: the Police Service of Northern Ireland and HM coastguard. We are all acutely aware of the significant security pressures faced by the PSNI. It is therefore important that HM coastguard can provide that search and rescue facility at a local level.

The Belfast coastguard station is the only one in the UK with a direct land border with another European state, so it fulfils a unique role in providing liaison and co-ordination with the Irish coastguard. As I said in an earlier intervention, I am concerned that some of the close working relationships, which are not just beneficial to Northern Ireland, would be lost as a result of any changes to and relocation of that co-ordination point.

I do not wish to repeat much of what has been said and I do not have the time to do so. In conclusion, I want to mention the impact on volunteerism in the RNLI. I referred specifically to the fact that people who work for the coastguard also volunteer, as do their families. Given the work of Bregenz house, those local relationships have been hugely important in encouraging people to engage with the RNLI. My concern is that, with dislocation and distance, that link might not be as effective as it has been in the past.

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) powerfully indicated the importance of local knowledge. I cannot add anything to her comments, so I simply commend her for what she said.

I am aware that the coastguard has produced alternative proposals, and I hope that those address not only the wish for modernisation but the concerns we have raised about the Government proposals. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I trust that he will be able to provide us with additional reassurance that the Government are listening and will respond positively.

Oral Answers to Questions

Naomi Long Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The benefits for my hon. Friend’s constituents of high-speed rail will be twofold. First, there are the benefits that will accrue to the west midlands region in general from the high-speed railway from London to Birmingham, and the benefits to the UK economy of enhanced productivity and competitiveness as a whole. Secondly, moving passengers on to the high-speed railway and creating large amounts of additional capacity will allow our existing railway to be used more innovatively, with new passenger and freight services for the future.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

T2. As the Minister will be aware, passengers travelling from Northern Ireland to London will be hit by two increases—the air passenger duty increase and the passenger landing charges being proposed at Heathrow and Gatwick. What discussions will the Minister have with the Northern Ireland Executive and other colleagues in government to ensure that there is still good access between London and Northern Ireland for business commuters?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I refer to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: taxation is a matter for the Chancellor. I am sure that he will bear in mind the impact of decisions on air passenger duty on regional connectivity. This Government fully recognise the importance of good regional connections between London and all parts of the United Kingdom.