Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Natascha Engel Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

My right hon. Friend is correct. Indeed, I had been going to retort that perhaps our laws need to be tightened up so that there is that combination. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend’s point, therefore.

Moving on to subsection (2)—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing only new clauses 1, 2 and 3 in this group. The amendments that I think he wants to speak to—amendments 16 and onwards—are in the next group. If he wishes to speak to them, he can do so when the next group comes up.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was referring to subsection (2) of proposed new clause 1, which talks about the reduced fare concessionary scheme for 16 to 19-year-olds. Am I within order?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Yes.

[Huw Merriman]

Thank you. I have no desire to talk on other proposed measures.

On new clause 1, I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), and see the advantages of this scheme. I serve a rural constituency where it is incredibly difficult for young people in particular to travel by bus. I would also extend his point: in my view, this relates to our desire to increase social mobility. If our young people cannot access work, perhaps at weekends, because it is too far for them to travel, and they cannot afford motor insurance premiums—which we all know, and have debated, are incredibly expensive—then there is something to be said for the argument about lack of social mobility. I am therefore attracted to the idea that this should be looked at.

We on the Conservative Benches would point out that we need to make sure that we cost those measures up, however, and that is the matter that would give me concern. If we increase the national debt through policies such as this one, that will have a negative impact on young people, because it is they and future generations that will have to repay it.

Perhaps we could consider the overall cost of concessionary travel, and whether it is time for concessionary travel, perhaps for the over-65s, to be given only to those who cannot afford it. We would therefore be looking more at means testing than giving concessionary travel to those who can well afford it and perhaps would therefore like to share that benefit with 16 to 19-year-olds, who, after all, we are requiring to stay in education and training and so need some assistance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, in clause 4, page 14, line 13, at end insert—

“(2A) A franchising scheme may not be made unless the franchising authority can demonstrate that the benefits for passengers could not be provided by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme.”

This amendment would ensure that a Local Transport Authority cannot make a franchise scheme if the passenger benefits can be provided by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme.

Amendment 16, page 15, leave out line 36 and insert—

“(3) A franchising authority or authorities shall consider an assessment and shall not proceed with the proposed scheme unless it is satisfied that—”

This amendment and amendments 17 to 23 would tighten the criteria against which an authority must consider a franchise proposal.

Amendment 17, page 15, line 37, leave out “whether”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 18, page 15, line 43, leave out “whether”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 19, page 16, line 1, at beginning insert “they know”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 20, page 16, line 3, leave out “whether”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 21, page 16, line 5, leave out “whether”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 22, page 16, line 7, leave out “the extent to which”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 23, page 16, line 7, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.

This amendment is related to amendment 16.

Amendment 15, page 16, line 9, at end insert—

“(g) the specific passenger benefits that would result from a franchise scheme, with an explanation of why those benefits could not be delivered by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme.”

This amendment would require a franchise assessment to specify the benefits of the proposed scheme for passengers and to explain why these benefits cannot be delivered by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme, or an enhanced partnership scheme.

Amendment 24, page 16, line 9, at end insert—

“(g) whether the proposed scheme would be more efficient, effective and economic than any other option, taking into account any compensation payable to bus operators whose businesses would be wholly or partially expropriated by the scheme.”

This amendment would ensure that the value for money test of a franchise scheme must factor in the cost of compensation to bus operators who lose part or all of their business as a result of a franchise.

Government amendments 2 to 4.

Amendment 25, page 17, line 7, at end insert—

“(3A) A person may not act as an auditor under this section if the person or company for whom the person is employed has been an auditor for the franchising authority at any time in the previous five years or has had any other commercial relationship with the franchising authority at any time in the previous five years.”

This amendment would ensure that any auditor appointed by the franchising authority had no commercial interest or association with the franchising authority which might create, or might be perceived to create, a conflict of interest.

Government amendment 5.

Amendment 6, page 19, line 37, at end insert—

“(4A) An award of any new franchise or contract shall not be made on the basis of labour costs estimated by the potential franchisee or contractor assuming labour costs for new employees at less than the labour cost of workers who are covered by TUPE protections in accordance with section 123X transferring to the new franchisee or contractor.”

This amendment would ensure that any new franchise or contract will not be awarded on the basis of estimated labour costs being lower for new employees than the labour cost of workers covered by TUPE protections.

Amendment 26, page 20, line 24, after “(or further postponed)” insert “or cancelled”.

Amendment 27, page 20, line 24, at end insert—

‘(1A) If an authority or authorities decide to cancel a proposed franchising scheme under subsection (1) they may not initiate a revised or alternative franchising scheme until the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which the decision to postpone the original scheme was taken.”

This amendment would provide greater certainty for bus operators and passengers by specifying that, if a franchising authority fails to make a case for a franchise scheme or decides not to progress its proposals, it should not be permitted to bring forward fresh proposals for five years.

Amendment 7, page 30, line 2, leave out “at the same time,”.

Amendment 8, page 30, line 14, leave out “at the same time”.

Amendment 9, page 32, line 27, at end insert—

“123Y Employees not covered by TUPE protections

Employees of local bus service providers who are not covered by TUPE protections may not be employed on terms and conditions less favourable than those provided by TUPE.”

This amendment would ensure that employees working under local service contracts not covered by TUPE protections may not be employed on terms and conditions less favourable than those provided by TUPE.

Amendment 10, page 32, line 27, at end insert—

“123Z Effect on employees of introduction of local service contract

(1) Where, either before or after the introduction of a local service contract following an assessment under section 123B, any employee of an operator in the area to which the scheme relates is dismissed, that employee is to be treated for the purposes of Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for the dismissal is the introduction of the relevant local service contract.

(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether or not the employee in question was part of an organised grouping of employees principally connected with the provision of local services, under section 123X(4).

(3) Where section 123X(4) applies, a new operator may not engage employees or workers on terms and conditions less favourable than those of the employees whose employment transferred from the former operator.”

This amendment would make dismissal of an employee for the sole or principal reason of the introduction of a franchising scheme automatically unfair dismissal.

Amendment 28, in clause 9, page 41, line 17, at end insert—

“(6A) The requirements that may be specified under subsections (4)(b), (4)(e) and (4)(h) in relation to fares and the prices of multi-operator tickets may only be specified if all operators party to the enhanced partnership scheme are in agreement with those requirements.”

This amendment would specify that fares structures could only be specified as part of an enhanced partnership scheme if the operators involved agree.

Amendment 11, page 57, line 3, leave out “at the same time,”.

Amendment 12, page 57, line 14, leave out “at the same time,”.

Amendment 13, page 59, line 42, at end insert—

“138T Effect on employees of introduction of enhanced partnership scheme or plan

(1) Where, either before or after the coming into force of an awarded contract in an area to which the relevant enhanced partnership scheme relates, any employee of an operator in the area to which the contract relates is dismissed, that employee is to be treated for the purposes of Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for the dismissal is the introduction of the awarded contract.

(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether or not the employee in question was part of an organised grouping of employees principally connected with the provision of local services, under section 138S(4).

(3) Where section 138S applies, a new operator may not engage employees or workers on terms and conditions less favourable than those of the employees whose employment transferred from the former operator.”

This amendment would make dismissal of an employee for the sole or principal reason of the award of a contract under an enhanced partnership scheme automatically unfair dismissal.

[Ian Mearns]

I declare an interest inasmuch as I am chair of the RMT parliamentary group and vice-chair of the Unite parliamentary group, both of which unions have members in the bus industry.

The transport sector is a safety-critical environment. This is not a loose use of language. The sector involves carriages travelling at speed, individuals working long hours on repetitive tasks on repetitive routes, and people maintaining equipment at all hours of night and day. Hard lessons have been learned following a series of fatal road and rail crashes in the 1980s and 1990s. However, continuing financial pressures, declining support from Government through the bus service operators grant, and commercially oriented initiatives towards potentially reducing staff could threaten safe working practices.

Bus drivers are aware of where corners are being cut. In theory, they may be empowered to use their employers’ whistleblowing policies to speak out. In practice, however, workers who do so are frequently subject to all sorts of pressure and have been known to be dismissed for whistleblowing. This invariably leads to serious safety failings being increasingly ignored and not adequately investigated, or the results of an investigation not being acted on by bus companies.

To counter the dysfunction, a confidential reporting service known as CIRAS was introduced. This system, initially only for rail, has been successful in enabling workers properly to ventilate their concerns, resulting in lessons being learned and an accumulation of failings being halted, with serious harm prevented. All the major rail companies, many of which also own bus companies, such as FirstGroup, Go-Ahead Group and Stagecoach, have signed up to CIRAS.

I should declare another interest inasmuch as I am a frequent user of my local bus services in Gateshead, as I do not own a car. A very good bus service is provided by Go-Ahead Group in my locality, but unfortunately not all my constituents can benefit from such great services. The bus company tries its best and provides excellent bus services during the peak hours, but as the evening goes on, unfortunately, their frequency dwindles.

Bus workers outside London should also be able to access CIRAS. That would be the effect of the new clause, which would reproduce CIRAS in franchises or quality partnerships. In response to a spate of deaths and serious injuries involving buses on London’s roads, Transport for London successfully extended the CIRAS scheme to London buses. London has one of the best resourced bus networks and some of the newest buses anywhere in the country. CIRAS itself supports the extension of the scheme to bus operators nationwide. In line with other aspects of the Bill—including matters unconnected to franchising and partnerships, such as audio and visual announcements—a nationally mandated approach is warranted and would be greatly desirable.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Lady share my regret that MPs were shut out from representing their constituents by petitioning the Lords Select Committee? There are constraints at the various stages of a Bill’s consideration in this House, and the Lords Select Committee was an opportunity for our points to be made in detail on behalf of those we represent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before the right hon. Lady answers that question, I remind the House that the amendments are very, very narrow. The amendments are really quite typographical, and they have nothing to do with what happened over there.

[Mrs Gillan]

Thank you very much for reminding me of the rules, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying to stick very closely to the amendments. Of course, I am referring to the Lords proceedings and to these amendments. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) that it is extraordinary that Ministers who represent constituencies along the route, and who were therefore unable to speak in this House, were prohibited from speaking to the Lords Select Committee because the locus standi was challenged by the very organisation set up by the Department for Transport—in collusion, in other words. MPs were shut up on this issue, as they have been in many instances since the project was first thought of.

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now pay tribute to people such as Hilary Wharf and her husband Bruce Weston. They helped to lead the brave HS2 Action Alliance, which still gives advice to beleaguered people and tries to stop or improve this project. My county council, ably led by Councillor Martin Tett, has put an enormous amount of work into the Bill, as has my district council, Chiltern District Council, led by the formidable Councillor Isobel Darby. I particularly mention my parish council, which is struggling to find the resources, alongside the larger councils, to carry out the work necessary to protect and inform its residents.

An additional burden runs from the amendments on traffic regulations, for example, and those costs will fall on our local councils. The amendments covering flood risk, possession of land and changing traffic flows, for example, will lie at the feet of our financially challenged councils, and there is little chance of the full costs being restored to those councils for all the extra work that has been forced on them, unless the Minister tells me different at the Dispatch Box today. In other words, our constituents are paying not once but two or three times over for this project.

Will HS2 be a success? I am still not convinced. Will these amendments make it a success? We learned from last weekend’s newspapers that the Department is so concerned that HS2 may be overtaken by new technology, such as driverless cars, that it is trying to encourage technology companies such as Google and the ever-popular Uber to take a financial stake in the recently announced combined franchise for the west coast main line and HS2 in order to offset the risk that HS2 is, in fact, old technology.

This is my last opportunity to speak on the Bill, and I want to acknowledge, as did the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, a couple of other people who tried to help those affected by HS2. I think particularly of Neil Caulfield, who tried so hard to help people through an obscure and often frightening process. He was a credit to this House and to the Clerks Department. He was scrupulously fair, and nothing was too much trouble for him. Quite frankly, he went above and beyond the call of duty to try to deal with an arcane process that really should be banished from our procedures in this House.

I also want to mention an amazing constituent, Mr Ray Challinor. He was chairman of the Hyde Heath village society, and his commitment to our community and social action was second to none. Sadly, his family laid him to rest this afternoon. I would have liked to attend his funeral to pay my tribute to him, but I pay my tribute on the Floor of the House because he was not a man who supported HS2. He was a man who was fiercely protective of our local community.

Lastly, I should mention all those individuals who have supported the campaign to either stop or radically change HS2. These are people who often could not afford to donate but did so because they could not believe that the state could ride in such a roughshod fashion over the very people who put it in charge.

The Government will get their way—Royal Assent will be given—but this Bill and this project are tainted by the way in which their people have gone about their business. In a democracy, there should not be a process that is so unequal, giving the state such powers over its citizens without the balance that we would expect from a fair society. I hope that at some stage we will be able to consign this hybrid Bill process to the history books. I wish I could say the same about HS2.

M25: Dartford

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Johnson]

Yes, I would, but that tunnel would be east of Gravesend. I ask my hon. Friend to consider carefully the fact that any road system we put in place at the approach to the existing Dartford crossing—option A, the alternative advocated by him—would result in at least six years of roadworks and would kill the Thames Gateway area. It would kill the house building and enterprise that exists in that place and would be devastating for local communities, who are already suffering from pollution, which is going through the roof. I ask him to consider some of those issues and to understand that the option C route provides an alternative to all those downsides and can help seriously to improve the current traffic congestion from which we suffer.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. May I say to the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) that I am allowing interventions to be very long on the understanding that people will not make speeches, but these interventions are turning into mini-speeches themselves? If people kept their interventions a little more brief, I would be grateful.

[Mr Holloway]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Tell that to your constituents in 10 years’ time, when the problem at Dartford has not been ameliorated by a long tunnel to the east of Gravesend. Again, I am not an expert, but I think you are thinking in the old way and you are still—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking through the Chair, so if he would refer to the hon. Member for Dartford, I would be grateful.

[Mr Holloway]

I am sure you are not thinking in the old way, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford may be thinking in terms of six years of disaster, building new bridges and so on. I am not an expert on tunnelling, but I would have thought that, where a tunnel is being built, there is inconvenience from things such as ventilation shafts. However, where a tunnel is being started to the south of the A2 or north of the A14—

Garden Bridge

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must remind Members that this is quite a narrow debate on the garden bridge in London. Other projects might be very interesting, but the Member in charge is the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and Vauxhall is in London. It would be good if we could keep to that subject.

Transport and Local Infrastructure

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), I want to point out that there are 18 Members wishing to speak in this debate. That works out to roughly 10 minutes each, so if everybody takes about 10 minutes, everybody will get in. That, of course, excludes the SNP spokesperson.

Points of Order

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Gillan]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is not a matter of the letter of the law, but the fact that it is wrong to prevent Ministers, Members of Parliament and even the Speaker from informing a Committee of the other House about a project that has been through this House in its first stage.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

On advice, this is a matter that is with the House of Lords at the moment, and therefore the locus standi is a matter for the House of Lords. I suggest that because the right hon. Lady is referring to a matter of privilege, she should write to the Speaker to ask him to have a look at this. I hope that she is happy with that. He will certainly have a look in Hansard at her full explanation in her point of order.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

Queen’s consent signified.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I inform the House that the amendments on the Order Paper have not been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that we have only half an hour to debate Third Reading and an awful lot of Members wish to speak, so there will be a speech limit of three minutes on all Back-Bench contributions in the hope that we can get as many people in as possible. If you use less time, everybody will be grateful.

Emergency Tug Vessels (West Coast of Scotland)

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. As one of the five Scottish National party Members for the highlands and islands, he will of course be aware that we have repeatedly called on the Government to address the maritime safety deficit caused by the removal of the Stornoway vessel in 2010-11. Does he agree that this cannot be done properly by having a single ETV based in Orkney alone? It is deeply worrying that the only existing ETV in Kirkwall is currently under threat. The position that we find ourselves in—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is very long. If Members keep their interventions brief, more Members can come in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that on safety and on all the issues that you have highlighted, the UK Government need to take into account the fact that in the coming years there will be more than 200 movements of nuclear material from Dounreay, and some of that material will be transported by sea?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) continues, I remind Members that they should speak through the Chair. At the moment, Members are addressing one another directly, and I should be grateful if they addressed their comments through the Chair.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan). I would argue that there is a wider point, because if we had responsibility for our marine environment in Scotland we would make sure that we had ships in place to protect our coastal community. Moreover, the unbelievable threat that we face from nuclear waste being moved by sea down the west coast of Scotland would certainly not be tolerated by an independent Scottish Government.

Let us think about the risks that we face on the west and north coasts of Scotland: extreme weather, treacherous coastlines and changing tidal patterns throughout the year. In those treacherous waters are general cargo boats and tankers, and there is even the threat of nuclear waste, as has been said. The thought of nuclear waste being transported down the west coast leaves me cold. The possibility of no emergency towing vessels being available horrifies me.

The need for such vessels was demonstrated clearly when two days after the announcement of the withdrawal of the vessels in 2011, the ship-towing vessel based at Stornoway was sent to the aid of a nuclear submarine, HMS Astute, which had run aground off Skye. We do not know whether Astute was carrying nuclear weapons—it is a moot point—but a nuclear sub colliding with the Isle of Skye was quite an incident. Who is to say such an event could not happen again? We need the security of an emergency towing vessel. I might add that the towing vessel would provide some security for us; a useless Trident nuclear submarine presents no security to the people of Scotland.

Where is the Government’s responsibility to my constituents—what will happen if there is another Braer, heaven forbid? We have learned that ETVs are not a statutory responsibility of the MCA and are not a budget priority. Even so, the MCA admits there is an increased risk if ETVs are not available. One almost could not make this up: there is acceptance of risk, but here is the rub, those of us in these far-off communities, well, we can take the risk—we are expendable. That is the message from this Government. Why should the Minister care? As a local MP, I care for my communities—I will fight for my communities—and I want the Government to take responsibility. What is the point of the MCA if such provision is not a statutory responsibility? Why will the Minister not make it a statutory responsibility?

Let me deal with the issue of vessels in the constituency of Ross, Skye and Lochaber. This wanton disregard for marine safety takes place at a time when the MCA is considering an application for ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Cromarty Firth. Here again, the Government seem to be coming up short in discharging their responsibilities to consult effectively and take environmental considerations seriously. It is environmental concerns that demonstrate the need for our marine safety to be taken seriously, and our communities need the comfort of knowing that emergency towing vessels are there as part of the Government’s responsibility.

The Scottish Government are responsible for marine safety yet, incredible as it sounds, we do not know whether Marine Scotland was consulted as part of the process. The application for the ship-to-ship transfer dated 5 November states that the MCA confirmed that the main consultees would be the local government authority, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, with the appropriate wildlife non-governmental organisations. There was no mention of Marine Scotland. Why not?

That is why I tabled a question to the Minister dated 9 February, which was answered on 15 February, stating that Marine Scotland was consulted. I have not been able to clarify whether this was the case or not. Perhaps the Minister can do so this evening. Why was Marine Scotland not listed in the consultation document? Was it consulted? In the interests of transparency, will he publish any related correspondence?

I return to the clear need for ETVs both on the west coast of Scotland and in the north. I mentioned the Donaldson report from 1994. We also had the Belton report in 1995, which stated:

“Once a ship has irreparably broken down and is drifting towards the shore tugs represent the first and only line of defence.”

Well, that is pretty clear. We also need to examine the scale of the risk. The Minister has an issue with costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I have heard the Government talk about risk on so many occasions and it strikes me that they are being very badly briefed, because they do not seem to understand what risk means. At the very simplest, two components are being misunderstood. The first is the probability of an event occurring. To follow what my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) said, even if something might happen only once every 50 years, it could happen next week. It does not mean that we will have to wait 50 years for it to occur.

The second point, on which very little has been said, is that we must take account of the nature of the negative outcome. I would argue, as have many people, that because of the nature of shipping today and the types of cargo that are being moved, such as waste, the catastrophic nature of the negative outcome is greater than it would have been 20 or 30 years—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman said that he was not going to make a speech, but if he kept his interventions a bit shorter, we would all be very grateful.

[Mr Goodwill]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are acutely aware of the risk and the damage that could be caused to the environment or, indeed, the loss of life that could occur if that risk is not correctly assessed and the response correctly put in place.

The meeting on 10 February started to explore whether there might be alternative ways to provide a tug capability. Another meeting with stakeholders is scheduled for Edinburgh on 9 March. We may find that a longer-term solution rests not on one approach, but on a combination of options. I want to give the MCA time and space to work through all reasonable options with the stake- holders to find a longer-term solution. That considered thought and the development of expert advice simply cannot be achieved before the current funding ends on 31 March.

I can therefore announce to the House that I have instructed the MCA to make immediate arrangements to extend the provision of a Government-funded emergency towing vessel to mirror the current arrangement until 30 September this year. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for making the case for that in such a positive way. The MCA and my Department will find the money for the additional provision from any underspend across our budgets. This is not additional expenditure.

Great Western Railway Routes

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. The right hon. Member is not giving way.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I have said I am grateful for that station and that I am grateful for the investment programme that the Labour Government initiated. I say to the Minister simply that she has cut that investment programme over the last six years at a time when every sensible economist in the world thinks we should be investing in our infrastructure for the long term. We have record low long-term interest rates in this country and a faltering economy, so now is the time when we should be investing in infrastructure, and particularly in rail. I repeat that I am very grateful that the Minister did not cut the money for that station and that we are going to get another station—but, incidentally, the Labour Government initiated the plans for that, too.

I am going to end with the following suggestion to the Conservative MPs in Devon and Cornwall who were swept to victory last May on great and grandiose promises of a rail revolution and renaissance in the south-west. I got into a great deal of trouble with my Whips in the last Parliament for refusing to vote for the money for High Speed 2 up to the north. To give credit where it is due, one Conservative Member, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter)—sadly, he is not in his place tonight—did the same. We withheld our support for that money. The Government now have a majority of only 12—

Airports Capacity

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. In Scotland, 90% of international visitors travel by air, of whom more than a third come through Heathrow as a hub, and traditional exports of salmon, shellfish and whisky are vital to the economy. Air access determines our ability to attract investment, grow jobs and grow the economy, so a decision on capacity is vital.

The UK Government have known all the environmental issues all along. They could have chosen Heathrow, Gatwick or somewhere new, all with environmental conditions. They could have chosen nothing at all: they could have ruled that out and allowed others to get on: indecision stops everyone from taking action, and keeps people and communities in stasis.

That is being said not just in Scotland and not just by me. Let me quote the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), at an Association of British Travel Agents conference in June 2015. He said that

“we cannot afford to stall on making a decision any longer. A thriving travel industry indicates a thriving economy; government policy must support the growth of the travel industry.”

On 7 September, the Minister in the Lords said, “There is no dithering”, and added that the decision would be made

“as the Prime Minister—the head of the Government—has made clear, by the end of this year, that is 2015.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 September 2015; Vol. 764, c. 1218.]

Indeed, in October 2012, the Secretary of State said that the Davies commission would make recommendations

“in 2013. Although some people say that it will take rather a long time, it will not take that long once it gets under way.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 476.]

In his speech to the Conservative party in October 2012, he said:

“There’s another area where we have got to help businesses too. And that’s to compete internationally…But in the south east the runways are filling up. And the jets are circling in our skies. That’s hitting our prosperity. It’s bad for the environment. It’s putting off investors. It’s costing jobs. And it’s holding Britain back.”

In his speech to the last Conservative conference, he said:

“On Airports in the south east. I don’t hide the challenge.”

I could go on. As the Secretary of State said, “It gets better.” The Prime Minister has twice told this House in Prime Minister’s questions that we would have a decision. Let me ask this—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I thought the hon. Gentleman, in quoting various announcements, was—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

The effect of a hub airport in the United Kingdom stretches to all parts of the United Kingdom, including up in the Leeds area. Those travelling transatlantic who want to get airside at Leeds cannot do so because the first flight out of Leeds is around midday, so capacity is vital to the economy. However, I believe that all the options before us are wrong and I would like my right hon. Friend take to this opportunity to look further at what I think is a better option, a fourth: two more runways at Stansted.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before I call the Secretary of State, I remind Members that we are asking questions, not making statements, and those questions should be a lot shorter.