National Policy Statement for Ports

Sarah Newton Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude the debate that started on 29 November, speak about some of the issues raised in that debate and respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who has one of the country’s great ports in her constituency.

Ports are such a significant part of the economy of this country that it was right and proper that so many Members of this House took the debate so seriously. I understand why some colleagues are not present this afternoon, as they made their contributions on the day. The Select Committee on Transport and its Chair, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), have also taken ports particularly seriously in this Parliament and the documents and strategy under consideration today show the significance that the new coalition Government attach to ports.

The huge ports, such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend and the great port of Dover—I could mention all the great ports throughout the country, as they are hugely significant and we are a great maritime nation—and the small ports are very significant to our constituencies around the country. By weight, 96% of all products brought into the country come in through our ports.

We are a great maritime nation and I am very proud, as the shipping Minister, to be responsible for dealing with the red ensign, the shipping industry and the problems of piracy on the high seas, which is one of the most significant issues that I have dealt with in the past 18 months. I have worked on that with the International Maritime Organisation, and I want to take this opportunity to welcome the new secretary-general of the IMO to his extremely important post. I became a good friend of the outgoing secretary-general and we will host a dinner for him here in the House of Commons. I hope the shadow Minister will be here for that—if the invitation has not yet arrived, it is in the post.

Our previous debate served to demonstrate the importance of ports not only in economic terms, but for leisure. As highlighted in a Westminster Hall debate yesterday, there is often controversy about changes to ports, such as harbour revision orders. However, we need growth to get out of the economic mire the coalition Government inherited, and for that to happen we must use the best modes of transport.

We will always need our roads, and significant investment is going into our road system—almost £3 billion in the next three years. We also need to carry more freight on rail, and we are achieving that, too. However, there is a capacity issue, particularly on the west coast main line. That is one of the reasons why High Speed 2 is so important; it will free up capacity.

We also need to think again about our ports. The ships coming into our ports are getting ever bigger, and we must work out how we can get their vast cargos around our country, as our transport networks will struggle to cope. Some goods will be carried by rail, but most will go by road. We must also use coastal shipping, however, and we should use the ports in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal and the new Gateway port on the Thames as hubs to promote a renaissance in coastal shipping in this country.

Happily, that has already started, but we must remain united in Parliament and continue to promote this move. It is the environmentally friendly way of regenerating the economy and bringing jobs to port areas where previously, perhaps, many were employed but which have recently struggled economically.

When ports are altered and harbour revision orders are made, environmental issues must always be addressed. The Marine Management Organisation has a vital role to play in that. We must not, of course, just bulldoze in, but the habitats directive has been a problem in respect of developing our ports. The directive is therefore being reviewed. The findings will be reported in March, and they will be significant for the future of the ports of our country.

The Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, has just entered the Chamber, and I welcome her. She will not have heard this, but I have already praised her Committee extensively. I probably will not have time to do so again.

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

I represent the small ports of Falmouth and Truro, and they have terrific potential to deliver on the agenda the Minister is articulating so well. Will he let us have the names and addresses of the people involved in the review of the UK interpretation of the EU habitats directive being undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as Members are struggling to find that information and we want to make representations to those people?

[Mike Penning]

I will certainly make that point to DEFRA. I have had the privilege of visiting Falmouth and listening to the issues and concerns there. It is a smallish—although not very small—port, but it is hugely significant, especially in my hon. Friend’s part of the country, and it can clearly contribute a lot. I pay tribute to the work being done there.

I will not rehearse all the points that were made in our earlier debate, but before I close this debate I want to say that this Government are taking the future of our ports, both large and small, very seriously. We have big decisions to make over the next few months and years on matters that can greatly help the growth of the economy and help us get out of the mess we inherited 18 months ago.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 25 January, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means shall be entered upon (whether before, at or after 4.00 pm), and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business.—(Stephen Crabb.)

First Great Western Rail Franchise

Sarah Newton Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It will be a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Alan. Before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). Although I secured the debate, my hon. Friend, as I shall call her today, has worked very hard with Members across the region to co-ordinate our action to enable us to work as a team, because the rail franchise is important to everybody who lives in the south-west. I welcome the opportunity to debate the Great Western rail franchise before the public consultation begins, so that the Minister and her team at the Department for Transport—it is good to see them this morning—who will work on the draft franchise document, can listen to the views of key stakeholders and of hon. Members who represent constituents who depend on this vital service.

The rail franchise will not be the only one in the region, but it is vital. The Penzance to Paddington line, with all the branch line connections, is central to the connectivity of the south-west with the rest of the UK and international markets. The new franchise will be let in 2013. As part of the Great Western franchising process, the Government intend to issue a consultation document, which will include the opportunity for individuals and organisations to give feedback on the draft franchise specifications. It will be helpful if the Minister confirms today that she intends the consultations to start in January and conclude in April 2012.

I want to ensure that the mistakes of the previous Great Western franchise are learned. TravelWatch recently reported that the 2006 Great Western franchise proved unacceptable for all involved—passengers, politicians and the operator. After representations by concerned stakeholders, a fare strike and a top management reshuffle, significant timetable enhancements were made and additional rolling stock procured at extra cost to the taxpayer and the operator. We must avoid a repetition of that with the new franchise.

I have welcomed the fine words of the coalition agreement on reforming our railway system, and specifically on reforming the franchising process. In July, I welcomed the findings of the Government’s review into how rail franchising can be improved. There is widespread agreement that the existing system has become too prescriptive at the point of bidding and lacks flexibility once operational. Arguably, Government now exercise more control over the railways than they did in the days of British Rail.

Earlier this year, the Government set out the key principles for the new franchising process, which can be summarised as follows. The specifics of each franchise will be decided on a case-by-case basis, with bidders having a greater role in helping Government to refine and define specifications. The Government will set demanding outcomes for operators to deliver, but also give them more flexibility to decide how best to achieve those outcomes, thus giving greater space for operators to plan and run their services more commercially. Longer franchises should expand the opportunity for operators to invest in improvements, as well as enable them to strengthen their working relationships with Network Rail and other stakeholders.

There have been reviews and consultations over the past 18 months—most notably the McNulty review. As the Secretary of State said to the House last month in a written statement:

“Our railways are currently the most expensive in Europe. That is something we…must tackle. The recent review by Sir Roy McNulty found scope to cut rail costs by 30%—up to £1 billion a year. My Department is committed to working with the rail industry to develop a strategy to deliver a better value railway for the benefit of passengers, taxpayers and the wider economy.”—[Official Report, 15 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 42WS.]

We all want to achieve that balance through the refranchising process.

The re-letting of the Great Western franchise will be one of the first of its kind to test the new process, so today, I want to share with the Minister some feedback that I have received from key stakeholders, and hon. Members will have the opportunity to give their feedback. First, I will summarise the key findings of the report published by TravelWatch in the south-west and the research undertaken by Passenger Focus. They agree with those of us who are here today that the south-west is well placed to contribute significantly to sustainable growth in the UK. Rail users and the business community see better connectivity as key to growth and the reduction of congestion, thus reducing sub-regional disparities in wealth, while accommodating the fastest growing population in England. In terms of gross value added, the south-west is projected to grow at a rate second only to that of London and the south-east. However, other parts of the UK are more productive, and that is largely due to the south-west’s poor transport links to other major parts of the UK. According to the university of Bath, productivity decreases by 6% for every 100 minutes of journey time from London.

The boom in south-west rail usage puts the industry’s planning forecasts in question. Usage has almost doubled since privatisation and virtually tripled in the Bristol travel-to-work area. Growth is not confined to the main line and the principal conurbations; branch lines throughout the south-west are the fastest growing in England, so the invitation to tender must give more priority to capacity. There is likely to be a capacity gap of about 100 million seats on mainline services over the next decade, despite the planned introduction of new inter-city express trains. The franchisee should deal with overcrowding, not by increasing fares to deter travel, but by having the right to bring in additional rolling stock without months of negotiation with Whitehall.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Unfortunately, I have to leave at 10 o’clock for a Select Committee. Overcrowding goes to the nub of the issue. We recently gained extra carriages, but that has not even kept up with the increased demand on the branch line services to which they will be given. It is crucial that whoever gets the new franchise plans for additional growth to ensure that people are not put off travelling because they cannot get a seat or the train is overcrowded.

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Like Torbay, the maritime line in my constituency, between Truro and Falmouth, has been fortunate, and we are grateful to the Department for Transport and Cornwall council for contributing to extra carriages to ease some congestion. He is absolutely right; in the new franchise, it is essential that branch lines and increased capacity on them be considered alongside the main line. The south-west has suffered the lowest level of investment in its transport network and much of the system is already nearing the end of its planned life.

The region I am talking about today stretches from Wiltshire, Bristol and Gloucestershire, across the peninsula to the west, including Dorset, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. The line is well over 300 miles in an east to west direction. Road and rail arteries have to travel disproportionately longer distances than those in the midlands or the north of England, because the populations are sparse and the distances between economic hubs greater. Whitehall has not understood that peninsular geography well since the post-war nationalisation of the former regional rail companies; therefore, over the years, Whitehall business case models for strategic investment have often not delivered extra investment in the south-west.

The decision to invest £5 billion in modernising the route from London to Bristol and Cardiff and to Oxford and Newbury is welcome, but the disruption caused by work on the main line and Crossrail will be felt across the franchise until the end of the decade. Without extra investment, electrification could adversely affect millions of passengers, beyond the electrified lines, such as those using the services from the south coast to Bristol and south Wales, to Weston-super-Mare and Taunton, services west of Exeter and those parallel to the M4 corridor from east Wiltshire through west Berkshire.

The Government are committed to progressive electrification of the network, which should be a priority for lines serving major employment centres, such as the Bristol travel-to-work area. It should also be a priority for diversionary routes to Bath and the far west via Westbury, and Wales via Gloucester, because that would relieve the Severn tunnel to Wales. Bidders should be encouraged to develop proposals for additional electrification schemes and to specify how they intend to meet any capacity shortfalls.

Reliable services are essential for business and for passengers. Investment should focus on eliminating bottlenecks and enhancing capacity to ensure delivery of reliable, user-friendly, clock-face timetables. The Government say that they want people to have a voice on service provision, and we all say hooray to that. The new franchise is an opportunity to give local stakeholders a say in their rail services. It may be time to explore whether the devolution of responsibility for infrastructure and operations to local partnerships might better align services to local needs.

Timetable planning must deal with existing pent-up demand and substantial latent growth. Today’s service levels barely meet demand. The franchisee should be incentivised to provide additional services where needed, particularly with the surge in demand that comes with electrification. There must be a mechanism for regular reviews of the service requirement with stakeholders. Passengers need a reliable, seven-day railway and the opportunity to travel somewhere and back in a day. Rail should do more to exploit that competitive edge by speeding up longer distance journeys to places such as Plymouth, Torbay and the far west.

The franchise’s trains are already by far the oldest main line fleet in the country. Bidders should have replacement plans for the diesel train fleet, with carriage lay-out and seating designed to accommodate the needs of the contemporary passenger. Where through-services are not practical, connections need improving. They need to be made more convenient, with adequate platform staff to assist with changing trains. Better co-ordination with the wider public transport network should be encouraged, and multi-modal and multi-operator information and ticketing should be promoted. The opening up at Old Oak Common of an interchange directly linking with Crossrail to Heathrow, High Speed 2 to the north and the proposed new link to High Speed 1 and the European high-speed rail network should be supported as providing a step change in connectivity to the south-west.

Stations can be focal points for the communities that they serve. Bidders should consider their improvement with imagination, and welcome active community involvement. The ticketing system should be made simpler and ticket purchase made easier, with greater use of electronic ticketing and a less punitive approach towards passengers who mistakenly travel on the wrong train with a restricted ticket. There is a continuing need to obtain value for money from lightly-used services if they are to be sustainable. The use of less onerous infrastructure and maintenance standards and light-weight vehicles could be appropriate without in any way jeopardising safety.

South-west lines that are run as community rail partnerships have experienced record-breaking passenger growth. The franchisee should at least match local contributions, which would therefore encourage complementary contributions from local authorities and other partners. The Government should encourage stakeholders to contribute their local insights, expectations and aspirations to the specification process.

I would like to share the feedback that I have received from some of my constituents about the rail services in my constituency, which reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders). We very much appreciate our branch lines and think that they should be included in the franchise. We are very concerned that if branch lines are not compulsory and stipulated by the Department, it would be possible for a future operator to choose not to run those services if they became financially unviable. Especially for those of us from Cornwall, it is also important that the Department stipulates the need for a sleeper service to Cornwall. We would very much like to hear a commitment to the potential upgrading of the service to include modern facilities, such as en-suite showers and toilets.

In relation to the current franchise specification, the Department for Transport could also consider improving journey times between Cornwall and London. The requirement to make stops—often for very few passengers —at all stations slows the train down. I would like the Minister to consider whether some London trains could have fewer stops, with passengers using local services to connect with larger stations such as Truro. That would dramatically reduce the journey time between Penzance and London.

Cornwall has a fantastic record of support from the local authority, local volunteers and local business. As a result, the maritime line is the fastest growing rural line in the UK. This could be an opportunity to make partnership working and localism an integral part of the new franchise by empowering the local authority with direct involvement in the specification of services. It is also very important that the franchise is realistic about growth. The number of vehicles currently operating in our west fleet is 147. The original franchise specification for 2006 said that 102 vehicles would suffice. The new franchise must start from where we are today—cuts would be absolutely unacceptable—and recognise the considerable potential for growth over its period of operation.

The fact that there is a range of hon. Members here today representing a broad range of constituencies across the south-west shows that this is a vital franchise, which will be a very good test of the Government’s new franchise regime. We want to work with the Minister to ensure that the new franchise meets the key principles that the Government have set out while, at the same time, improving the service on the Penzance to Paddington line and the many important branch lines that support it.

National Policy Statements

Sarah Newton Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I am sure that it is Government policy to uphold all policies fairly, and I imagine that that is what my hon. Friend the shipping Minister and others will seek to do.

Where we have made a change is in the intention to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission so that, from next April, major project applications will revert to the Secretary of State for decision following consideration by the major infrastructure planning unit, which is to be set up within the Planning Inspectorate. That reinstates an important element of democratic oversight in the process, although I should make it clear that the Secretary of State intends to consider applications on the facts, on the advice of the major infrastructure planning unit, and in accordance with the national policy statement.

Another aspect of the Planning Act that we have retained is the principle that applications should not succeed if their adverse impacts outweigh their benefits. I do not believe that many applications will fail that test if they are thoroughly prepared in accordance with the national policy statement, but none the less this represents a robust safety net in case we fail to foresee any significant adverse impacts. The Infrastructure Planning Commission, and the major infrastructure planning unit that will succeed it, will not be a completely one-stop shop, but it nevertheless reduces the separate applications potentially required. Marine licensing, as set up under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, streamlines previous licence and consent requirements, and associated development can now be fully integrated with the main application.

The purpose of national policy statements more generally is to provide a framework for preparing, considering and deciding planning applications. Therefore, this national policy statement does not purport to be a complete statement of Government policy as it relates to each and every aspect of ports. In essence, it is a planning document.

The UK is of course a trading nation, and well over 90% of our international trade by weight arrives or leaves by sea—the lion’s share of a total traffic of around 500 million tonnes a year. Ports are under-appreciated. They ply much of their trade behind high security fences, and even large ships can be surprisingly inconspicuous to those living in the port’s hinterland. We need port capacity to carry that trade and provide for coastal traffic, which can help to take lorries off our roads and reduce the incidence of pollution and congestion.

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

I very much welcome the national policy statement and those statements that will have a positive impact on ports, such as Falmouth, set out in today’s national infrastructure plan. One helpful recommendation relates to the habitats directive and helping to balance the economic and social impacts of a port against potential impacts on habitats. It proposes setting up an industry body that would work with Ministers to review some of the over-zealous interpretations of the habitats directive and its impact on licensing port activities. Will the Minister shed some light on when that body will be set up and which industry bodies will be represented on it?

[Norman Baker]

I am afraid I cannot answer that question in detail, but I will ask my hon. Friend the shipping Minister to respond to it. We are determined to strike a balance between the sensible needs of a working port and respecting the natural environment as far as possible, and it would be quite wrong if one of those were able to triumph unduly over the other. We can strike a sensible balance in our arrangements, and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) is right to raise the matter, so I will ensure that the shipping Minister writes to her with the answer that she has asked for.

Coastguard Modernisation

Sarah Newton Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

On the first of the two substantive points that the hon. Gentleman raises, the Department and the Secretary of State are responsible for in excess of 5,000 DFT staff in the Swansea area. The economic effect on the small number of staff at Milford Haven is disproportionately beneficial to them compared with what would be the case at Swansea. That is what we have said both in the statement and all the way through. On the second point, when I was at Swansea attending a meeting with the staff, the station was switched off and Milford Haven was covering the very dangerous areas to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If that had not been safe, I am sure the coastguard would not have turned the station off.

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

I very much welcome the reassurance that the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) that the safety of people on our seas will be paramount in all his considerations as the proposals are developed. Will he give me further reassurance that the front-line coastguards at the co-ordination centres that will remain will be given the opportunity to work alongside the coastguards developing the new processes and procedures in the MOCs so that we will truly have the resilient and first-class service that I know he aspires to achieve?

[Mike Penning]

A shocking thing that I found when I took over this job and visited co-ordination centres around the country was the complete lack of co-ordination. The pairs were linked but apart from that there was no national resilience at all. The whole point of doing this is to give us a 21st-century emergency service with that level of communication and skills. Training will be paramount. That will be done not only in the MOCs but across the co-ordination centres because they will be picking up calls from other areas just as the MOCs will be.

Rural Bus Services

Sarah Newton Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Brandon Lewis]

There is an absolute need for operators to be looking locally and for local authorities to work with local communities and put further pressure on those companies. In Great Yarmouth, we have had examples of routes that have been considered for cancellation and, by working with the local authorities and the bus company, we have been able to restore a usable route that services residents. If a route is simply not economically viable, when money is scarce we need to consider alternative forms of transport that can provide the service that local residents need. That might not necessarily be a bus. We are talking about providing the transport service that is needed in a cost-effective way and that allows people to live their lives productively.

When I recently did an interview on BBC Radio Norfolk, I discussed the possibility raised by bus companies of having a 50p flat rate and an admin charge for getting a concessionary pass in the first place, and whether we should change the age of eligibility to retirement age rather than 60. I was pleasantly surprised because, despite expecting a barrage of criticism, we received some very positive responses. One resident said:

“In regard to the recent news of the deficit we are facing with the bus pass I heard you on Radio Norfolk and thought your opinions echoed mine and I am sure many more. I would be more than happy to pay 50p each trip which would more than cover the debt.”

Cornwall county council, for example, has called for legislative changes to allow pass holders to make a small payment for each journey. It has written to all the county’s MPs to ask them to lobby for such a change.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend, who makes exactly the point that I want to make, on securing the debate. During the summer, in meetings in village halls around my constituency, there was universal support for the idea that some people could contribute a flat fee of 50p or £1. I accept that, for people living in poverty and on mean-tested benefits, that would be too much, but there is strong support for consideration to be given to the introduction of a flat fee. In the spirit of localism, the Minister should enable councils to be pathfinders if they want to do so. In this age of austerity, we are enabling many councils to be pathfinders and to work with residents and stakeholders to find sustainable ways of funding vital public services. What better example and lead could the Government provide than to enable certain local authorities to pilot flat fees where there is overwhelming support from residents?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend is right, particularly in relation to overwhelming desire from local residents to see a service continue. We need to be more flexible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I am pleased to be able to speak on rural bus services. The issue is apposite because on 26 September Northumberland county council issued the report of its bus subsidy working group. I endorse the all-party work, led by Councillor Gordon Castle, to bring together a proper and legitimate way forward for the bus services of Northumberland. The problems of Great Yarmouth presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) are common to us all and endemic in all our counties and constituencies. We have a common will and desire to change the policies of the past, which have seen a gradual decline in bus services, to the detriment of people in rural areas. I hope and pray that the Minister will take on board and progress the excellent suggestions arising from today’s timely and proper debate.

I represent the second largest constituency in this country, and rural bus services are clearly an important factor. Without question, the Hadrian’s wall bus service provided by the Hadrian’s Wall Heritage company and Northumberland county council provides a great service for tourism. Not only rural bus services are at stake, however, and I do not want us to fall into the trap of being champions solely of those suffering from rural fuel poverty and poor rural bus services, because those matters are also common to the market towns and villages in our constituencies. Those areas are not fundamentally rural, but include 5,000 or 3,000-people towns that are absolutely dependent on bus services. All of us could highlight individual areas of rural bus poverty—if that is the proper expression—that we could describe, note and champion, but the little towns and villages also need support. That is what I particularly want to discuss.

I have the great fortune—I express that passionately—to have three particular bus champions in my constituency who regularly fill my postbag. In Prudhoe, I wish to cite Robert Forsyth and Amanda Carr, who promote the cause of buses and are, quite rightly, on the case of bus companies such as the euphemistically named Go North East, which does not seem to go very far or to continue to go very often—it would be well named, if only it fulfilled its name. They champion the desire of local people to have buses that support them in local villages. The Hexham Courant, my local paper, has supported Mrs Carr. Her mother and mother-in-law try to take the children to and pick them up from school using the local bus service but, if it goes, they will not be able to do so, so continuing to work will be impossible and there will be huge difficulties on the way ahead.

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend is making some good points. People often think that rural bus services are a bit of a luxury—some have cars sitting in their drives but choose to use bus passes because they have them—but they underestimate the poverty and the number of those struggling on low incomes who use the buses to go to work, school or hospital. In Cornwall, we have only one acute hospital for the whole county, which is more than 100 miles long. CAB Cornwall, the citizens advice bureaux, has done some excellent work showing the cost to society of the lack of affordable access to transport. High numbers of people miss doctor or hospital appointments, which is detrimental not only to personal health but to the whole of society because of the costs of them not accessing such vital services.

[Guy Opperman]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a telling point, and I endorse entirely what she said.

Certain organisations are stepping into the breach, and I would like to support the work of Adapt, which has stepped in to provide an essential public service but has gone further than traditional countryside bus provision. It targets those who need the service by operating a dial-a-ride scheme, picking up local residents from their home. The service has proved extremely successful and invaluable to those with young children and to the elderly, who felt that their access to buses was limited under the old, more traditional provision. I totally endorse the dial-a-ride system as the way forward for traditional rural bus services that are failing to provide.

I want to finish with two particular points, which relate to what the Government can do for us, touching first on integration and secondly on the degree of control that Government and local councils have over bus services. I represent a constituency that is entirely in Northumberland, but Durham is below me—it is good to see my neighbour in the Chamber, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass)—Cumbria is to the west, Newcastle is to the east, and the bus services have to integrate. I also have Scotland to the north and, although we do not have an awful lot of bus services to Scotland, there should still be a degree of integration.

The sadness is that there is no integration between individual bus services operating in one county and the next—that must come from the Government giving guidance. We have the bizarre situation of the bus companies literally not talking to each other, let alone planning individual services with each other.

To go further, we rightly have a degree of competition, with bus companies able to provide local bus services, but we can have the bizarre situation of two bus companies competing for the same journey, with the result that neither can make a profit or provide a service and we end up with no bus company in that area. The Government must be able to find some way to enforce a degree of integration when the ultimate contract is awarded to a bus company, so that the parties and partners work together and not against each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I can say to my hon. Friend to be helpful that a number of well-meaning people who are very committed to bus services have raised similar points to the one that he has raised. Those points have been noted and passed both to the Department for Transport and elsewhere in Government. However, we are clear about the commitment that we have made to the free bus pass, and that is not going to change.

I should at this stage pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth about trying to save money on administration in relation to the bus pass. That is right. We need to consider those types of saving. That is one reason why we were supportive of the idea of moving the administration from districts to counties, which saves considerable costs in the administration of the bus pass.

Only one small change has been made to the entitlement to concessionary fares: the age of eligibility has been increased in line with the changes taking place to the state pension age. That is right, as people are living longer, staying healthy longer and tending to stay in work until later in life. That change started in April 2010, just before the last general election, so local authorities are already making savings as a result. The change will assist with the financial sustainability of the scheme, while reserving the benefits of the bus pass for those with the greater need.

What has not changed at all—this is an important point—is that operators should be reimbursed for concessionary bus travel only on a no better, no worse-off basis. That is in primary legislation introduced by the previous Government. Nothing that this Government have done has changed that at all. Almost a year ago, the Department for Transport published revised guidance to local authorities to support them in determining their arrangements with bus companies, to make sure that they are no better and no worse off. I made that clear in my recent letter to the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), both of whom came to see me to talk about bus services in the county.

In a report published in May, the Competition Commission strongly commended the guidance issued by my Department, since it helps local authorities to take account of the impacts that the concessionary travel scheme can have on commercial pricing policies. The commission says that it hopes that the guidance will be followed to the greatest extent possible. In fact, the majority of local authorities are now using the guidance and should be reaping the financial benefits of taking it on board. I stress, however, that it is entirely a matter for them whether they use the guidance or not. There is no compulsion to do so. The only compulsion is the one that existed in legislation introduced by the previous Government to ensure that bus companies are no better and no worse off from operating the concessionary fares scheme. The guidance can be a useful starting point for negotiation between bus operators and local authorities and, so far this year, more than half of the appeals lodged by operators have been withdrawn—a significant improvement on previous years.

I remind Members that our funding for bus travel does not stop at concessionary travel reimbursement and bus operator subsidy. We have also provided almost £47 million to local transport authorities and bus operators to purchase 542 low-carbon buses across England, through our green bus fund. I would also like to refer to our new £560 million local sustainable transport fund, which this Government have introduced. There have been 39 successful bids in tranche 1, 25 of which have included bus-based elements to help bus travel locally.

Turning to the third element, I recognise that the recent local authority settlement has been challenging. There is no doubt about that. I have heard the argument that the distribution method used at the time does not reflect the particular circumstances facing each local council. That has been brought into sharp relief now that, since April, all funding for the statutory concessionary travel scheme has been provided as part of the settlement from the Department for Communities and Local Government. I should point out, however, that last summer’s consultation by that Department provided an opportunity to influence the final distribution method for the first two years of the spending review period. The overall funding then set was deemed by DCLG to be sufficient to enable local authorities to deliver effective local services, while ensuring that authorities do not set excessive council tax increases. Councils now have another opportunity to make their voices heard. DCLG is consulting on the broad options for a new way of funding local government, based on business rates retention.

The Government are clear that any changes must protect the interests of local taxpayers and the vulnerable, be fair for all councils and encourage growth. Councils that are more deprived—I accept the point that has been made about the definition of deprivation—will continue to receive central Government support. We recognise, however, that it may be possible to improve the way local council spending on concessionary travel reimbursement is treated in allocating local government resources. That is why, following my meeting in April with the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright), and the hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), I wrote to the Minister for Housing and Local Government on 20 July about the way formula grant is calculated, the relative needs formula for concessionary travel, the so-called floor-damping mechanism, and the local government resource review. That is why the consultation considers whether to review the relative needs formulae for concessionary travel when establishing the baseline for local government funding from 2013-14 onwards.

[Sarah Newton]

I welcome the review of local government funding formulae. One area of reimbursement that the Minister has not mentioned, and on which I hope he will give an assurance, relates to parts of the country that welcome lots of tourists but are not, at the moment, reimbursed for the cost of honouring concessionary fares. Can he assure us that the review will consider that?

[Norman Baker]

I can give an assurance only that, first, that point was made to me in a meeting with Norfolk MPs, and secondly, that it has been reflected in comments that I have passed on to DCLG. I am happy to share the reply that I received from the Minister for Housing and Local Government. He confirmed that he had received the letter and that, in his view, the new business rate retention system is likely to address Norfolk’s concerns. That was the official response from DCLG and the Minister thinks that that is part of the answer. There is recognition, at least, from DCLG that Members in Norfolk have a legitimate concern about the matter, and it is therefore being factored, I think, into the Department’s thinking.

Let me now turn to reductions in tendered bus services, which in England comprise about 22% of bus services, while the rest are commercially provided. As I have said, the recent local government finance settlement has been challenging, but I am still disappointed that in some areas local councils have responded by taking the axe to local bus services in a rather unimaginative way. This hits particularly hard in rural areas where supported services make up a higher share of the total than in metropolitan areas. I am naturally concerned when I hear that vulnerable people with few other transport choices have lost their only bus service, or that children have reduced public transport access to the school of their choice. It would seem that there is also an impact on people’s love lives and on cats, but perhaps I should keep away from cats.

Some councils, such as Cambridgeshire, have unfortunately taken an almost slash-and-burn approach to bus services, while others, such as East Riding, where the percentage cuts are in single figures, have been much more considerate and careful in their decisions. There is therefore a big difference—this is part of localism—between the responses of individual councils. People are now empowered to ask why their council has made cuts in their area when similar cuts have not been made across the border. I hope that people will start picking up on these differences and challenge their councillors accordingly. That is part of the answer to the point that the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) made about North Yorkshire, because the position in North Yorkshire is very different from that in, for example, East Riding.

I was encouraged to read in a recent press release by Norfolk council that it has been able to make significant savings this year with

“very little disruption to bus services.”

Another example is Dorset, which I understand is making savings of up to £1 million this year through an innovative procurement model. That is something that I am examining to see whether there are lessons that can be rolled out to other councils throughout the country.

I am interested in the point made by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) about feeder services in Shropshire. Section 22 community transport services can qualify for concessionary travel, so it is possible for them to be included in a proper arrangement for a planned bus network.

I am also keen that local authorities make the most efficient use of their resources, whether that means combining adult social care transport with patient and school transport, or providing more flexible forms of public transport in areas where commercial services are not available. In Cheltenham, for example, Gloucestershire county council has replaced a costly subsidised bus service with a route operated by a community transport group, which integrates school transport in the mornings and afternoons with a scheduled timetable open to the public in between. I think that that is the sort of initiative that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth was suggesting might be applied more widely.

On community transport eligibility, as I have mentioned, section 22 services qualify. Section 19 services do not, because the Department has long held the view that, because they are on-demand services and available only to specific groups of people, it would not be fair to extend concessionary fare eligibility to them. It could also undermine existing tendered or commercial services. They qualify, however, for bus service operators grants, so there is support.

I am conscious of the time, but let me pick up one or two of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) made a point about integration across counties. Local authorities have powers to work together with operators of commercial services across boundaries to integrate timetables. That is done in some areas, such as Oxford and Sheffield, so the powers are there and were, in fact, reinforced in the Local Transport Act 2008. It is up to local authorities to use the powers that they have. There are no quality contracts in place at the moment. The legislation exists to allow them to be formed. There are statutory quality partnerships, which is perhaps what the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness was discussing. If local authorities want to avail themselves of the powers in the 2008 Act, they can do so. Some of the legislation is slightly complicated. In fact, when I was in opposition, I wanted to go further, in line with some of the comments made by Government Members during today’s debate, but that did not find favour with the previous Government.

The Competition Commission has produced this week its provisional remedies for the bus market. The Department for Transport may need to look at those carefully. Perhaps some solutions will help to address some of the issues that have been raised today. The hon. Member for Hexham talked about more council control, which is what the Competition Commission is suggesting, particularly in terms of multi-operator ticketing.

The hon. Member for South West Norfolk raised the issue of rail-bus integration.

Coastguard Modernisation

Sarah Newton Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) a few moments ago, I recognise that in the case of every pair there is likely to be some internecine warfare over which of them is to be selected. The hon. Gentleman says the original recommendation was to close Milford Haven and retain Swansea. That was based on an understanding within the agency then about onerous obligations in respect of the site and buildings at Swansea. It has subsequently become clear that they do not impose as great a financial cost as was first thought, and the view within the agency now is that there are no operational or financial considerations that dictate that the choice should be either Swansea or Milford Haven. The hon. Gentleman has completely failed to recognise that my Department already employs more than 5,000 full-time equivalent staff in and around Swansea. I am not sure whether we employ any staff in Milford Haven at present, but if we do the numbers will be very small. I believe that in these circumstances, and with no financial or operational drivers, the right decision is to distribute the employment opportunities as equitably as possible.

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

When the Government brought forward the original proposals, I greatly appreciated that they clearly said they were not a done deal. There has genuinely been a huge change from those original proposals, as the Government have listened to what coastguards such as mine in Falmouth have told them. However, it is clear from the contributions of my hon. Friends that there are still considerable concerns. Therefore, may I have a reassurance from the Government that over this 12-week period they will properly listen and take into account any further concerns that are raised about these proposals?

[Mr Hammond]

The consultation is about the parts of this proposal that differ from the previous proposal that is already being consulted on, so we will not receive further responses to the original consultation proposals, but we are open to responses to the changes in the four areas I outlined in my statement.

Greenock Coastguard Station

Sarah Newton Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

Coastguard Service

Sarah Newton Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate all my colleagues from around the country—the whole of the United Kingdom—and from across the House who have turned up for the debate on a Thursday afternoon, which is definitely the graveyard shift. That underlines the huge importance of the issue to all of us and our constituents. I am pleased that we have secured a second debate in Westminster Hall so that hon. Members have the chance to let the Minister know their opinions on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s proposals to reorganise our coastguard service.

I welcome the Minister’s approach to the consultation process. He has listened to the concerns about the MCA’s modernisation proposals and requested alternative proposals from coastguards. He has already visited several coastguard stations and received alternative proposals from coastguards directly. I look forward to welcoming him to Falmouth. I will not repeat what I said during the last debate about Falmouth’s role in international rescue so as to allow more of my colleagues to make their points.

Every coastguard I have spoken to has stated that the service needs modernisation. The question is not whether to modernise, but how. Coastguard officers readily acknowledge the need to reduce the overall number of rescue co-ordination centres and are also ready to accept that reduced staff numbers come with that concept. There is a need to link the coastguard stations together.

However, in all the meetings that I have attended over the past few months, I have been struck by that willingness to change and the understandable disappointment that the small team in the MCA that developed the modernisation proposals did not work closely enough with its front-line coastguard colleagues. I have been surprised and disappointed by the inaccuracies in the consultation document and inconsistencies in answers to questions. Good policy can be made only with sound evidence that is open to public scrutiny. I shall go through some of the inaccuracies in the proposals, and I am sure that other colleagues will provide more.

The MCA’s proposals state that modernisation is urgently needed, as the service was last reviewed 40 years ago. That is not a true reflection and is patently designed to give the impression that the coastguard is archaic and seriously out of date.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton]

Actually, I will not, as so many people want to speak. Sorry, Angus.

The service underwent a major review in the 1990s under Focus for Change. It was heralded at the time as the most detailed and thorough review for decades of the structures, work loads and running of the coastguard service. The coastguard service has experienced continuous technical improvements to advance and upgrade all its information technology and communications systems since then, and such an upgrade is being rolled out even now.

Coastguard officers recognise that modernisation is part of the natural development of the type of work that they carry out and are not averse to change. Historically, coastguard officers have been deeply involved in developing and refining a multitude of systems and programmes, and it is probably fair to say that many of those programmes would not work as they do today without that input.

Much is made in the document of the requirement for national resilience. The MCA proposal cites a scenario whereby both stations in the current pairing might suffer a failure and there is no further back-up. Has that ever happened? The answer is no. The technicians to whom I have spoken cannot envisage a situation in which such an event could occur. The coastguard station in Falmouth suffered a catastrophic failure when it was hit by lightning and was out of service for a period. However, our flank station at Brixham took over services by diverting all telephone lines, and contingency plans were in place to ensure that all international obligations were diverted to international colleagues to enable a normal service to be maintained. It worked, and it was resilient.

The senior coastguard told me that Falmouth suffers from fragile connections. I met with the members of BT senior management who have managed the communication links for the Falmouth coastguard for the past eight years. They said that there was no problem at all and foresaw none in the future.

The document also refers to paired stations being overrun with an increase in work load. Again, there is no evidence to support that. It is agreed that some stations can get very busy at peak times, but no station has ever suffered a loss of service as a result of being overrun. It is reasonable to assume that, for a proposal involving such major change, an extensive trial would have been set up to mimic the maritime operation centre and to establish what work load was expected and how—or, more importantly, whether—it could be managed.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Newton]

I will carry on so that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can get in to speak later.

The MCA confirms that the only trial that took place was a table-top exercise at the training centre with a handful of invited staff who walked through the scenario and analysed incident data. I am afraid that that does not constitute a valid trial of such an important proposal. At the very least, a valid trial should shadow the work load of multiple coastguard centres on a busy July day, monitoring incidents and all other routine working, to determine accurately whether it can be done and, importantly, how many staff are needed.

The MCA has announced that when the proposal goes ahead, technical trials—this time involving operational coastguards—will be held to see how and whether it can be made to work. Such trials should be conducted before any proposal is announced, not after it has been approved.

Throughout the modernisation proposal document, much emphasis is placed on new or refreshed technology, but it has been confirmed that the technology referred to will be current technology, but refreshed. It is not clear what that means. Technology has a habit of promising much and failing to deliver—look at the debacle of the fire service proposals. Technology also has a habit of haemorrhaging money. The proposed savings from the plan will be wiped out quickly if the technological budget balloons.

The MCA refers to new technology that will allow coastguards to carry out surveillance and long-range monitoring of vessels at sea, helping to prevent maritime incidents from occurring or minimising the impact of such incidents. I agree that we can now monitor ships, flag up those showing a history of mechanical or structural deficiencies and involve the survey branch of the MCA in scrutinising them as they approach our shores. However, it is not correct to imply that such surveillance will prevent incidents around our shores. Ships are fitted with a vast array of navigational and sensory equipment, but they still manage to run aground and collide with each other, break down, catch fire, lose people overboard, injure their crew and sometimes even sink. That risk will remain.

A significant criticism of the proposals is the concern that vital local knowledge will be lost if all operations are centralised. The risk assessment on the proposals states that operational postures will require officers to harvest local knowledge. That is an acknowledgement that local knowledge will be required, but in the MOC it will have to cover a vast area, which will be extremely difficult to achieve.

Coastguard officers around the coast are required to know their area and are examined every two years to ensure that they do. That is laid down in their operational manuals. Each operations room views its area as being under its ownership and makes it its business to have thorough knowledge of it. To lose that knowledge would be a retrograde step and could increase risks.

The MCA proposal states that local knowledge will be provided by volunteers from the Coastguard Rescue Service, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the National Coastwatch Institution. Again, that is misleading. Those organisations can assist with local knowledge after an incident has commenced, but the vital time for local knowledge is when the call is received. That responsibility lies with the officer running the incident and it is needed immediately. Serving officers do that now, and do it well, because of the knowledge that they have built up over many years. They use technology to confirm as required, but it is only a tool, not the primary method of defining the location of an incident.

I welcome the proposals’ recognition of the importance of volunteers. When I first read the proposals, they made a compelling case. As a keen sailor and an MP representing a maritime constituency, I am very much aware of the volunteer Coastguard Rescue Service and the RNLI. I understand that if I were to get into difficulties sailing off the Isles of Scilly, it would be volunteers from the RNLI, or perhaps the Navy with helicopters from Culdrose, who would rescue me. I also know, however, that those volunteers come forward because they feel safe in the knowledge that the rescue missions in which they participate are co-ordinated by professional coastguards in the Falmouth coastguard station. The RNLI’s deafening silence on the proposals speaks volumes.

Only a few people sitting in RNLI headquarters, removed from the reality of rescues around our shores, are talking to the MCA. Those HQ staff might well be saying that they can take on more of the roles undertaken by the coastguards, but it is the volunteer coxswain and crew who risk their lives to rescue people at sea. Are their opinions being listened to? I do not think so.

The situation is similar in other organisations directly involved in our maritime environment, such as the Royal Yachting Association. I expect that it is the HQ staff who are talking to the MCA. They have not consulted with their members. Yacht clubs in my constituency that organise world-class yacht races and Olympic regattas are dismayed with the position that the RYA has taken on the proposals. I urge the Minister to ask both the RNLI and RYA headquarters staff to demonstrate that they have consulted all their members on the proposals, and to ask for copies of those consultations. Although I am not a betting person, I would wager that their responses do not support the MCA’s proposals.

During the debate, I hope that we can persuade the Minister that the best course of action is to accept that he was not given accurate information by the MCA team responsible for the proposals, which have developed over a number of years, and that he should cost and carefully consider reasonable alternative proposals that meet the criteria that he has set out. The safety of people at sea and the protection of our precious marine environment deserve no less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; I am sure that the Minister heard what he said. Again, because of the importance of the issue, it would be in the Government’s interest to take questions on the Floor of the House. That would be a strong statement that they are indeed listening to the views of MPs.

The extension is welcome and it provides people with opportunities, but cynics among us, including me, would say that 5 May is an important day. It is a day of big elections in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and many parts of England. I am sure that that was not the intention of the Minister, but cynics will be led to believe that it might have been a circumstance— [Interruption.] I am certainly not the only one. I can give empirical evidence of candidates who were on the lists for north Wales, for instance, who, when the announcement was made, said that the proposals would improve safety—Liberal Democrats and Conservatives were going with the Government line at the time—and that there would be no front-line closures. They received hundreds of e-mails, and, within weeks of receiving them, they were saying, “It’s a disgrace that the coastguard stations are closing.” That should be borne in mind. Cynics would arrive at the conclusion that people have done somersaults because of public pressure.

[Sarah Newton]

I am very disappointed with the line that the hon. Gentleman is taking, because there is genuine concern about the matter the length and breadth of the country. For him to turn it into a political football is most disappointing. The point has been well made by several Members that there are significant inaccuracies in the document. On the face of it, that document made a compelling argument. It was not until all of us had an opportunity to read it in detail and consult with our coastguards that the problems came up. I hope that he will refrain from taking that line. This has been an all-party, whole-House debate.

[Albert Owen]

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

[Albert Owen]

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

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

[Sarah Newton]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Lady would not take interventions, so she is pushing it, but I am a gentleman, and in a spirit of consensus, I will give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton]

I appreciate that. I made it clear that I would not take interventions because, during the first debate, I had a huge amount of time to make the case for Falmouth coastguard. On this occasion, I wanted to ensure that as many hon. Members as possible could make their case and put their concerns.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, on the extension of the consultation period, the Minister has said that if the Select Committee can expedite its work, all its findings will be taken into consideration? Furthermore, he has also said that at the close of the extended consultation there will be an additional period for proposals to be properly communicated, discussed and scrutinised.

[Albert Owen]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I hope that the Minister will indeed respond on the issues that I am raising about the Transport Committee, because they are important. We learned lessons from the 2003-04 inquiry, and we must learn lessons now. I am greatly in favour of the inquiry, and I wrote to the Chair of the Select Committee asking for such an inquiry. Perhaps the hon. Lady and the Minister will confirm that they are willing to wait until they have received the inquiry’s report and the Government’s response before making any decisions. That would be a positive way forward and I hope the Minister will comment on it. It would be not a way out for the Government, but a way forward for the coastguards, which is why we are all here today.

A debate needs the input of local coastguards. I agree with the Minister that coastguards, certainly in my area, have not been restricted in speaking their minds and saying what they think of the proposals. That is to his credit and that of the MCA. On top of the consultation, I have encouraged coastguards to write in, but that does not deter me from believing that these flawed proposals should be put to one side, so that we can have a proper debate, including on the Select Committee’s findings.

I make no apology for referring to local knowledge, as many hon. Members have done. It is essential, and as an ex-seafarer who worked on the coast for some 10 years and was also foreign-going, I know that our coastguard services provide some of the safest coastlines and seas in the world. I am proud of what they do, and I want it to continue and improve. Local knowledge is vital to initial responses, to knowing locations and, in north Wales, to the pronunciation of such locations.

During the first debate, I had a brief opportunity to speak—I say that to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth—and the Minister gave a written response to one of my questions, although it was not adequate. I will provide evidence of why it was not adequate. He said that pronunciation of place names would be sorted out by a new geographic information system, which would include phonetic spellings. I will give an example—empirical evidence—of where that has failed. I am raising the matter to help him.

The incident occurred during the coastguards’ dispute. The MCA said that the circumstances were exceptional, but it highlights the fact that people outside who do not have local knowledge might make errors, which might cost time, and perhaps lives.

--- Later in debate ---

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

On behalf of all hon. Members who have attended this afternoon’s debate, I want to thank the Minister for such a helpful response. I will not take all the credit for today’s debate. I worked with a team of hon. Members, whose names are listed on the Order Paper, to secure the debate. I hope that as many hon. Members who have participated today—particularly those who did not have the opportunity to speak, or who felt under pressure and did not have the full amount of time—will join us on Tuesday to make further representations to the Backbench Business Committee to make sure that we secure more parliamentary time in the main Chamber. Today’s debate has demonstrated the strength of feeling and the range of issues that still need to be explored on this UK-wide issue, which is one of the unique occasions when we can represent all the people of the UK in Parliament.

[Albert Owen]

Had the Minister had more time, I am sure that he would have been able to answer this point, but does the hon. Lady agree that it would be helpful to have a breakdown of incidents, so that we know what kind of incidents the MCA is dealing with? That would be an important appendix to the extended consultation.

[Sarah Newton]

I will pass that question straight on to the Minister to answer.

[Mike Penning]

I will publish all the information we have.

[Sarah Newton]

Like everyone else, I am reassured by what the Minister has said: saving lives is in his blood; he will now make all the information available to the Transport Committee; no decisions will be made until the Transport Committee has published its findings; and there will be plenty of opportunities between now and then for further representations by coastguards, without fear. That was a very important point. Coastguards are frightened, and I think that there are volunteers in the RNLI and other organisations who are frightened to come forward. They can do so with the absolute guarantee that they have been given by the Minister today.

[Mr Russell Brown]

As the Minister would not allow me to intervene, may I, through the hon. Lady, ask if the table-top exercise will be undertaken again, but in real time to give a real indication of how that might develop on the day?

[Sarah Newton]

I am sure that the Minister has heard that. I had better let other hon. Members intervene.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Lady congratulated our colleagues, the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), whose names also appeared on the Order Paper. I want to add to those congratulations.

I wanted to pursue with the Minister the point about the transition period. Whatever the outcome, we want to ensure that safety is not compromised in that period of change. The Minister touched on that in his remarks, but I want to be confident that that point has been taken on board, and that the transfer of local knowledge, and the issues around that, are addressed strongly in whatever system we end up with.

[Sarah Newton]

I am sure we all agree that safety has to be the paramount consideration.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is right to say that we owe it to the army of people who voluntarily protect life and limb at sea to get this right so that people are confident about going to sea. Does she agree that that is the test on which we should judge these proposals?

[Sarah Newton]

That is right. As the Minister began by saying, it is the people of the country, as well as seafarers, who have to feel absolutely sure that, whatever happens when the proposals are introduced, safety is paramount. The transparent way in which all the proposals will be published and scrutinised by the Transport Committee, and the fact that hon. Members will again have the opportunity to examine and debate the proposals in the House, should give people the assurance that they desperately crave at the moment, and give the answers to the questions which remain unanswered.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Newton Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

First, Mr Speaker, may I just correct myself? The extension of the consultation is for six weeks, not six months.

All the control centres that I have visited—I was in Belfast yesterday, and I have been to Crosby—accept that we must modernise the service and go forward. The robustness and resilience of the service is not there. We have had some fantastic submissions and people have engaged with the consultation. The submission made yesterday in Belfast accepted that we need to close stations and have a resilient system. As soon as we have that we will have a better service, but we will look at all the submissions as they are made.

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

I welcome what the Minister has confirmed—that there will be an extension to the consultation process on the future of the coastguard service. Does the Minister agree that it is important for him to visit Falmouth coastguard during the extension period, to see at first hand the excellent work done there?

[Mike Penning]

It is an extension for the receipt of submissions on the consultation. The visits will be as they were, and we should visit most of the stations. I am conscious that I have had to cancel a meeting with my hon. Friend’s constituents and the working group there, so I shall do my level best to visit Falmouth as soon as I can.

Search and Rescue Service

Sarah Newton Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Beith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend who, from his constituency, knows well the work of Westland in that area. I have an open mind about whether a major refit of at least some of the Sea Kings could be carried out. It is one of the options to be considered. However, we cannot simply go on as we are with relatively short-term maintenance of the Sea Kings.

The personnel who work in search and rescue with the RAF and the Royal Navy are also in limbo. That is also true of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency personnel, although they already have a contract; but it expires within the year, I think, so they too are in a state of uncertainty. The Government need to get a grip on the situation and some people need to know pretty soon, for their careers, what will happen. Are they likely to have a future in search and rescue, whether on the military side or as contractors’ employees? What will happen?

We also need to bear in mind some of the warnings given during the contract process. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), to whom I am sure the Minister will want to listen, as he is now the Government Deputy Chief Whip, said in February 2010:

“It is essential that this contract…is better negotiated and has fewer loopholes than the interim contract we had for the last few years”—

the MCA contract. He said that the contract must protect against situations like the one that arose in 2008. The back-up helicopter based at Sumburgh was off-station for a whole week, but the Department for Transport and the MCA were powerless to do anything about it. He also wanted to see the new service rooted properly in the communities that it serves rather than being dependent on a stream of temporary pilots and support officers constantly being shipped in and out.

What are the options? What are the Government considering? First are the short-term immediate continuity arrangements. The RAF will carry on, as it always does. It has the resilience and determination to cope in situations, whether created by Governments or world events, that would challenge many other organisations, and I have every confidence in its ability to do so. However, we need answers on how long it will be before a new scheme replaces the present arrangements. Personnel have careers to plan, and MCA helicopters are contracted only until next year. As I said earlier, the Sea Kings are now extremely difficult to keep airworthy. How long will this situation continue? What level of refit of the Sea King is possible? Would a major upgrade of the Sea King be a short-term option, or would it be too expensive? Should it therefore be considered as a longer-term measure?

What is being considered in the longer term? There are obviously several options. One is to retender a version of the contract. The Government clearly ruled out retendering the contract in its present form when they made their announcement, so they have obviously given it some consideration. There are several reasons why retendering is not the answer. There were too many flaws in the original contract, some of which I referred to earlier; once it became impossible to continue it, the questions that had arisen while it was being considered then needed to be considered again. At that stage in the contract process, it may have been too late to resolve those questions, but when the matter was reopened they needed to be reconsidered.

Another reason why it would have been difficult to retender was that experience has shown that the procurement process is not up to the job. To go back to the same process and risk another failure was not something that the Government could properly have done. We have seen many other weaknesses in the defence procurement process, which has led many to lack confidence in it.

In some respects the previous contract was not cost-effective, which is why it was under review. The reason why the Government did not stop it as a result of the Chief Secretary’s review, but were about to announce that it would go ahead, was that the contract had gone too far to be stopped and the gap would be undesirably long if the process had to be started again. However, events have now forced us into that very gap. The Government concluded during the cost review that it would be unwise to have such a gap, but they now have one. That puts a particular responsibility on Ministers to tell us how they intend to deal with a situation that they felt obliged to avoid until dropping the contract became inevitable because of the irregularities that were found. Simply retendering does not seem to be a proper option.

Another alternative would be to lease helicopters for use by existing RAF, Royal Navy and MCA-based crews. There are various options, but even in the short term it may be necessary to have short leasing contracts. What else is the MCA to do when its existing contract expires? What can the RAF do if it is found that a major refit of the Sea Kings will be too expensive to be considered as a short-term measure? Will aircraft have to be leased? The option of leasing of helicopters is clearly on the table, but will there be a new form of contract, involving both leasing aircraft and crew, with some of the features of the previous contract but rather better developed?

There is significant private sector interest in providing helicopters to the oil industry, the police and other services where they are essential. The market is not devoid of other operators, but as we heard earlier, the service requires a particularly high level of skill and training and it has to serve a wide range of functions. Rescues take place at sea, in dangerous coastal areas, in mountains, in fog—conditions that would defy many traditional commercial operators. It would be a pretty demanding contract, and the public are entitled to know that it will be carried out by people with the skills and equipment to do so.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. The Government have inherited a difficult situation, and I agree with what he says about the importance of introducing some certainty.

Many people in my constituency work at RNAS Culdrose, which plays an important role in our community. We are proud of its role in search and rescue, as it works closely with Falmouth coastguard. The Sea King helicopters provide what I would call a more inshore rescue service, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not lose sight of the important role of the Nimrod, and the necessity to have some replacement for the much more distant sea rescues, which are also part of the search and rescue service?

[Sir Alan Beith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. She obviously has similar experiences to mine in working with the RAF locally and being very aware that its work is respected by the community.

My hon. Friend spoke also about the Nimrod. That is a big problem for the Ministry of Defence, and it illustrates similarities to the subject of our debate, not least because it has been dragging on for a long time and we still do not have a proper solution. However, it is probably beyond the scope of today’s debate—and, I believe, beyond the responsibilities of the Minister answering it—but my hon. Friend was right to flag it up.

Much has been said in public recently about the relationship between the RAF and the coastguard. I simply make this comment. If its relationship with the coastguard were dependent on where the major control centres were situated, we would have got into difficulties years ago, when our major control centre moved from Tynemouth to Humberside. What makes the relationship work well is not only that the control centres operate efficiently, as they should, but that the RAF develops good close personal relationships with the coastguards—mostly volunteers in coastal communities up and down our coastline—as it does also with the lifeboat service. The building of those relationships, and therefore the desirability of having crew in place for reasonable periods, is essential to the success of the service.

I emphasise a few more points that I believe the Minister needs to consider. What about 24-hour cover? It raised great concern when the idea that two or even three search and rescue areas—a single area is huge—could be treated as one for 12 hours of the 24 became part of the proposal, and even more concern when it was suggested that it could be done with existing aircraft before the new contract came into being.

That concern remains. People want to know that there is 24-hour cover on no larger a scale than the existing areas, because if a neighbouring area is already on operational duty and carrying out a rescue, there will be no search and rescue helicopter within a reasonably manageable distance for 24 hours of the day. We need an answer on that. We also need clarification on what is going to happen to the Falklands support operation if the RAF is no longer to be involved in SAR there. We need to know about the potential impact of legal action, and whether it is likely to cause delay to the key decisions that are now being taken. I hope not.

Overall, it is an awful business. We will know fully when the investigations are completed, but it approaches what we could call a scandal. Courageous and skilled aircrew have been let down by the inadequacy of the Ministry of Defence procurement process and the way in which it was carried out. The challenge for the Department for Transport is to carry out the task rather better than the MOD, which has conspicuously failed. The time scale now is short and demanding. Can the Department do it? How will it do it, and what assurances can the Minister give to those employed in, or dependent on, search and rescue that they will have satisfactory continuity arrangements over a reasonably short time and that a new system will be put in place in which the public can have confidence?