Bus Services

Debate between Stephen Hammond and Gordon Marsden

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Hammond]

I accept the proposition that locals know what is best for their area, if they wish to go down that line. The hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear that Ministers would probably express the view that that would be ill-advised. I will continue to express that view, but it is for local areas to make that decision.

If we look at ridership numbers since 1997, and indeed at the broad sweep since the second world war, we see declining ridership on buses, but more than 60% of all trips on public transport are still made on local buses. Some 49% of bus trips outside London are made by people who do not have access to a car. Buses are, of course, essential for many people to get to work, education, doctors and hospitals. The bus is a lifeline for many people, particularly in rural areas. Without the bus, those people would be unable to access essential services, go shopping or socialise.

Yet if one listens to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), one hears an attempt to portray a network that has fallen apart. Inconveniently, as I have just pointed out, some of the facts do not bear that out. As he will have wanted to acknowledge, the falls in ridership numbers were severe under a regulated regime. Between 1997 and today, the annual fall in ridership, as a percentage, has been almost the same every year. The idea that there has been a complete collapse in bus ridership since 2010 is simply false.

Combined with that is the fact that customer satisfaction with bus journeys is high. In all national surveys, 88% of passengers say that they are satisfied with the service. It is important to recognise, in looking at that number, that under-21s make up about a third of bus passengers, and use among the older generation has increased over the past few years, as the hon. Gentleman would want to acknowledge.

[Mr Marsden]

I accept that bus satisfaction is high, but that prompts the question of whether people are satisfied because they are able to get a bus in the first place. The point that my hon. Friends and I have made is on the disproportionate effect of the coalition’s cuts on key vulnerable groups. The Minister will not find statistics that gainsay that point.

[Stephen Hammond]

The Minister certainly will. I am happy to read out the ridership numbers, but there is nothing in those numbers that suggests there has been an increasing rate of decline in bus use since 2010. That is simply true. I am happy to check my facts in the Library. I have the numbers before me, and I can read them out if the hon. Gentleman wants them. The fact of the matter is that the numbers do not support his argument.

It is true, of course, that bus usage and access to buses are important for a healthy, growing economy. The recent survey by the university of Leeds reinforces that point. Bus commuters generate some £64 billion in economic output, and one in five journeys is a journey to work. Shopping and leisure trips generate annual value of some £27 billion.

The Government, far from what is suggested in some portrayals, remain committed to improving bus services, and expenditure on buses reflects that: 42% of all bus operator income comes from public funds. This year, the Government will spend more than £1 billion on concessionary travel entitlement and more than £340 million in direct subsidy to bus operators in England. More than £300 million has been allocated to funding major bus projects in the last year; that is on top of the provision through the better bus areas fund to deliver improvements in 24 local authorities, which cost more than £70 million, and the £20 million to support community transport. Many bus improvement schemes have also been funded as part of the £600 million local sustainable transport fund.

A total of £95 million has also been provided for four rounds of the green bus fund to improve environmental performance. We are also jointly funding a three-year project with Norfolk county council to determine a delivery model for smart ticketing across England, recognising that smarter ticketing will continue to drive easier access. In the 2013 spending review, we protected bus spending until the end of 2015-16, despite the current economic circumstances. All that demonstrates a commitment that was not recognised in some of the contributions.

The Government recognise that improvements can and must be made. In 2012, our document “Green Light for Better Buses” set out our plans for buses. The proposals included reforming bus subsidy, improving competition and incentivising partnership working. The hon. Member for Corby gave a clear example of what partnership working can deliver in his support for Stagecoach, some of the services that it is delivering, and the way that it has improved a number of them. Improving partnership working is increasingly important.

There is no doubt that these are challenging economic times. Government and local authorities have had to make difficult decisions about some spending priorities, but we want to ensure that the bus market is still attractive to all operators—large and small, urban and rural—by ensuring that funding is allocated in the fairest way, giving the best value for taxpayers and ensuring the best service.

Access to Ports

Debate between Stephen Hammond and Gordon Marsden

Thursday 27th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

Mrs Brooke, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I should like to put on the record that I apologise to you for not being here at the start of the debate. Through you, Mrs Brooke, I particularly wish to apologise to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). As she knows, the debate was due to start slightly later and I was coming back from the west country, where I was looking at other transport infrastructure this morning. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, was able to make some detailed notes on the hon. Lady’s comments. I will try to deal with some of her comments now and I hope that she will forgive me if I miss any. My officials will certainly respond to her if there is anything we have left out.

We are grateful to the Committee for securing this debate on a subject of great importance, as a number of hon. Members who contributed to it attested. We welcomed the report and the inquiry on the basis that they presented everyone with the opportunity to take stock of the situation with ports in England and Wales. It is right to make the point that it is difficult to overestimate the huge economic importance of ports to our country. They are key.

I am pleased that the report recognises, as we all do, that the connectivity of major ports was a problem and that it welcomes some of the new infrastructure announcements. The hon. Lady is right that the final few miles to a port gate are often a problem, but much work has been done on rail network and road network infrastructure to address that key connectivity point. A number of Members, particularly the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), have talked about the A14 and welcomed its construction and the abandonment of tolling. To be clear, the statement on community consultation will be published in the next few weeks. The pre-application consultation will start in April 2014 for 10 weeks. That will explain the details of the scheme and why the improvements are needed. Construction work is still expected to start in December 2016 and to be completed by the end of the decade.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside raised some other points about private sector involvement and coastal shipping, and I will pick those up in some of my later remarks. I reassure her that this Government have, right from the outset, supported investment in ports and the connectivity and infrastructure around them. We set out our response to the Committee in some detail in writing. Although I will touch on a number of the subjects today, it is not appropriate for me to repeat the response at length. It recognised the responsibilities the Government have, and we have shown practical examples of working in partnership with the ports industry to ensure the complementarity of the infrastructure either side of the port gate. I will talk a little more about the review of the guidance on developer funding. In direct response to the hon. Lady’s question, the Department will review that guidance and is reviewing it this year. She also asked about freight grants, which were addressed at paragraph 6 of the Government’s response to her Committee.

There were some questions about the planning system. There has been some huge simplification through the national planning policy framework and the coastal concordat, and the advice that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its unit have given on habitats cases is helping to inform ports. I recognise that there were some problems in the beginning, particularly with the Marine Management Organisation and its lack of consultation with some of the ports. Harwich Haven had a problem that was brought to me, which I met the chief executive of the MMO to discuss. The MMO has recognised and addressed some of the failings in its consultation procedures. To ensure that those failings are addressed for the benefit of ports, I have a bi-monthly meeting with the MMO to ensure that it takes into account ports consultation, even though, as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal rightly pointed out, it is not absolutely in my direct jurisdiction, as it is under DEFRA’s. To conclude that point, we held a maritime round table on environmental requirements, particularly planning requirements, at the industry’s request last autumn. At that meeting, the chief executive of the MMO and officials and the Minister from DEFRA responded to a number of a criticisms of how the system had been working and how some of the changes had been made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) made what I might describe as a predictably forceful contribution. He is absolutely right that all ports are a national asset. He is right to celebrate that, while for many years the port of Heysham lacked a road, the Government found the funding for the local authority scheme on the A6 Lancaster road. The road is now under construction and it is for the local authority to complete the scheme. I commend him on his campaign for that road, which would not have happened without him. He will, I am sure, continue to make the point forcefully to the Government. He rightly points out the need for road access to Glasson dock. He knows, as I do, that it is for Lancashire county council and the local enterprise partnership to prioritise that as a local major scheme. It could be funded through the growth deal scheme.

The shadow Minister made some comments about the growth fund, but he should be aware that a Transport Minister sits in on all the discussions and a Department for Transport representative or official has been on most of the visits. To believe that the Department is not taking what I can only describe as an active, full and comprehensive part in that process would be to misunderstand what is happening in government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood was right to talk about the Mersey dredge. I know that a lot of people are concerned, but it was a truly exceptional grant. None the less, other major dredges are going on, and they have all been commercially funded. I encourage him to work with the local port to ensure that it sees the benefits of commercial funding. If he feels that there is a truly exceptional case, I am sure he will continue to make it.

I am grateful for the kind words of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who was the Minister responsible for shipping in the previous Government. He talked about what the Government should have said in our response. I will ensure that we do not miss a trick in blowing our own trumpet slightly more loudly. I will address the point about waterborne freight rates in a moment. He is right that the maritime roundtable we established has brought together parts of industry with senior Ministers and senior officials from all the relevant Departments: the Department for Transport, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and DEFRA. Senior officials connected with that group are working all the time. He is absolutely right that we should perhaps be saying a lot more.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution to London international shipping week, where he was almost as omnipresent as I appeared to be. Pretty much everywhere I went, I met him and the Select Committee Chair. It was a great success and will happen again in 2015. Perhaps it should be called UK shipping week. I have already had pitches from Felixstowe and a law firm in Ipswich to host a professional services conference during a future shipping week. Some 60 or 70 events took place during that week in London and more widely.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse is also right that we should set out much more clearly the huge amount of work that goes on to help the shipping and ports industry in practical ways. He will remember from when he was a Minister that one of the great advantages of being a member of a UK Government is that on international business one can talk about the benefits of the UK and what the UK does well. A month ago, I went to Singapore to address some of the maritime issues that we face there. One part of the visit was working with UK Trade & Investment to sell the benefits of the UK flag and the UK ship register. I was delighted that, a week before that visit, one of the Singaporean companies put eight flags back on the British register. As a result of that visit, we have nine expressions of interest from other shipping companies to put more flags back on the register. It is important that the Department for Transport work with UK Trade & Investment on visits such as those and remembers the whole access issue. People often recognise London as the global centre for maritime professional services. We needed to remind the Singaporeans of that, because they are catching up fast and working hard at that. None the less, it is hugely important that we stress the benefits of the UK flag and what UK shipping and UK maritime are doing.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse is quite right about state aid, which the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) mentioned. It is indeed a knotty and thorny issue. State aid on ports and the port services directive is a live issue. It is absolutely crucial that the UK Government stand up for British interests on the port services directive, and we are doing so actively. We are working hard to ensure—as the Government have done twice previously, at least once on the watch of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse—that elements detrimental to UK interests are not included. He will appreciate that the part in question of the port services directive would bring some financial transparency to ports for the first time ever. It may well be of interest to see what sort of state aid is provided, not always correctly, to certain international ports. Therefore, while the UK Government are keen to ensure that we exclude everything, we will be considering carefully whether it is beneficial.

The point about state aid is a live one in the UK. It is directly due to the pressure brought by this Government and the Dutch Government, in collaboration with several other Governments, that an active discussion is now going on within the Commission about how state aid is applied, what it is doing and whether it is being used to distort international positions. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse was right to bring the issue up. At one point, I was about to say to him that flattery would get him almost everywhere. It almost did in this debate. I am grateful for his remarks about some of my work, in terms of what a Minister can and should do in this area. He obviously recognises that.

I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for the A14. I hope she heard me say a few minutes ago that there is no delay to the project. I congratulate her, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) and for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), who were instrumental in asking the Government to change their mind and reconsider the tolling. I praise her campaign and that of other Suffolk MPs; it was why the Government had another look at the proposals. She was right to highlight some of the issues that would have been caused for her constituents, and potentially for those using the road from the port, and the Government have been right to listen.

My hon. Friend also discussed the resilience of the Orwell bridge. I particularly remember the onion incident. I know that transport is a serious matter, but sometimes one is allowed to smile. That incident gave a lot of amusement to broadcasters up and down the country as they announced it. The Highways Agency’s route-based strategy study programme is considering all future needs of both the A14 and the A12 corridors, and it will consider the Orwell bridge. The programme is due to report in March 2015. I heard her forceful case for the electrification of Felixstowe. She is right to welcome the opening of the Ipswich chord next week; it will bring huge benefit to the freight network around Felixstowe.

I heard what my hon. Friend said about dualling and level crossing improvements. I know that Hutchison Whampoa has had discussions with Network Rail about that, which it is obviously free to do. I will talk a little more about developer contribution in a moment, but she will understand that it is not about asking ports to contribute directly to the infrastructure; it is about situations in which development is going on around the ports and the usual planning process applies, some of which involves section 106 agreements. I know that Hutchison has been discussing, and is free to discuss, section 106 agreements on partial dualling or level crossing, but the last time I was in Felixstowe—I think it was late last spring—I was pleased to see work going on to make new improvements to rail access and facilities.

Finally, the hon. Member for Blackpool South started by saying that what mattered was the quality of contributions to this debate, not the quantity. That has been absolutely true. His speech had a consensual start, and then he pointed out that the Select Committee had done some gentle chiding of the Government. That is absolutely right. It is the Select Committee’s role to hold the Government to account, and it is the Government’s role to respond to it and, we hope, to address its recommendations.

I would say gently that I listened to the hon. Gentleman’s points initially. For many years, there has been an infrastructure deficit in terms of connectivity to ports, which the Government are seeking to redress. That is key. The Government were already addressing some of the Select Committee’s remarks and recommendations. On my watch, we have established the high-level maritime forum for the industry, Ministers and senior officials. We have now developed a ports strategy and a shipping strategy, which have been published and shared with the Select Committee. We have had high-level consultations with the industry about sulphur. It is clear that the EU will proceed with the regulations. One thing this Government have secured is a look at the new regulations that will take effect from 2020 and involve an even bigger cost to the industry.

Working with the International Maritime Organisation, we have also secured a review of the 2020 proposals. It is clearly key that that review should happen next year rather than in 2018. Otherwise, the availability of fuel and the implementation of the new legislation will have a huge impact on British shipping.

[Mr Marsden]

I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the detailed programme of Government activity in the area. I asked a specific question about the position of Her Majesty’s Government when the original regulations were introduced. I would be grateful for a response on that. Also, as he said he was drawing to a close, I raised the issue of the future structure of ownership for the Dover harbour board. Can he enlighten us further as to whether any progress has been made on that?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am afraid I am about to disappoint everybody. Far from drawing to a close—

[Mr Marsden]

Sorry. You said “finally”.

[Stephen Hammond]

“Finally” in terms of the point about sulphur. There is so much to tackle on this fascinating subject that I must disappoint hon. Members. I probably have at least another five minutes yet to go, and perhaps more.

The Government’s position has been clear. We have sought to challenge the regulations, but we are now ensuring that we work with the whole industry to mitigate the cost to industry. Therefore, I—or my officials, to be more precise—have held detailed negotiations, and I chaired a roundtable with the abatement technology manufacturers, colloquially known as scrubbers, and the industry to ensure some progress. Clearly, for some, the cost of retrofitting is prohibitive, and the cost is unwelcome to a number in the industry, but the key point is that the 2015 regulation will happen. We have tried several times to secure agreement at EU level. We proposed several mitigation measures, but were not supported by other EU members on that matter. However, we have global support at the IMO to hold an early review of the availability of fuel in 2020, which I am currently actively pursuing.

I want to make a few remarks about some of the other important issues that have come up. We need to continue to support a multi-modal approach to distribution from ports, recognising the congestion issue and the benefits that road and coastal shipping can bring. In practice, most ports, in particular the smaller ones, are still, as several hon. Members have said, heavily reliant on road connections. Hauliers need to be able to access ports efficiently and need journeys to and from inland destinations to be as reliable as reasonably possible. Infrastructure and its maintenance—working with local authorities on local roads, but local highways authorities on strategic roads—are clearly important.

Ports themselves have an important role to play in local road connectivity. Several ro-ro and container ports have introduced advanced lorry-booking systems and contingency arrangements to deal with disruption, which has led to huge improvements in the delays that road hauliers used to experience. The Department for Transport has been assessing the benefit of such procedures in time savings and reliability for HGVs. Such schemes continue to offer benefits and it is possible to get more.

Bottlenecks still exist on links to important ports, however. There is an ongoing task for the DFT and ports in our strategic partnership to facilitate the growth in trade and a strong recovery in the wider economy by ensuring that we continue to put the right road links in place. Good access to ports from the strategic road network will be considered through the Highways Agency’s programme of route-based strategies and the Department’s programme of feasibility studies. Six such studies are in place and aim to identify and fund solutions to major congestion on the strategic road network. The studies will report in time for this year’s autumn statement. Several studies have direct relevance to the accessibility of ports, in particular the A47 to Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft study, and the A27 to Portsmouth, Shoreham and Newhaven corridor study.

The Government have announced plans to create a local growth fund from 2015-16 onwards. It will be a pot of £2 billion a year until 2021 and all LEPs will have the opportunity to bid for that funding through their strategic economic plans, which are due to be submitted to the Government at the end of the month. As I have said, the DFT is actively involved in those bids, has been working with the Minister responsible for cities to examine the bids and has encouraged bids that recognise the importance of transport and, where relevant, access to ports. The fund will allow local areas to prioritise infrastructure schemes that they deem essential for their economic growth. It is now for LEPs to get involved to agree what schemes they want to bid for through their strategic economic plan. It is a competitive process, with the strongest bids likely to receive a big, rather than proportionate, slice of funding.

Developer contributions for major schemes were set out in DFT circular 02/2013, which explains how the Highways Agency engages with communities and developers. It is primarily about responding to development proposals that affect existing trunk roads and seeks to support environmentally responsible development while safeguarding the primary function and purpose of the strategic road network. Where ports promote development that will affect the trunk road network, the principles set out in the circular will apply, including how development impact will be assessed and under what circumstances mitigation will be sought to ensure that the strategic road network is able to accommodate existing and development-generated traffic. Exactly what the Government are expecting has been set out pretty clearly for developers. As part of the ports strategic partnership, we will be reviewing developer guidance this year to ensure that it covers all the relevant points. If further specific clarity is needed, I anticipate that the review will lead to an addendum to the circular.

On rail access to ports, the past seven years have seen some significant rail freight infrastructure investment. A further £200 million has been ring-fenced for the strategic freight network in the next control period from 2014 to 2019. That money is being spent on projects identified by the rail freight industry as key to its needs. A significant proportion has been given to gauge clearance, facilitating the transport of shipping containers by rail from ports to inland distribution hubs.

The Felixstowe to Nuneaton route has been much mentioned. Through a combination of transport innovation fund and strategic freight network funding, gauge clearance out of Felixstowe to all major routes will be complete by the end of this year. Other major developments include the Nuneaton north chord, which opened in 2012, and the Ipswich chord, which I was delighted to visit last week. The Ipswich chord is a fantastic piece of engineering, with the tightest acceptable curve on the UK rail network. It will reduce a significant bottleneck for freight, saving between 45 minutes and 75 minutes, and will bring benefits to passengers at Ipswich and to the south and north, because the freight that previously had to go into Ipswich could hold up passenger trains. It is an important part of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton route enhancement. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal will know that it is one of the Government’s top 40 investment projects, and Network Rail is looking at several additional enhancements that could be taken forward on this route over the next control period and will be seeking the rail freight industry’s views on how they should be prioritised. I recognise the case being made for the electrification of the line out of Felixstowe, but it is important that we get the freight network right first.

Much good work has been done out of Southampton, and I am happy to acknowledge that some of it happened under the previous Administration. Gauge enhancement work between Southampton and the west coast main line was completed with funding under this Government, ensuring electrification out of Southampton, which is part of the “electric spine”. As part of huge investment in Southampton port and rail infrastructure, Freightliner has put in six extra lines into Southampton.

Network Rail works closely with the rail freight industry to establish priority areas for the allocation of strategic freight network funding. We are beginning to see a huge amount of freight travelling by rail. Only five years ago, Tesco told me that it did not anticipate moving much of its freight by rail; now, some 40% of Tesco goods are moved by rail.

The Government have always supported the transfer of freight from road to rail, and the Department provides freight grants to encourage that modal shift to rail, or water, where the cost of the alternative mode is higher than road and where there are environmental benefits. Freight grant schemes, where they are in place, are reckoned to remove some 800,000 lorry journeys from Britain’s roads annually and save some 120,000 tonnes of CO₂ through the modal shift. The waterborne freight grant is designed to encourage the start-up of new services. It recognises the higher start-up costs for coastal shipping through a higher initial grant rate, declining thereafter. The service has to be viable at the end of the grant.

I have already made some comments about state aid, but state aid clearance for both grant schemes ends on 31 March next year, and the Department is reviewing freight grants. We are looking at stakeholder suggestions for a scheme similar to the mode shift revenue support scheme—it provides grant funding to rail and inland waterways—which would be better for coastal shipping than the current format. State aid approval would need to be secured for the scheme, the potential of which we are actively studying.

Much has been made of several ports around the country. I commend the work of the Highways Agency with London Gateway on the improvements to the M25 and its junction 30, including the A13 and on to the junction with the A126. That scheme has been key to reducing congestion by the non-London Gateway traffic. It also allows for the ability to work with London Gateway to ensure that the port and the freight coming out of it will no longer be a congestion concern, as was anticipated. In due course, there will need to be an amendment to the London Gateway Port Harbour Empowerment Order 2008. The deed of variation is being sought, and that will facilitate the mitigation and the contribution from London Gateway. The Highways Agency and London Gateway together are making some substantial progress.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South challenged me about Dover. I have to commend the excellent work of the revitalised and changed Dover harbour board since January 2013, when I changed the chairmanship. George Jenkins has done excellent work with the board, which has had three new non-executive directors appointed to it through the independent process over the past year. There has been a revitalisation of relationships with port operators and a willingness to communicate with community groups, to ensure, following the decision not to proceed with the privatisation scheme, a resolution that is acceptable to the harbour board, with its aspirations, and the community of Dover, which has regeneration aspirations. Foremost in that campaign has been my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who has been a formidable campaigner to ensure that community interests are recognised in the port. He has stood up for what he believes is right for the port. I am pleased that there has been significant negotiation between the harbour board and community interests, as well as with the Department for Transport. To use that favourite phrase, I am anticipating making an announcement in the near future.

We have had the opportunity to speak about various ports this afternoon, but I am in danger of making my longest ever speech in this Chamber—or indeed in the House of Commons. I therefore again thank the Committee for its work on the report and for securing today’s debate. The quality of Members’ contributions have shown that shipping and ports in their constituencies are vital not only to this country’s regional interests but to our national interests. I assure the House that the Government have never been more aware of that essential contribution. I intend to continue to ensure that we have a coherent approach throughout Government to such a vital national industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Hammond and Gordon Marsden

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady will want to recognise, of course, that I met her and colleagues in July. I promised at that stage that I would meet her again later in the year, so I am happy to meet that obligation. I point out, though, that 58 coastguards have been recruited since that time. As we have now been able to secure a deal with the Treasury, we expect retention rates of coastguards applying for new posts to go up in January. She will be aware, as I have replied to her to this effect several times, that specific arrangements are in place to ensure safety on the west coast of Scotland. However, I reiterate that I am happy to meet her and colleagues.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and thanks to the Minister for praising the coastguard services; I entirely associate myself with that. But, oh dear, can he not see what a sorry tale of complacency and badly executed change this coastguard saga is? Does he feel happy with vacancies up by over 250% since 2010, poor morale, recruitment and transfer rates, a critical Select Committee report, and coastguard centres at Liverpool, Humber and Belfast all over a third below safe staffing levels? With more closures in the new year, will he get his Department cracking with an urgent action plan to ensure proper staffing levels so that our coastguards and those who live on our coastlines can feel safe and secure?

[Stephen Hammond]

There is no complacency at all on the part of the Government—and the hon. Gentleman’s question sounded like a Christmas cracker joke. He will know that since the announcement of the deal, which has been welcomed by the Public and Commercial Services Union, there have been a number of expressions of interest about coastguard vacancies. The retention rate is likely to go up in January. We have recruited 58 new coastguards. Specific arrangements are in place at all co-ordination centres to ensure safety and doubling of shifts. There is nothing to suggest that the timetable has been delayed, and the plan is going ahead as announced in this House in November 2011.

Coastguard (Maritime Incident Response Group)

Debate between Stephen Hammond and Gordon Marsden

Thursday 17th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Marsden]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He and his colleague, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), have already raised that issue and I will return to it later in my speech.

How do the Government expect fire and rescue services in particular to develop proposals for an at-sea presence without direct central funding, at a time when local budgets are more stretched than ever? I know that there is, of course, a piecemeal arrangement along the south coast, but so far as I am aware that does not extend elsewhere.

In response to the Select Committee, the Minister has produced positive scenarios about the interaction of MOC staff and MRCC staff, but the Committee has rightly pressed the Government on major incident scenarios. If we look at the Government response, we see that page 7 contains a list of actions that superficially seem impressive. I came to this brief from looking at further education funding. In that sector too, there are wonderful diagrams about the process of money and the process of communication, and I am sure that if the Minister got his officials to produce a complicated diagram of the various steps that are listed on page 7 it would be even more impressive. But the crucial question is how long it would take the complex chain of command detailed on page 7 to operate and respond. That will be the determination of how effective the MOC is, and raising that issue underlines the continued concerns and disquiet that members of the Committee and other hon. Members have expressed today about emergency vessels.

I turn now to the issue of staffing, because that has already been talked about in considerable detail. The demographic profile of coastguards is highly skewed towards older employees. The Minister’s own figures, from the Government response to the Committee, show that, for example, in Falmouth 14 of the 33 coastguards are over the age of 50 and in Humber 16 of the 27 coastguards are over 50. So those valued employees will probably be leaving the service during the next five to 10 years and taking their experience with them, at the same time as there is major upheaval in coastguard operations. In addition, there is currently a growing loss of valuable expertise in the service. For example, only one of the London coastguards has more than 20 years of experience. Therefore, the emerging picture is that no replacement generation of coastguards is coming through with the extensive service that is needed both to replace those who will soon leave and to oversee the introduction of the new system.

In 2011, the Government proposals estimated a total reduction in staffing numbers from 596 to 370, with coastguard numbers falling from 491 to 248. Therefore, there will be an increasing reliance on volunteers, with the number required rising from 80 to 105. We have already heard today about some of the problems with volunteers, so could the Minister give more up-to-date figures on the assessment of job losses as a result of this reorganisation?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is really confused at this point. There are no volunteers being used in the co-ordination centres, and the centres are what those figures were referring to. So he might just want to gently correct the record on that point.

[Mr Marsden]

I will correct the record as and when I have examined the details of what the Minister has said, and if it needs to be corrected.

Does the Minister accept, therefore, that frequent reports of low morale in the service are exacerbated by the Government’s inability to provide a clear picture of coastguards’ future? It seems to me that the closures at Forth and Clyde, what has been said in that area and the admirable work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on the numbers involved have produced some really rather concerning statistics. The Public and Commercial Services Union has said that not only are 15% of all operational coastguard posts vacant but of the 416 posts that are filled 24% of them are filled by officers on fixed-term appointments; I gather that those are Maritime and Coastguard Agency statistics from 2012. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, the Chair of the Select Committee, has already given the details showing the disillusionment and resignation among volunteer coastguards.

The Government have failed to offer a clear or finite timetable to coastguards, and they have explained that that was due to the assessment of ongoing operations and the success of transition. How that assessment would be made has never been made very clear. We have heard about the problems at Yarmouth, with it being designated as a daylight-only centre, and we have also heard about the changes in the closing dates for Solent, Portland and Brixham. These problems and changes breed confusion and can also lower morale. So can the Minister say what the current timetable is for the remaining closures at Liverpool, Swansea and Thames in 2014-15, and can he also say if that timetable is likely to change given that the original timetable for those closures was produced in 2011?

As I say, the Select Committee’s report talks quite a lot about local knowledge, but of course what has been very apparent in this whole process—my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Committee, has already referred to this—is the continuing concern, which has been expressed again today by hon. Members, both about those centres that have closed and those that are expected to close.

I will just touch on two or three of those centres. The closure of the Yarmouth centre is not just an example of local jobs and a proud tradition being lost; there are also some very specific local issues along that coastline. I know that they have been considerably aired in the local media, including the transfer of oil from one tanker to another along the coast from Lowestoft and Southwold. There have been issues about co-ordination, which have been exacerbated by the removal of the Yarmouth centre. There has been a particular incident at Caister in the recent past and the Caister lifeboat centre has expressed its concerns. My colleague in the European Parliament, Richard Howitt, said that the decision on Yarmouth could lead to a disaster.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I welcome the report and this debate, and the opportunity to update the House on some of the many developments in the modernisation of the coastguard, in the approach to emergency towing vessels and in the way fires at sea are now handled.

Let me start, as the Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), rightly did—and as almost every other hon. Member who contributed to the debate did—by praising the coastguard on its excellent work, including an outstanding summer of hard work that has seen our shores remain so safe.

The Government welcome the interest of, and the close scrutiny and challenge from, the Transport Committee over the past three years. The Committee Chair knows that we have not agreed with all the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations, yet there are a number of legitimate, important matters to discuss. In my response, I hope to tackle the four or five major points on which she challenged the Government.

I state at the outset—I have said this to the Scottish Affairs Committee and, twice, to the Transport Committee in respect of maritime matters—and reassure hon. Members that the Government will do nothing to endanger safety and they are not complacent.

The Transport Committee’s primary area of interest is the modernisation of the coastguard, which is of great interest to a number of hon. Members, not least because, as an island nation, more than 200 parliamentary constituencies have a coastline. There are more than 200 million individual visits to the coast each year and no one in the country is more than 72 miles from the sea. Even many hon. Members with inland constituencies have rightly shown an interest in this matter.

Before I address a number of the concerns raised by hon. Members today, it is important to put the proposals for change back into context and to explain why they were introduced in December 2010. At times, people have confused what the report is about; it is about the co-ordination of maritime search and rescue, not about the front line.

The proposals do not affect front-line services operated by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and independent lifeboats, nor do they affect the ability of search and rescue helicopters to perform their task, for which, of course, there is now greater investment. The proposals also do not affect mud and cliff rescue services provided by volunteers and the coastguard rescue service. I have reiterated this before, but there is no impact on safety or on those services.

[Mr Marsden]

I thank the Minister for clarifying, but does he not accept that there is a difference between the specific effects of the proposals? He is absolutely right to say that what is happening in the coastguard does not formally affect the RNLI or the various other services he mentions, but surely he would accept that, for good reasons or otherwise, when the area of coverage is widened, as under the proposals, there are implications for how the service is co-ordinated. The Department should be considering better ways—there are always better ways—of co-ordinating with the other services.

[Stephen Hammond]

As I have contested both before the Select Committee and in other debates, the impact will be that the co-ordination of the affected services will improve. The services will be more resilient and safety will increase. That is key, and we must ensure that we do not lose sight of it at the outset of this debate.

Historically, in the 1970s we had a coastguard co-ordination system fit for the 1970s. In 2010, however, that co-ordination system had not moved on. The system was still right for the 1970s, but it was certainly not appropriate for the 21st century. The fact that we had done so well was due to the excellent work of the superb men and women in the service.

The case for change was that it had become clear that the technical and physical infrastructure in place in 2010 had not kept pace with the maritime operating environment. The service was geared up for its role of dealing with localised, and only localised, maritime search and rescue, and to many extents it did that well. But since the last major reconfiguration of the coastguard in the late 1970s, when it was recognised that there was no longer a need to maintain a visual watch, the demands on officers operating the system, as it was pre-December 2010, had grown significantly.

Technology has clearly moved forward. As many hon. Members know, the introduction of the global distress and safety system in the 1990s changed how coastguards receive distress messages. The demise of the old coast radio stations led to coastguards taking on the role of broadcasting regular navigation warnings and maritime safety information. Coastguards were given new responsibilities for broadcasting information to the fishing community on submarine movements and military firing exercises. More recently, the world has acquired the ability to track ship movements and plot them in real time on electronic charts using the automatic identification system. All that has added to the marine picture available to coastguards.

The importance of maritime surveillance has increased the relevance of situational or maritime domain awareness, as it is known. That has added to the need for differing skills and growing responsibilities, so in 2010 we faced a significant disparity of work load among maritime rescue co-ordination centres. At the height of a busy summer season, some centres could find themselves dealing with multiple incidents and having to drop coastguard duties and broadcasts to focus, rightly, on life-or-death rescue situations.

Current technology has now allowed some pairing of resources between neighbouring centres to co-ordinate responses, but there is little capacity to provide support beyond that. Prior to 2010, if both centres in a pair found themselves busy, routine lower-priority work would be dropped so that, quite rightly, the immediate impact on safety was addressed. None the less, there was a significant gap in resilience. The case for a national, joined up approach that allows work to be better managed and distributed and exposes coastguards to the full range of work, thereby keeping their skills relevant and finely tuned, seemed clear in 2010.

Let us not be under any illusion: there was clear consensus across the House, which was highlighted during some of the consultation exercises, on the need to do something about coastguard pay, particularly at lower levels. Creating a national network, with the new national maritime operations centre at its heart, has put in place improved safety systems with fewer coastguards in fewer locations, but, importantly, it is helping to relocate the money to ensure that we have properly improved pay to reflect the increased responsibilities placed on coastguards in the new centres across the country. That is why it is right to propose the changes.

In her opening remarks, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside rightly said that there were concerns about the initial plans, and it is fair, as she rightly acknowledged, that the Government accepted those concerns and modified the plans. Following the Transport Committee’s report, changes were made and a second set of proposals were announced in July 2011. That set of proposals retained more centres, all operating on 24 hours and all with more coastguard operators.

Throughout the consultation process, there were considerable concerns about the loss of local knowledge, and several hon. Members have raised that point today. Concerns about the perceived loss of local knowledge are understandable. Over a number of years, the number of co-ordination centres has reduced from nearly 30, so the lack of local knowledge has been highlighted at every stage of the process.

As the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and I explained to the Transport Committee, in the transitional phase, as the national network is being put in place, the MCA is ensuring that there is time for increasing coastguard familiarisation with their new areas. All coastguards in the new areas are being tested on their understanding of local rescue facilities, incident hotspots and communication systems. Equally, all coastguards will have access to, and will share, a common national system. We are also working with the Ordnance Survey on developing a database of vernacular place names, which will allow multiple names to be applied to any coastal feature or place, factoring in local as well as Gaelic and Welsh names.

[Mr Marsden]

I am pleased to hear what the Minister has said about the testing process, but is he in a position to elaborate slightly? How, specifically, will that work? If he is not in a position to elaborate, will he write to members of the Committee on that point?

[Stephen Hammond]

I do not need to write to members of the Select Committee about that because Sir Alan Massey, the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and I set out in some detail how those transitional arrangements will work. We set out the number of visits that each coastguard is expected to undertake and the time period for them to do so.

If the hon. Gentleman has the chance, I hope he will look at the evidence session, which I hope will reassure him. [Interruption.] If he is not happy with that, I will happily respond further, but I think he will find that our evidence sets out the arrangements.

[Stephen Hammond]

I am aware that the Select Committee took some such evidence, but, equally, the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency gave his assurance that time was being made available for coastguards to do that, so it need not be done in anyone’s spare time. He also said that local knowledge would be in place up to two months before any coastguard station closing.

We also discussed local knowledge in some depth when I was before the Scottish Affairs Committee, and I remember that one Committee member said—my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) may also remember, if it was not his good self—that there were three places, all within a mile of each other, known by the same name, so that even the Member with his local knowledge could not be certain whether he directed people to the right place the first time.

Local knowledge is important—retaining it and having knowledge transfer—as is the new vernacular system. We must recognise, however, that at every stage local knowledge is only one part of what should be in place. With the new modern systems, it is incredibly important that we rely not only on local knowledge, but on modern mapping systems and vernacular place-name capture, which will undoubtedly be an improvement.

In November 2011, in response to the second debate, another set of decisions was announced, together with the timetable for the closures and for the transition to the national network. Since then, the MCA has managed the closures of Forth, Clyde and Great Yarmouth, the centres earmarked for closure ahead of establishing the new national Maritime Operations Centre—due to the building leasing arrangements for Clyde and Great Yarmouth, and to reflect the robustness of the existing technical infrastructure between Forth and the centre at Aberdeen.

Before each centre closed, the neighbouring centres increased familiarity with the new patch. Some officers transferred from the closing centres, and experts with local intelligence briefed officers in the receiving centres—a system known as pairing—so that local information was retained. A few weeks ahead of each closure, coastguards at the receiving centres took on full responsibility, while the closing centres went into shadow running mode. That gave everyone confidence that the systems would be and were working and that the receiving officers could manage the larger areas competently. I hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to the professionalism of the coastguard officers involved in managing that process over the past 12 months, which has been a credit to those involved. The experience reaffirmed our belief that other closures can and will be managed safely and within the time set out, although we are not complacent.

To pick up some of the points made in the debate, I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside heard my comments about local knowledge and, in particular, developments with Ordnance Survey. She also asked what MOC staff would be doing when not managing major incidents. They will of course be providing routine operational cover for areas of the UK coastline, so that there is even stronger and better resilience in coverage. That will include vessel traffic monitoring, safety information and maintaining an updated national risk picture.

There was some concern that coastguards had expressed the view that, overall, they would have to work longer hours. The new contract that has been agreed with the Public and Commercial Services Union increases the number of days, but reduces the number of nights. Therefore, staff will have more whole weekends off than under the current arrangements, while leave for existing staff remains as it has always been. I hope that the hon. Lady can accept my reassurance and see that we have taken on coastguards concerns.

We and the MCA in particular have made great progress in establishing the new national arrangements for infrastructure and technology. The new national MOC near Fareham is being equipped with the latest operational kit; it will be ready for training to start in January and for full operational running by next September. Acceptance checking of the refreshed emergency response systems is progressing well, and that will shortly allow the MCA to move into an extended period of operational testing.

A number of Members who have contributed today made the point, rightly, about the slower progress in settling the new package of terms and conditions for roles. That reflects the complications of agreeing a new package for coastguards, given the increased responsibilities, the commitment under the civil service reform plan to modernise the employment offer in the public sector and the consequent need for agreement. Without agreed terms and conditions, it would not be possible to start recruitment for the new roles and responsibilities.

The good news is that the MCA has agreed a new set of terms and conditions with the Treasury and a firm offer is on the table, which has the support of the PCS’s elected representatives in the MCA. I hope that the offer will be accepted. To be clear, the new jobs will have significantly increased responsibilities, which we have recognised with a significantly enhanced pay and grading structure. For example, the lowest entry level for coastguard officers is now one civil service grade higher, which means being paid 19% more than today. As I have said, there will be some revision of working patterns in the package, but the shift systems will match demand much better, according to the seasons and the time of day. Coastguards in all operational centres will therefore have a reduced number of night duties, with more full weekends off during a year. The offer also includes a commitment to at least 60 hours of continuous professional development each year.

Recruitment for the new roles will start in November, and that process has also been agreed with the PCS. I hope and expect that many existing coastguard officers will now opt to stay within the service and to apply for the new roles as they become available. Others may wish to leave, and we will support them if they wish to consider taking voluntary redundancy. In the interim, the coastguard service has been committed not to leave vacancies unfilled until the roles were agreed—there has been a continuing operation to recruit new officers. The MCA has now successfully recruited 59 new coastguards, providing some resilience. There was particular concern about the low number of shifts in places such as Belfast, but we have seen success in recruiting there, as well as in Falmouth, Solent and elsewhere. I am pleased that the recruitment process has continued and is continuing; a point was made about the recruitment of some new officers on fixed-term appointments, but, to be clear, such recruitment was explicitly agreed with the unions first, to avoid any perception of unfair competition for future jobs.

[Mr Marsden]

Notwithstanding the progress that the Minister has described in particular areas, which I will reflect on, does he accept that there is a systemic issue about the age profile and the number of people likely to retire in the next five to 10 years? The problem is not unique to the MCA, but will need further thought and addressing by it.

[Stephen Hammond]

The MCA has addressed that explicitly in the document. The ability to recruit new officers, particularly at the lower end, suffered because of the lack of a career path and opportunities. I hope the hon. Gentleman heard me say that we have agreed a new grading system with enhanced responsibilities and a clear career path, and that is reflected in a rise in civil service grading. I hope that that will make this a much more attractive and rewarding career to many people. I also hope that now that the new roles have been settled and there is an ongoing vacancy recruitment process, we will shortly be able to report a considerable reduction in the number of shifts below assessed risk level.

I turn to the implementation timetable, which we set out in November 2011. We now accept that some of it is no longer achievable because of the need to ensure a safe transition to the national system. We have made small but necessary and sensible adjustments to the planned closure dates. They have been communicated to staff and to search and rescue partners, and I have written to all hon. Members. The stations at Solent and Portland will close in September 2014 after the busy summer season, when the new NMO centre will be staffed and operational. The centre at Brixham will close in November 2014, followed by Liverpool in January 2015 and Swansea in March 2015. The final centre to close will be the Thames centre at Walton-on-the-Naze in June 2015. The full technical infrastructure for the new national, fully resilient system will be in place by the end of 2015.

Understandably, that final confirmation will disappoint several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). Like her, I praise the coastguards at Brixham, but the new system will ensure safety round her shores. She raised a particular issue regarding Hope Cove and I understand that the MCA is working with the coastguards there to resolve that. I will ensure that my officials speak to the team at Hope Cove, and I will respond in writing to my hon. Friend to address her concern.