Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Doran]

I am sorry that the Minister did not mention the Transport Committee’s report on the serious problem of helicopter transport in the offshore industry, which was published on Tuesday this week. I hope that, when the Secretary of State sees the report, he will focus on the part that deals with the survivors of the last fatal crash in August last year, so that he can fully understand what the work force in the North sea have to put up with every day, and why those workers and their families support the demand for a full public inquiry into helicopter safety.

[Mr Hammond]

We have obviously seen the Select Committee’s report, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we are considering our response carefully. We will respond by 28 August, and we will certainly read and respond to the section about the impact on the lives of the survivors. As for the question of a full public inquiry, the CAA has conducted a thorough review and has made important recommendations. We need to give the organisations involved time to implement those recommendations, and we are making sure that they address the concerns of the industry.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Transport Infrastructure (South of England)

Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I go to Southampton by train quite a lot and I totally support what my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) says about the time that it takes to get to Southampton from London. If we had an express link, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), more people could get up to London and get more jobs, helping the depressed people of Portsmouth and Gosport.

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. and gallant Friend is right. I will comment on rail infrastructure in a few moments, but I want at the outset to set the debate in context.

The Government inherited not only a budget deficit but an infrastructure deficit. In doing what we are doing, we will improve the growth potential of the economy and boost demand. In total, between 2011 and 2014, we are investing £32 billion in roads, rail and local transport infrastructure, and between 2015 and 2021 we are committed to a funding plan of some £56 billion, which will be spread across the length and breadth of the country, including the south of England. We are also working with local authorities to ensure that that is being shaped by local priorities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport was right to raise the issue of investment in rail infrastructure. We are committed to record levels of investment in the network, again supporting economic growth and jobs and delivering a greener and more efficient railway that is better for freight and passengers. During the next five years, Network Rail will be spending more than £38 billion running and expanding our railways. There are major infrastructure projects, as has been pointed out several times before, in and around London as well as across the country. A huge programme of electrification will provide faster and more reliable services on the Great Western main line, including some of those from Southampton to the north of England, and there is a £50 million capital contribution towards the redevelopment of Gatwick airport station.

I am clearly conscious that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport pointed out, Gosport is the largest city not directly connected to the national rail network. She will know that different sections of the branch were closed from the 1950s onwards. Network Rail is identifying funding priorities for the Wessex route for the period 2019 to 2024, as well as the strategy beyond that. I know that my hon. Friend has an aspiration that the town will be reconnected with the national network, and I encourage her, as I did my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North in an Adjournment debate last week, to engage with Network Rail. I will be happy to facilitate that contact. Just as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North last week that I hope that in the near future there is the Mordaunt Flyer, I hope that there will be the Dinenage Dynamo in the near future from Gosport. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport is right to mention the number of people who wish to travel to and from Waterloo. She will know that the Government, working with Network Rail, are ensuring that the Eurostar platforms will come back into use over a period of time, which will facilitate growth at Waterloo.

It is also important that the road network is fit for purpose, and the Government have already announced increased levels of funding to deliver improvements all around the strategic road network. That is a step change. As the Chancellor made clear in his statement in June last year, we will announce further infrastructure improvements and commitments during the next period. The Government will invest £28 billion in enhancements and maintenance of national and local roads. That includes £10.7 billion for national road schemes and £4.9 billion for local major projects. In addition, £12 billion has been allocated for maintenance on both the local and the strategic road network, which means that 26 new major Highways Agency projects will go ahead, subject to the usual value-for-money and deliverability requirements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport is specifically interested in the south-east, where we have committed to delivering smart motorway schemes between junctions 9 and 14 of the M3 from Winchester to Southampton and between junctions 4 and 11 of the M27 from Portsmouth to Southampton and the A27 Chichester bypass, subject to the finalisation of options and consideration of the business case.

The smart motorway schemes will allow us to make maximum use of what we already have by delivering additional capacity through the conversion of the hard shoulder into an additional running lane. The schemes can be delivered more quickly and provide more real benefits than would be achieved through a conventional widening scheme.

The Highways Agency is also committed to an investment of more than £10 million in two pinch point schemes in the Solent area, on junctions 3 and 5 of the M27. Those junction improvements will help reduce congestion by increasing the capacity of the junctions, reducing the journey times experienced by most road users and improving safety at the junctions. I hope that will ensure that the sorts of delays my hon. Friend mentioned will no longer be experienced by those trying to travel on the M27 between Portsmouth, Gosport and Southampton.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Highways Agency is currently conducting its route-based strategy process, which is, importantly, involving local stakeholders in the consideration of future priorities. Such strategies provide a new, smarter approach to investment planning across the network and will see much greater collaboration with local interest groups to determine the nature and need of future investment and to ensure that it follows local priorities.

We are in the process of producing a series of strategies for the whole network, a number of which cover the south of England, including the south coast central route, which includes consideration of the A27; the Solent to midlands route, which includes the M27; and the M25 to Solent route, which includes the A3 and M3.

The Highways Agency completed a series of local engagement events last autumn to help identify performance issues and future challenges. I congratulate stakeholders on their engagement in that process.

My hon. Friend will also know that we are committed to identifying and funding early solutions to the long-standing problems on the A27 corridor. Initially, there will be a feasibility study. The A27 corridor study aims to work with local interest groups to identify the opportunities and understand the case for future investment solutions on the corridor. The outputs of the route-based strategy work and the outcomes of the feasibility studies will inform the Department’s roads investment strategy, which is currently being developed and put together and which we have committed to publishing by the end of the year.

It is, rightly, widely recognised that the condition and efficiency of local road networks is an essential contributor to economic growth. Practically all journeys start or finish on those networks and they are relied on by local residents and local businesses alike. Responsibility for the maintenance and management of those networks lies with local authorities—in the case of Gosport, that is Hampshire county council—and it is essential that they spend money on that. Funding from the integrated transport block supports those networks, and from 2011-12 to 2014-15 the south-east and south-west will have received some £400 million for local transport schemes.

In addition, in the autumn statement of 2012 we introduced the local pinch point fund, which was designed to target local congestion and to ensure that we help facilitate the creation of jobs and the delivery of new housing. To date, the Department has awarded local authority funding of more than £266 million for 112 schemes across the whole of England, which, along with joint funding, will enable schemes costing more than £511 million to go ahead. One of the schemes being delivered by Hampshire county council is designed to ease congestion for road users in Havant and help to unlock the Dunsbury Hill farm development site, a key employment site between Waterlooville and Havant. Another scheme, which is being delivered by Southampton city council, will ensure that six key bridges in the city remain fit for purpose in the years to come.

Looking to the future, the Government have recently announced plans to create a local growth fund from 2015-16. The pot will be at least £2 billion a year until 2021, and all LEPs across the country—including the Solent LEP, which includes Gosport—will have the opportunity to bid for funding through their strategic economic plans, which are due to be submitted to the Government by the end of this month. Among other things, the fund will allow local people to identify and local authorities to prioritise infrastructure schemes that they deem essential for economic growth in their area.

I note that one of my hon. Friend’s particular priorities is to improve the traffic flow in her constituency. I urge her to work with the Solent LEP to consider the local growth fund as a possibility for funding schemes that will help deliver that priority.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I referred in my speech to the £90 million that Hampshire county council will ask the Solent LEP to make when it meets on Friday. That is all part of the scheme mentioned by the Minister, which is about looking at roads in the Gosport and Fareham area, including the A27 corridor, about which he has spoken. I very much hope that the Government will look very favourably on that bid.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

Does the Minister wish to intervene?

[Mr Hammond]

Wearily he climbs. Let me try and clear up this point. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that it should not be for the Government to consider the minutiae of things, but I suspect that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is not actually intra vires or workable. This is a Transport for London Bill, and therefore the code of practice would be incumbent on those in control of Transport for London. Transport for London is devolved to London, and such matters would be for it, and the Mayor to consider, not the Secretary of State. I therefore suggest that the amendment is completely unworkable.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention. Amendment 4 would mean that local authorities could not put up lamps and signs in a conservation area without consent. The problem is that councils already have the power to do that, although they must obtain the consent of the owner of the building. This is a decluttering measure; the idea behind these provisions is to remove the clutter of road signs and signage that appears all over London, which most of us Londoners recognise as disastrous. The amendment would restrict the ability of local authorities to declutter conservation areas and put up appropriate signs, although that ability is what most people want to see. Finally, the provisions in question, including those on conservation areas, were proposed by English Heritage. I bow to its expertise in wishing to pursue them.

Amendment 5 deals with notices. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made several points about people who appear to be residents or are employed on the land in question. The point is that notices would be served on such people if the local authority had been unable to ascertain the name or address of the owner of the premises. The provision in the Bill retains flexibility and is exactly the same as that in section 53 of the Crossrail Act 2008 and many other pieces of Government legislation. It is entirely consistent with previous legislation, so I strongly resist removing it.

Road Safety

Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

I should tell colleagues that I am expecting Parliament to prorogue this afternoon, probably around 3.25 pm, and it might be helpful to have an informal understanding that we will seek to finish the debate by that time. We can continue until prorogation, but when it happens I must immediately call an end to the debate. We should ensure that the Minister has no less than 10 minutes to respond.

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady has rightly charged me to respond to a number of points. I have a speech of considerably longer than 10 minutes, but I am happy to try to wind up in five minutes to allow colleagues to speak, given the time scale.

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

All hon. Members are aware of the likely time constraint.

West Coast Main Line

Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Kawczynski]

The Minister is talking about timetables. Does he agree that the date that the bids would be announced had been well known for a considerable time?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right to make that point. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge had made the announcement in May 2011 and set out the timetable. It was apparent from that time when the announcement of the bids would be.

A thorough examination of the bids was carried out over nearly three months. As soon as the winning bidder was identified, in accordance with existing practice and the published timetable, the Department ensured that announcements were made to the London stock exchange that it intended to award the inter-city west coast franchise to First West Coast Ltd, a subsidiary of First.

A number of Members talked about parliamentary scrutiny today. It is not unusual that the announcement was made during a recess. On two occasions, the previous Government made announcements to the market, quite properly, on days when the House of Commons was not sitting. To suggest that that is a new way of doing something—

[Maria Eagle]

I did not suggest that.

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady comments from a sedentary position. She is quite right; she did not suggest that, but a number of her colleagues did. It is not a new way of doing things, provided that as soon as Ministers return to the House, they make a written ministerial statement. Following the announcement on 15 August, on the first possible date thereafter—3 September—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet took the opportunity to make a written ministerial statement to the House.

After the announcement, the Department received a legal challenge to the procurement from Virgin Trains Ltd, which had bid unsuccessfully. I intend to try to answer as many questions as possible, but I do not need to be reminded—I am sure that hon. Members do not either—that in cases where there is a legal challenge, it is difficult to answer all the questions that may be asked. As I said earlier, if I appear reticent, it is not any wish not to be transparent, but simply that when matters are subject to the judicial process, it is impossible to make broader comment.

It is right and proper, and the Department believes so, that our choices regarding new franchises and value for money for the taxpayer are subject to scrutiny by Parliament. However, there is a right and proper time for that to take place.

Many hon. Members paid tributes, quite rightly, to Virgin Group. Sir Richard Branson and Virgin have made an undeniable and tremendous contribution to UK rail. Let me try to assure hon. Members that the winning bid offers significant benefits to passengers. First West Coast Ltd has contracted to introduce 11 new electric trains of six carriages from December 2016. That will mean an extra 12,000 seats a day for passengers. First has also committed to retaining and fully refurbishing the trains already in the fleet.

In the speech by the hon. Member for Halton, his colleague the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts), who is not currently in his place, made a point about the leasing of trains. The short answer to his question is that commitment to lease trains is in the franchise agreement. To remove any part of the train fleet, the Secretary of State’s consent is required. I hope that that clears up that issue.

Subject to the approval of the Office of Rail Regulation, First will take advantage of the increased flexibility in the contract to introduce a number of new services from London Euston to Blackpool, Bolton, Telford Central and Shrewsbury. It will also introduce ITSO-based smart ticketing, which will benefit users across the country, bringing the sort of freedom that we have already seen in London with the Oyster system. It will not have escaped the attention of hon. Members that in its bid, alongside that investment, First West Coast Ltd has committed to reduce standard anytime fares by on average about 15% over the first two years.

There have been a number of questions on staff and morale. I reassure hon. Members that, as with previous franchise transfers, existing employees, including drivers, guards and back-office staff assigned to the part of the organisation transferred to First West Coast Ltd, will be protected by TUPE regulations. FirstGroup has also given a commitment to continued investment in front-line staff.

I reassure the hon. Member for Ynys Môn that all bids were assessed independently for deliverability, and all bids were assessed as deliverable. The Department believes that the winning bid is deliverable, provides value for money for taxpayers and passengers, and capitalises on the £9 billion already invested in the west coast main line and the £18 billion the Government are continuing to invest.

None the less, as the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood said, the Government can learn lessons from the mistakes of previous Governments on handing back keys and the failure of certain people on the east coast main line to deliver. There have been several comments on the procurement process, and we are acutely aware that we need to ensure we learn lessons from past franchise failures. In designing the franchise, some of those comments and recommendations, particularly the Public Accounts Committee’s recommendations, following the failure of the east coast main line have been taken into account. We therefore required First West Coast Ltd to provide a third party-backed guarantee, the largest guarantee ever required.

We have also removed the cap and collar system that was in place for the east coast franchise and introduced a GDP support mechanism—a question was asked about that. Indeed, the mechanism supports the Government because there is protection whether GDP goes up or down. I will happily write to the hon. Member for Halton with the full details of that mechanism when I am able to do so.

[Derek Twigg]

I do not want to pursue the matter for too long, because time is short. If the Government’s projections for GDP, which the bids were based on, is low—the Minister has not said whether one bidder put in a lower projection, despite the Government’s figures—will the Government have to give money back to the successful bidder?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

2. What assessment his Department has made of the ability of British-based train manufacturers to win contracts for rolling stock.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Since privatisation, Bombardier, as the only current UK-based train manufacturer, has supplied the majority of new trains across the UK main line rail and London underground networks, with a combined total of over 4,500 new carriages ordered since 1996. Going forward, there are a number of contracts that the Department would expect Bombardier to bid for, including the Crossrail project for the supply of around 600 carriages, and it is already a pre-qualified bidder. The tender for this contract is due to be issued in 2012. There are also potential future orders for the London Underground deep tube lines.

[Steve Rotheram]

I listened to what the Secretary of State had to say and, quite frankly, I could have predicted his response. Why is he not prepared to do anything to reconsider his disastrous decision to award the Thameslink contract to a company that intends to build these trains in Germany?

[Mr Hammond]

I sometimes get the feeling that I am talking to a brick wall on this subject. I have said it before and I will say it again: the criteria by which the bids were to be evaluated were laid down by the Government in 2008. The criteria have to be followed, although they might not be the criteria the hon. Gentleman would like. We have made a commitment to look at the way we specify the criteria in future public procurements, but on this project it is Labour’s mess and we are landed with it.

Tom Blenkinsop: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman told the Transport Select Committee that there was an option to review or restart the Thameslink procurement process at any time during the year before naming the preferred bidder. Will he now admit that that was a terrible mistake, which has put at risk Bombardier, Britain’s last train manufacturer, and thousands of British jobs down the supply chain?

[Mr Hammond]

The only other option available to the Secretary of State—I have to repeat myself again—would have been to cancel the Thameslink procurement completely and abandon the project. That power exists, but there is no power to alter the terms under which the competition is conducted once it has begun. That was made very clear by the representative from the European Commission and by the academic lawyers who gave evidence to the Select Committee.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will look to include socio-economic conditions in future procurement contracts and to give them sufficient weighting that the full economic impact of the contract can be taken into account?

[Mr Hammond]

The Prime Minister has agreed that the growth review should include a review of public procurement in the UK, and that work is now under way. We will look at what happens in other EU countries that are similarly constrained by EU procurement rules, and we will look at best procurement practice in large commercial companies to maintain long-term best value. We will certainly look at the opportunities provided by, and the appropriateness of, including socio-economic criteria, where appropriate.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to join me in congratulating Invensys, based in my Chippenham constituency, on winning a multi-million pound signalling contract on the Thameslink project. A world leader in train-signalling technology, Invensys has in the past experienced some difficulty in winning domestic contracts. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to ensure that recognition of UK engineering talent is more commonly the rule rather than the exception?

[Mr Hammond]

The general rule is that we would expect to evaluate bids for contracts on their merits. Companies such as Invensys and, indeed, Bombardier have won many contracts on their merits, but we will look at whether we should, in appropriate cases, include wider socio-economic issues and factors, which some other EU member states routinely do in their public procurement processes.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister made a speech about the importance of investment in infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State provide some examples of how that might lead to more opportunities for UK-based train manufacturing in the short term?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. We are sensitive to the pressures that the UK train manufacturing supply chain—not just Bombardier but the component suppliers—are under, and the Department is urgently looking at some other projects that might be advanced. In particular, the industry proposed a project to modify the cross-country Voyager train fleet so that it could run under electric power, which would provide—if Bombardier were to win the contract—a substantial piece of work for the crucial design department in Derby. That is at the heart of securing the future of that business.

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

Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister told the right hon. Gentleman to speed up delivery of Crossrail. Will he update the House on the new completion date for the project, which will, I presume, now be earlier than December 2019, the date to which he pushed it back after the election?

[Mr Hammond]

The Deputy Prime Minister did not tell me to speed up the Crossrail project. The thrust of his speech was the need to ensure that committed capital funds are spent on their intended profile. The requirements to keep demand in the economy mean that we must get those vital capital programmes spent on programme, and the Crossrail project is spending on programme and will deliver the completion of the project from 2016, with full running from 2019.

[Maria Eagle]

So the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong—there is no plan to bring forward projects and no plan for growth. May I ask the Transport Secretary about the procurement of trains for Crossrail? After his disastrous decision to award the Thameslink train contract to a company that will build the trains in Germany, putting at risk Britain’s train manufacturing industry, he has said that he is reviewing the Crossrail contract. As he has just confirmed that Crossrail is still being delivered on his slower timetable, rather than reviewing it for six months, why does he not scrap the process and start again, and this time ensure that Bombardier has a fair chance to secure the work. Finally—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we have the gist, and we are grateful.

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady is all over the place. There is nothing to scrap in relation to the Crossrail rolling stock procurement programme, because we have not started that procurement yet. We announced that we will postpone the issue of the invitation to tender until the new year, in order that consideration be given to the findings of the growth review and how public procurement in this country can best support the strategic interests of the supply chain. The broader Crossrail project, involving a major infrastructure investment—the tunnels across London—is, as the hon. Lady and anyone who travels around London knows, already under way as is manifest in the large number of big holes in the ground.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of recent trends in levels of rail travel.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Annual statistics for the year ending March 2011 published by the Office of Rail Regulation show that passenger travel rose during the year to reach an overall, all-time high of 33.6 billion passenger miles. The number of rail journeys has been rising steadily each year since privatisation with only one slight drop in the total during 2009. Since then the upward trend has resumed to reach a total of 1.4 billion journeys undertaken. Long-distance rail travel has nearly doubled since privatisation.

[Simon Hart]

Will the Secretary of State put some pressure on Network Rail about the state of their stations? Whitland station, in my constituency, is now in such a deplorable state that it works against people wanting to travel on rail and against attracting tourists to our area.

[Mr Hammond]

Management of stations is the responsibility of train operators. Under the revised franchise programme that the Minister of State has announced, we intend to transfer leasehold ownership of stations to the franchise train operator, so that it can have a more direct, hands-on involvement. However, I will look into the specific example about which my hon. Friend asks.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s extraordinary statement that rail travel is something for rich people could be made only by one of the southern millionaires in the Cabinet. If he came to Rotherham, he would see plenty of people who are not rich, but they are now being threatened with the ticket office at Rotherham station, which is being rebuilt, being taken away. May I put it to him that many of my constituents do not do computers and need help and aid? That ticket office at Rotherham station must stay.

[Mr Hammond]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and I agree that there will be a need for assisted channels—

[Mr MacShane]

What are assisted channels?

[Mr Hammond]

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what assisted channels are. Even as the purchase of tickets, over time, is bound to become more computer based, as new technologies are deployed and more tickets are bought online, through mobile technology and so on, there will still be a need for an assisted channel, and we will ensure that there is one.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Price is clearly a major factor in determining how many people use the railways. The previous Government went for above-inflation increases each year, and we have argued for increases below inflation. The Government have gone for 3% above RPI. Does the Secretary of State accept that 8% increases in rail, and 7% increases in London transport, is simply too much for people to deal with.

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman says “we”. I am not sure who the “we” is. We have decided that we will have to increase rail fares by 3% in real terms for the next three years in order to protect the major programme of investment in the rolling stock, electrification and new infrastructure that the country needs. It is a tough decision, but it is the right decision.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I ask the Secretary of State to face the House, as he is addressing us?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

11. What plans he has to review the business case for (a) High Speed 2 and (b) Crossrail.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Economic cases for large projects are periodically refreshed—for example, to reflect the latest economic forecasts. A robust economic case for HS2 was prepared for the recent consultation, with a benefit-cost ratio of 1:2.6. An update will be published later this year. The latest update of the Crossrail economic case was published in July 2011, with a BCR of 1:1.97. I should make it clear that the economic case is only one of the criteria used in decision making for transport infrastructure projects.

[David Mowat]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. As he made clear, the business case for HS2 is stronger than the business case for Crossrail. The HS2 business case gets even better if the link north of Birmingham is taken into account. Given that fact, will the Minister consider bringing forward the construction of HS2 in order to stimulate the economy in the same way as has been mooted for Crossrail?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the HS2 project. Let me give him an example to reinforce his point. At the time the decision was made to build the extension to the Jubilee line, the BCR was less than 1, but I do not think that many people would argue today that we could possibly do without the Jubilee line extension. The construction profile and overall project profile for HS2 are based on the requirement to obtain parliamentary and other statutory consents and the cash-flow limitations of the Treasury’s ability to fund a project on such a scale. Unfortunately, it will not be possible to accelerate it.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I know the Secretary of State will be aware that there is widespread political and business support in my city, Sheffield, for HS2. Will he also consider how improving the connecting links to the wider city region could make the business case for HS2 even stronger?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I have said time and again that a major infrastructure project such as HS2 is not an alternative to routine investment in the rest of the rail network and that to get the maximum out of HS2 we will also need to improve the connectivity from the nodes on the HS2 railway to the surrounding areas.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

13. What recent assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of its procurement policy for rail rolling stock.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

As stated at the Select Committee on Transport on 7 September, for all future Government-led procurements—not just those for rolling stock—the Prime Minister has asked the growth review to examine the degree to which the Government can set out the requirements and the evaluation criteria with a sharper focus on the UK’s strategic interest, including a review of public procurement practice and outcomes in other EU member states and a review of current private sector best practice. The results of those reviews will inform future Government-led procurements.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I am sorry that the Secretary of State feels that he is talking to a brick wall when Members raise legitimate concerns about the impact on jobs of the Bombardier decision. I am concerned about the impact on Leicester, where many firms are part of the supply chain. What reassurance can he give those firms now that the majority of our trains will be built abroad?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to say that the majority of our trains will be built abroad. One contract has been awarded to Siemens, and those trains will be built in Germany. Other contracts are in the pipeline, and Bombardier remains a very strong bidder. It has demonstrated over the last 15 years its ability to win a majority of UK train orders. From 2014 we will have a second UK-based train builder, Hitachi, in the plant that it is establishing in Newton Aycliffe, with the creation of 600 new jobs.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I very much welcome the review of how the Department implements the procurement rules. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no time like the present for a thorough review of how this country has, in the past, gold-plated EU directives and regulations?

[Mr Hammond]

I should emphasise to my hon. Friend that the review is not concerned simply with train procurement but is a review of public sector procurement across the board. It will look at what is happening elsewhere and whether there are things that we can do differently so that procurements initiated by this Government do not have the flaws that hon. Members are identifying in the Thameslink procurement initiated by the last Government.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Since I last answered Transport questions, the consultation on high-speed rail has closed. The Department has announced £155 million of investment from the first-round allocation of the local sustainable transport fund, concluded deals to put new carriages on key commuter rail routes, set out the next stages in the Department’s rail franchising programme and launched a consultation on proposals for new lane rental schemes to cut the number of rush-hour roadworks.

[Mark Reckless]

Many of my constituents who are not rich but were used as guinea pigs for RPI plus 3% by the last Government have no choice but to commute by coach, getting up at 5 or 6 am to get into London. Will Ministers welcome the statement by Southeastern yesterday that it will henceforth use the flex possibility to consider elasticities so that areas where people are not well off and where there is significant competition may see lower fare increases in future?

[Mr Hammond]

Absolutely. We are all in favour of competition. Train operators should note what is happening in the marketplace, and where coach operators are taking their business they should use the flexibility that they have to respond.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

T2. Yesterday’s unemployment figures were disastrous for Wirral and the wider Merseyside economy. Given that RPI is now over 5%, will the Secretary of State explain how his RPI plus 3% train fare hikes will help work pay for ordinary people?

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

T4. Last night I drove down to my constituency and, unusually, the motorway was very clear. However, it is often the case that there are accidents on both the M3 and the M4 and it seems to take an unfeasibly long time to get the motorway reopened afterwards. Will the Department do something about that?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

My hon. Friend raises a very topical point. She may know that in August we had one of the longest ever post-accident closures on the M25 very close to my own constituency, as it happens, when the motorway was closed for more than 24 hours following an accident. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), has been in discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the police lead on traffic services. A working group is now operating between the Highways Agency and ACPO, which will be reporting before the end of the year. We have also allocated £3 million to invest in the latest laser scanners to allow the police to record traffic accident scenes more quickly and allow the clear-up of the motorway to progress more quickly.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

T3. The Government are asking more disabled people to find work through the work capability assessment programme. Does the Minister understand that transport, and in particular cancelled station upgrades, slow replacement of rolling stock and rising prices are a significant barrier for many disabled people in Wigan and across the country? What action is he taking to address this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

T7. Following the Government’s consultation on the future of the Dartford crossing, will the Minister consider extending the local person’s discount scheme to include my constituents and the wider Medway area?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I am happy to consider any representation that my hon. Friend wants to make, but our primary objective is to ensure that funds are available for an additional crossing in the future, and our approach to Dartford is to ensure that that can be affordably delivered.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

T9. In awarding the Thameslink contract, did the Secretary of State take into account Siemens’ industrial relations record? Siemens’ global business strategy has been described as aggressively anti-union, and staff currently working for First Capital Connect on the existing Thameslink bid have not been reassured by the Government that their terms and conditions will be protected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 should they transfer to Siemens. Will he reassure those workers and the House that TUPE will apply in such circumstances?

[Mr Hammond]

My understanding is that TUPE will apply in such circumstances. For the record, Siemens employs 16,000 people in this country, many—indeed, I think most—are represented by the Unite union, and my understanding from the inquiries that I have made is that relationships between the union that represents them and the company are extremely good.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

T8. The extension of high-speed rail to Manchester will bring huge benefits to my constituents, both in terms of jobs and growth. Will the Minister reassure the House that this line will not stop at Birmingham but will come to Leeds and Manchester, and additionally will he confirm that if we are to have a proper integrated transport plan, we should look at a rail link between Rossendale and Manchester to complement it?

[Mr Hammond]

Ah, the sting in the tail! My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I understand the concern that some Members representing seats in the north-west, Yorkshire and places further north have about the fact that we have to progress this project in two separate stages through two separate hybrid Bills. I have made it clear on every occasion I possibly can that the Government are committed to the whole Y network project. The benefit-to-cost ratio is based on the whole Y network, and I will do whatever I can to build into the first hybrid Bill reassurance to people and businesses in Manchester, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the north east that we will indeed complete the full Y project.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister referred earlier to the access for all programme. Newton station in my constituency is in dire need of an upgrade to improve access. Will he speak to Transport Scotland to ensure that the station gets those improvements quickly?

Sale of Trust Ports

Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

On 3 August 2011 I announced the criteria that the Government will consider particularly relevant to the appropriateness of the sale of a major trust port in England or Wales under the Ports Act 1991. This followed the consultation that I announced on 16 May 2011, Official Report, column 4WS, and which closed on 27 June. I regret that it was not possible to announce this first by written ministerial statement to the House, but I did not wish to delay consideration of the application by Dover Harbour Board for a transfer scheme.

I am aware that Dover Harbour Board has now considered the criteria, intends to proceed with its application for a transfer scheme under the Ports Act 1991, and proposes to submit a new set of documents containing a further elaboration of its scheme for decision by the Minister of State under the new criteria. If interested parties would find it useful and seek my Department’s assistance, we would be happy to consider ways in which properly to facilitate discussions on all the options before the Dover Harbour Board submits its elaborated proposal. I should make clear that the decision Minister would take no part in such discussions and would continue to perform her statutory functions in an objective, impartial manner whatever the outcome of any such discussions.

The following paragraphs set out the revised policy which the Secretary of State expects to follow when considering an application under the Ports Act 1991 for the sale of a major trust port in England or Wales. This covers the consideration of any proposal for a transfer scheme submitted under section 9 or 10 of the 1991 Act, together with the exercise of the Secretary of State’s functions in respect of the subsequent sale of the port to which the scheme relates. The Secretary of State also intends to have particular regard to the policy considerations set out below before making a transfer scheme himself under section 12 of the 1991 Act or subsequently approving the sale of a port to which such a scheme relates.

Essential criteria

Community participation

The Secretary of State will not approve an application for the sale of a trust port under the 1991 Act unless the sale is considered likely to deliver an enduring and significant level of community participation in the port. Such participation could take a variety of forms, but must include the ability to influence the port’s long-term development and may include the right to receive a share in the profits of the port, or the future increase in its value. It does not necessarily require a community role in the operation of the port.

Future investment in, and development of, the port

The Secretary of State will not approve an application unless the sale is considered likely to deliver an ownership model with the capability and access to capital to meet future investment needs and to exploit development potential of the port.

Fair price

The Secretary of State will not approve an application unless the sale is considered likely to represent good value for money, having regard not only to Exchequer proceeds and market conditions, but also to other benefits including those to the community and the wider economy.

Fair competition

The Secretary of State will not approve an application that is likely to deliver an ownership model which results in unsatisfactory levels of competition in the relevant sector.

Highly Desirable criteria

Transport networks

It is highly desirable for an application to be likely to deliver an ownership model which will cause the port to be operated so as to contribute to reliable, resilient and efficient transport networks.

Sale process

It is highly desirable that the sale should be conducted in such a way as to give all bona fide prospective purchasers a fair and equitable opportunity to participate.

Desirable criteria

Employee involvement

It is desirable for an application to be likely to deliver port employee participation in the ownership of the port, such as the right to receive equity shares or a share in its future success.<sup>1

1</sup>This is without prejudice to the Ports Act 1991 section 5(3) requirement to have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal of the whole or a substantial part of the equity share capital of the successor company to managers or other persons employed by the port company etc.

Olympics Airspace

Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

On 7 March the Government announced plans to introduce temporary airspace restrictions in the south-east of England during the London Olympic and Paralympic games to help protect key games locations from potential airborne risks. We also made clear that further work would be done to evaluate the potential impact of these measures before final decisions were made. Additional work was also envisaged on possible exemptions and alleviations to mitigate the impact of the proposed restrictions on the aviation industry where possible, without reducing the effectiveness and robustness of the security measures.

Since March further extensive work has been done in conjunction with the aviation sector to understand the likely impact of the planned restrictions on the industry. Alongside this, security experts have also carried out further analysis on the risks to the games. This work has given us a more sophisticated understanding of the relative challenges as regards the Olympics and the Paralympics. The changes to the original measures have been made to minimise the impact of the restrictions without compromising the safety and security of the games.

As a result of both this improved understanding and work with the aviation community, the Government are today announcing further development of the plans for temporary airspace control measures.

Between 14 July and 15 August 2012, the airspace measures will, as previously proposed, comprise an inner Prohibited Zone and an outer Restricted Zone, approximately 60 nautical miles across, centred on the Olympic park.

Only certain categories of aircraft—those operating commercial services and subject to full aviation security procedures—will normally be permitted to operate within the Prohibited Zone. Aircraft involved in, for example, police, emergency medical, essential survey and Olympic broadcast operations will be exempt. Subject to specific conditions, exemptions will also be granted to flights operating from Denham, Fairoaks and White Waltham airfields, and the London heliport at Battersea—all located within the Prohibited Zone—directly to and from the boundary with the Restricted Zone.

As previously proposed, all types of aircraft will be permitted to operate in the wider Restricted Zone during this period provided that they can satisfy certain requirements designed to ensure that aircraft within the zone can be readily identified and monitored by air traffic control. Additional changes to the original plans are now proposed, including exemptions for flights directly exiting the Restricted Zone from airfields within three nautical miles of the zone’s outer boundary, and the removal of the prohibition against cross country solo student flights. Small changes to the boundaries of the Prohibited and Restricted Zones are also being made, primarily for reasons of air traffic safety and ease of navigation. Further work is under way to look at whether the current minimum period for filing a flight plan can be reduced from the existing two hours.

From 16 August until the Paralympic village closes on 12 September 2012, the Prohibited and Restricted Zones will be replaced by three separate, smaller, areas of restricted airspace one over central London and the Olympic park, one over the Eton Dorney Paralympic rowing venue, and one over the rowing village at Egham. Access to this airspace will be restricted to those aircraft permitted to operate within the earlier Prohibited Zone. A specific exemption will be granted in respect of operations into and out of the London heliport.

A similar approach—the introduction of localised areas of temporarily restricted airspace—will be taken in respect of the games venues elsewhere across the country as and when appropriate during the games period.

Full details of the planned airspace restrictions, including maps, can be found on the Airspace Safety Initiative website at: www.airspacesafety.com/Olympics.

It is not expected that any airports will need to close as a result of the planned measures. There should be no impact on scheduled air services, and a significantly reduced impact on most other types of operation within the Prohibited and Restricted Zones as a result of the changes made to the design and duration of the restrictions.

The Government’s paramount objective is the delivery of a safe and secure games for all. We are confident that the measures announced today are a proportionate approach, balancing the need to put in place appropriate and effective counter-measures against potential aviation based risks to the games with the desire to minimise the impact on the aviation community. However, should circumstances change, the Government reserve the right to implement additional airspace security measures should the need arise.

Coastguard Modernisation

Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government’s intentions for taking forward the process of coastguard modernisation in the light of responses received to the consultation that ended on 5 May 2011.

The key drivers behind the modernisation proposals are the need to address the limited resilience of current arrangements, distribute more effectively the work load experienced by different coastguard stations and provide enhanced opportunities for coastguard officers to develop professional skills, with pay levels reflecting enhanced responsibilities. There is also a need to contribute to the wider deficit reduction agenda.

The consultation set out proposals to create a nationally networked coastguard system with two maritime operations centres—one in the Southampton/Portsmouth area and one in Aberdeen—together with a 24-hour centre at Dover and five daytime-only centres. In addition to delivering greater resilience and better career progression, the proposals identified ways of managing costs while still delivering high levels of service to seafarers and the public. The proposals also set out our commitment to increase by 32 the number of regular uniformed coastguards deployed to support the front-line volunteer coastguard.

These drivers for change and our strategic objectives in this exercise remain unaltered, but throughout the consultation process. I have been clear that we are willing to listen to the views of the public, coastguard staff and other interested parties on the best way to deliver the outcomes we need to achieve. More than 1,800 responses were received, including many from serving coastguards. Of the total, 27 submissions suggested specific alternative solutions, all with a reduced number of stations but with differing concepts of operations. We are very grateful to all those who responded to the consultation and to the Transport Select Committee for also looking at the issues. This has been a model consultation, with many serious and thoughtful responses recognising the need to deliver the overall objectives but proposing alternative ways of doing so.

A number of common themes emerged from the consultation responses: first, widespread acceptance, as illustrated by all the alternative solutions put forward, that change is necessary; secondly, concerns about the potential loss of local knowledge and local contacts with volunteer coastguards and other search and rescue partners; and, thirdly, concerns over how the detailed concept of operations for the MOCs and sub-centres would work in practice, particularly how a handover between a daytime centre and a 24/7 MOC would work in practice. A review of all the consultation responses has been produced under the leadership of a non-executive director of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, involving a number of serving coastguard officers and members of the Public and Commercial Services Union, and has been placed in the Library of the House. A formal response from the Government to the report of the Transport Select Committee will be provided separately.

In the light of the consultation responses, the Government have now concluded that it remains right to continue with the proposals for a nationally networked system with the introduction of one MOC capable of managing incidents anywhere and ensuring optimum distribution of work load across the system. Establishing one MOC, rather than the two previously proposed, allows us to address concerns over local knowledge and the robustness of the future concept of operations by retaining one of each of the current paired stations, with the retained centres operating as part of the nationally networked system 24 hours a day rather than during the daytime only. Staff in each of the current pair of stations are already familiar with, and frequently experience, managing incidents in an adjacent area.

We have also decided that the Northern Ireland coastguard station at Bangor should be retained because of the specific requirement to manage the civil contingency arrangements unique to Northern Ireland and the relationship with search and rescue partners in the Irish Republic with whom we co-ordinate closely in air sea rescues in the waters around the island of Ireland. In the light of the decision to retain one station from each pair and concerns raised about Welsh language communication, it has been decided to retain the Holyhead station, rather than the one at Liverpool. In response to concerns expressed over the resilience of infrastructure and communication links within the Scottish islands and between the islands and the Scottish mainland, we have decided to retain coastguard centres in both Stornoway and Shetland. A further review of the potential costs of vacating the existing sites in Swansea and Milford Haven has shown that there are no financial or operational reasons to favour either location, and in view of my Department’s already substantial levels of employment in Swansea, we have decided to retain the coastguard centre at Milford Haven rather than at Swansea.

In summary, subject to consultation on the changes to the previously announced approach, we will now proceed with the creation of a modernised coastguard service providing a nationally networked system comprising: one maritime operations centre in the Southampton-Portsmouth area with a disaster recovery back-up facility at the Dover station, which will retain its responsibilities for the Channel Navigation Information Service and will also serve as a sub-centre; and a further eight sub-centres, all operated on a 24-hour basis, located at Falmouth, Milford Haven, Holyhead, Belfast, Stornoway, Shetland, Aberdeen and Humber. The stations at Clyde, Forth, Portland, Liverpool, Yarmouth, Brixham, Thames and Swansea will close progressively over the period between 2012 and 2014-15. The station at Solent will be replaced by a new maritime operations centre in the Portsmouth-Southampton area. The small London station is unaffected by these proposals.

These revised proposals will deliver the modernisation required, and they are capable of delivering the same level of savings in the longer term as our previous proposals. They are right for the future of the coastguard service. I recognise, of course, that they will none the less represent a huge disappointment to those hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by the proposed closures.

The additional costs generated by retaining a total of 10 centres overall, plus London, all operating on a 24-hour basis, and the higher coastguard numbers that will be needed to do so, will be offset by operating only one maritime operations centre, in the Southampton-Portsmouth area, with a back-up centre, equipped but not staffed, at Dover. By moving to more efficient watch patterns, we will still be able to offer higher pay across the service to reflect higher levels of responsibility, while ensuring that costs overall remain within our planned funding for the coastguard as a whole.

The changes to the original consultation proposal that I have announced today will be the subject of a further period of consultation. This will run for 12 weeks from today, ending on 6 October 2011. Specifically, this includes the decision to retain Holyhead rather than Liverpool; the choice of Milford Haven rather than Swansea; the decision to retain stations at Shetland and Stornoway; and the decision to operate a single maritime operations centre, rather than two. These changes to our original proposals will deliver the modernised and more cost-effective service that we need for the 21st century, while also responding to the genuine concerns raised during the consultation process. I therefore commend them to the House.

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement today, and for giving me early sight of it. I also thank him for coming to the House today; this is the first time that a Minister has made a statement at the Dispatch Box on this issue at any stage of this process. I must also tell him, however, that it was wholly inappropriate for him to brief The Sunday Telegraph and the Sunday Mirror at the weekend, both of which reported a “senior Government source” as confirming the changes to the proposals. He has clearly given even more detailed information on the fate of specific stations to regional newspapers and broadcasters for use this morning. Does he not understand that it is outrageous that our brave local coastguards should be hearing about their future through anonymous briefings to the press from Department for Transport officials? This is not the way to treat those who work to make our coastline a safer place. The Secretary of State should not have sought to spin such an important announcement in advance in the way that he chose to do.

The changes that the Secretary of State has announced today are a partial victory for the tireless campaigning of coastguards up and down the country. They are the people who best know the level of provision needed to keep our coastline safe. It has been an honour to meet and hear from so many of them over the past few months and to see at first hand their dedication. The campaign that they have fought has been based entirely on their concern for the safety of the communities that they serve, and today’s changes are a tribute to their commitment and tenacity.

It is incredible to think that the Secretary of State believed that the majority of our coastguard stations should not provide round-the-clock cover. It is right that he has abandoned those plans and recognised the need for stations to operate 24 hours a day, and I commend him for doing so. However, today’s announcement will result in the loss of just under half of all of Britain’s coastguard stations. That will be a devastating blow to the stations that he proposes to close, to the coastguards, to their families and to the communities that they serve and in which they are held with such respect.

These closures are driven entirely by the Government’s decision to cut the transport budget too far and too fast. It is incredible that the Secretary of State’s statement today focused almost entirely on issues of cost, rather than on the safety considerations that should have driven this review from the start.

The chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency was very clear when he appeared before the Transport Select Committee on 8 February this year. He said that he had been

“required to find 22% budget reduction in my programme between now and 31 March 2015”.

He went on to say that the closure of coastguard stations was

“part of an overall strategy to bring my....expenditure into line with the budget provision I have been given now for the comprehensive spending review.”

These reforms are about cutting budgets, not about improving the safety of Britain’s coastline.

All along, the proposals have been ill thought out, careless and rushed. It was quite clear that Ministers had already decided exactly which stations were to close when the original consultation was published. The leaked early draft of the consultation that I was sent showed clearly that the public were to be asked for their views not on alternative options but on a decision that had clearly already been made in the Department. Only just before publication did Ministers decide to put in the choices between Liverpool and Belfast and between Shetland and Stornoway, making it clear that this was done for no other reason than to give the impression of a consultation when it was nothing of the sort.

Most incredible of all is the fact that no risk assessment was published alongside the proposals. The Select Committee found that

“by failing to publish a risk assessment of the current plans or an impact assessment of the previous round of closures until prompted, the MCA management has badly miscalculated. It has mishandled the consultation and made it appear opaque rather than clear and open-minded.”

It is clear that, had it not been for the campaign fought up and down the country, and the impressive expert work of the Transport Select Committee—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) for her chairmanship of that Committee—Ministers would have implemented these spending review-driven closures.

Throughout this process, there has been a failure by the Secretary of State adequately to ensure joined-up government with the Ministry of Defence, or even within his own Department, on the cumulative impact of the planned cuts. The coastguard station closures are compounded by the separate decision by his Department to end funding for emergency towing vessels. Let us not forget that they were a recommendation of Lord Donaldson’s inquiry into the Braer disaster. The Select Committee report found:

“The decision to cease the MCA’s provision of the Emergency Towing Vessels, which was made without consultation and against the findings of an independent risk assessment, is unwise and short-sighted. It is, quite literally, inviting disaster”.

The Secretary of State failed to consider the cumulative impact of the cuts being proposed by the MOD, not least the loss of the Nimrods and Sea King helicopters. The chief executive of the MCA told the Select Committee:

“It is fair to say that with the demise of the Nimrod we do not have the extent of search and rescue top cover that we had before.”

As a result of its own cuts, the MOD will be without maritime surveillance capability after 2015, leaving a massive capacity gap that will only compound the impact of the Secretary of State’s decision to close nearly half Britain’s coastguard stations.

May I ask the Secretary of State to tell the House exactly how many jobs will be lost as a result of the closures that he has confirmed today? What is the grade and post breakdown for the jobs that will be lost? What estimate has been made of the cost of redundancy payments? Will he agree to carry out and publish a new detailed risk assessment of the revised proposals, so that it can be considered before the period of consultation begins? It is difficult to see how a genuine consultation can take place without such an assessment being carried out first. Will he also ensure that this new risk assessment is carried out jointly with the MOD? It is essential that we have joined-up government when it comes to the safety of our coastline. Will he commit to coming back to the House in person, following this further period of consultation, rather than briefing any further changes to the media—out of respect for our coastguards, if for no other reason?

The excellent report of the Transport Select Committee into these closures concluded:

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

The confirmation that certain stations will remain open and the decision to retain 24-hour cover will be welcomed, but the revised set of proposals that the Secretary of State has set out today will not provide the reassurance that the public need and expect. The communities served by the stations that are to close in Clyde, Forth, Portland, Yarmouth, Brixham, Thames and Swansea, and my own local station in Liverpool, will be devastated at the loss of their local coastguard. The reality is that coastguards have seen their work loads increase in recent years, as our shipping lanes have become busier and they are called out to deal with more incidents. How can the answer be fewer operating bases? Improving the interoperability between the existing centres is surely possible without a reduction in the number of coastguard stations, with the loss of local expertise that this will entail. Axing one out of each paired station will lead to a considerable loss of local knowledge; it is incomprehensible that staff based in Belfast will have the same local knowledge about Liverpool bay as the existing local coastguards.

What the right hon. Gentleman must do now is not have a consultation on the changes announced today, but have a full new consultation on the entire set of proposals, following a fresh risk assessment and covering all of the proposals across government, including from the Ministry of Defence, that impact on the future safety of our coastline.

[Mr Hammond]

I do not remember the hon. Lady being quite so sanctimonious about briefing during the years that she was in government. She says that this is a victory for people who have protested up and down the country. I will tell her what it is: it is a victory for common sense and a victory for the consultation process. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), the shipping Minister, has been around coastguard stations up and down the country and received delegations from every coastguard station and every major seafaring community in the country and talked to them about their specific concerns. Working with the professional team at the coastguard agency, we have woven those concerns into the revised proposal that I have presented today.

The hon. Lady says that she cannot believe that the original proposals I presented included the loss of round-the-clock cover. That is a little strange, because the proposals I presented were those that my hon. Friend the shipping Minister found on his desk when he inherited the post in May 2010. The Labour party had failed to present those proposals publicly for fear of dealing with the fallout.

I recognise, of course, that the loss of a significant number of local stations is a blow to the communities that host them, but it is absolutely wrong for the hon. Lady to say that this process is driven only by the need to save costs, although there clearly is a need to save costs in the light of the chronic fiscal situation that we inherited from Labour. The fact is that the current structure of the coastguard does not reflect the technology or the concept of operations current today. We have to reinforce the ability to share work around the system, to deal with fluctuations in work load and variations in work load between different parts of our coastline.

I can tell the hon. Lady that risk assessments have been published and, in answer to her specific question, a further risk assessment relating to these proposals will be published. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tells me that he thinks that will be done within the next week.

I am somewhat bemused by the hon. Lady’s foray into the area of Sea Kings and Nimrods since we are talking here specifically about the coastguard control centres. I would be happy to talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I do not believe that he wishes to make any further input into this process.

The hon. Lady asked me specifically about the total job losses. The total number of uniformed coastguards will, as a result of these proposals, fall from 573 at present to 436 once the transformation is completed by 2014-15. That includes coastguards based in the operational centres, coastguards deployed to support the front-line volunteer coastguard and a small number at Maritime and Coastguard Agency headquarters. I cannot provide an exact breakdown of the grades of the jobs that will be lost, but I am happy to write to the hon. Lady and place a copy of my letter in the Library in the usual way. I am also quite happy to confirm that I will make a further statement, either written or oral, once the consultation process is over.

If the hon. Lady had looked a little more closely at what we are proposing, she would understand that we have responded very effectively to the central thrust of the responses that we have received, which was about the loss of local knowledge and concerns about handing over from daytime operations to the 24-hour marine operation centre. The retention of one centre from each pair does answer the local knowledge question, and the example the hon. Lady gave, relating to her own constituency, is ill informed since Liverpool is actually paired with Holyhead, which will now be retained. She will find that the coastguards at Holyhead routinely deal with operations in Liverpool bay and have a working local knowledge of conditions in the bay.

I believe that these proposals are a robust solution to deliver a future coastguard service that will be resilient, effective and affordable into the 21st century.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I did not hear an awful lot about safety in the Secretary of State’s statement, but I did hear an awful lot about cost. Will my right hon. Friend please tell me why he has not already published the risk assessment relating to the proposals? A Minister told the House about three weeks ago in an Adjournment debate that there would be full consultation on the new proposals, so will my right hon. Friend explain why that Minister did not say then that the consultation would relate only to the adjustments? Will he reconsider and consult the experts—the coastguards themselves who work at the front line of every co-ordination centre around the coast—about these proposals and take on board what they have to say?

[Mr Hammond]

I understand my hon. Friend’s specific local concerns; she has campaigned extremely hard on behalf of her local community and its concerns. Of course safety is paramount. This whole process is about making the coastguard service more resilient and more effective, and creating a proper career structure that will attract and retain the quality of people we need in a service that, frankly, has not had a good experience of industrial relations and personnel issues over the last few years. My hon. Friend says I should consult the experts; that is precisely what we have done. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been around the country, talking to coastguards and has received countless delegations here, tapping into their expert knowledge. The proposals I have announced reflect that very useful input that they have made.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State comment on two points along the same lines as questions already asked? First, with the announcement that the coastguard station on the Clyde in Greenock in my constituency is to close, I must ask the Minister whether he feels that safety has been compromised, especially on the west coast of Scotland, which is a particularly challenging coastline with demanding waters and a big increase in shipping in the area. Is safety on the west coast of Scotland being compromised? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the number of job losses in my constituency that will result from the closure of this station?

[Mr Hammond]

On the safety issue, the hon. Gentleman will know that the proposal in the original consultation was also to close the station in the Clyde—and that position still stands. This questioning of whether the closure of local stations will compromise safety betrays, I think, a failure to understand how the coastguard works and operates. What is really important is that the part of the service that receives calls and directs front-line rescue operations is effectively networked together. At the moment, we have what I consider in the 21st century to be a frankly shocking situation whereby each coastguard station is able to communicate and share work with only one other coastguard station. If there is a surge of work on the west coast, for example, due to a particular weather pattern, it is impossible at the moment for that work load to be shared with stations on the south coast, the east coast or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is to deliver that resilience that these proposals have been brought forward. The professionals who have evaluated them and who advise us are quite clear that this will enhance the resilience of the system and thus the safety of seafarers and coastal communities around the UK. I am quite happy to write to the hon. Gentleman specifically on the job loss issues relating to his constituency.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I am disappointed that Great Yarmouth will not retain a station. However, I have supported the modernisation programme from the outset. The good news is that our twin station at Humber will now be open for 24 hours, so local knowledge will be retained, but I should appreciate some information about the number of job losses at Great Yarmouth. I know that the station is already slightly under-resourced, but if vacancies arise at the Humber station will Great Yarmouth staff have an opportunity to relocate and take their knowledge there?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has dealt with the issue. We certainly hope that it will be possible to transfer staff from some of the stations that are closing to some of those that are remaining open. I can tell my hon. Friend that 25 full-time equivalent posts will be lost at Great Yarmouth; I can also save the taxpayer a stamp by telling the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) that 31 such posts will be lost at the Clyde station.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The news that Crosby coastguard is to close comes as a bitter blow to staff and to the public in my constituency and much further afield. Other Members have said the same about the closures of their own coastguard stations.

Many will view this as a cut too far, which poses a risk to public safety. Crosby has a number of experienced and outstanding staff who have key relationships with search and rescue staff, police officers and firefighters. They want to make the most of new technology, but they want to do so by using the existing network rather than through large, remotely located operations in Southampton and Aberdeen. In retaining the 24/7 stations that he has mentioned, the Minister has presumably accepted that new technology is most effective when combined with existing local knowledge and relationships, so why has he not allowed that to obtain at Crosby and the other stations that are set to close? Is the truth that this move has been driven by the Treasury?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman talks of “using the existing network”, but, as I have just explained, there are no existing networks except between the paired stations. He talks of the local knowledge at Crosby, and asks why we have not applied the principle of retaining it there. We have: we are retaining the station at Holyhead, which is paired with Crosby and routinely operates in tandem with it, using the same areas of local knowledge around the north Wales coast and Liverpool bay area which both stations cover.

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

My right hon. Friend predicted huge disappointment, and in that respect at least I can agree with him. The proposed closure of Forth in my constituency will be received with profound disappointment, not least because of the unsatisfactory nature of the public meeting held by the MCA in Anstruther in February. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Aberdeen, which he proposes to retain, is the most expensive station in the United Kingdom—that excludes staff costs—while Forth has the lowest running costs in the UK? Is he also aware that in 2010, 40% of lifeboat launches in Scotland took place within Forth’s area of responsibility?

The Forth station offers value for money, and is increasingly busy because of the increase in leisure and commercial traffic in and around the River Forth. Why on earth should it be a candidate for closure?

[Mr Hammond]

As my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate, given that we have decided to retain one station from each pairing in order to respond to the concerns about local knowledge, there will inevitably be a series of questions such as his from Members representing the station in each pair that has not been selected for retention. A multi-criterian approach was adopted to the decisions about which station in each pair should be retained. I should be happy to explain to my right hon. and learned Friend the detailed logic behind the decision in this case.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

There is widespread concern at the prospect of the closure of coastguard stations, especially among the many people who use pleasure vessels and fishing vessels. Their concern matters as much as that of those in the commercial sector. I welcome the Government’s acceptance, in full, of the Select Committee’s recommendation of 24-hour cover in all stations, and their acceptance of the strong point made by the Committee about the significance of local knowledge. However, I must ask the Secretary of State whether he considers it credible that eight local closures will enable local knowledge and local team working to save the maximum number of lives.

[Mr Hammond]

First, let me restate my gratitude to the Select Committee for the time and trouble that it took over the inquiry. The hon. Lady will know, because she heard the evidence herself, that people who are closely involved with the service do indeed accept the need for change. As for local knowledge, it is precisely because the point about its importance was made so powerfully that we decided to look again at the original pairings of stations and see how the network could be organised around the retention of one station in each pair. Because of the way in which the pairs work, people working in either one of a pair of centres have full local knowledge of the entire coastline covered by both. We have addressed the concern expressed about local knowledge, while still building the resilience that the network needs for the 21st century.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I welcome the news that there will still be a station in the Solent area, which, after all, is one of the busiest sea lanes in the world. May I encourage the Secretary of State to consider also retaining the new command centre in the Lee-on-the-Solent area, where it is currently located? Not only does it benefit from the experience and local knowledge that, as we have learnt, is so important, and also from an ideal location between Portsmouth and Southampton, but the MCA already owns a big site at Daedalus, where there is a runway, so its retention makes good financial sense.

[Mr Hammond]

The Daedalus site is certainly one of the sites being considered by the agency as a possible location for the marine operations centre, which will provide 96 jobs, but no final decision has yet been made.

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

While I obviously have sympathy for Clyde and Forth, I am, of course, over the moon for Stornoway and Shetland. This has been a good campaign for my constituents in Stornoway. Praise to Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, and praise to Shetland Isles council; praise also to the shipping Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who visited, listened and genuinely consulted, and has the respect of many in the islands. The decision took account of distance as well as local knowledge. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that this is now a settled situation, and that we can look forward to a period of stability at the coastguard operation centres in both Stornoway and Shetland?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I also thank him on behalf of my hon. Friend the shipping Minister. It is nice to receive an acknowledgment of some of the effort that goes into getting some of these things right.

Of course the proposals are subject to the consultation that I have announced, but we envisage this as a settled situation that deals with the long-running question of how we can modernise the coastguard not just to make it technically resilient, but to create a career structure and, indeed, a pay structure that will solve the deep-rooted and long-running industrial relations problems that have existed in the service.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend and his ministerial team for listening to the representations that I, and others, have made about the Humber coastguard. While this is clearly good news for my constituents who are employed in Bridlington, is not the overriding issue the need to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the whole service? As the Humber station is in effect being asked to take on more responsibility, what will be the ultimate effect on staffing levels? Will they be increased rather than decreased?

[Mr Hammond]

What my right hon. Friend must take into account is that there will be a marine operations centre in the Portsmouth-Southampton area, with 96 staff operating 24/7. That will provide a great deal of back-up for all the operations in the country. At Humber there will be a loss of six full-time equivalent posts. The station, like all the other stations and sub-stations that are remaining open 24/7, will operate with a total of 23 staff and will work in networked tandem, 24/7, with the marine operations centre on the south coast.

[Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has completely failed to justify his decision to close Swansea and keep Milford Haven open. That makes absolutely no sense, certainly in maritime and coastal safety terms; it may make sense in terms of narrow party political advantage. Swansea is better strategically placed than Milford Haven and deals with twice as many incidents. Swansea also has a history of liaising with different police services across south Wales and south-west England, while Milford Haven has only ever dealt with Dyfed Powys. The MCA’s original proposals recognised that if we had to get rid of one of the pair, Swansea was the one to retain. What is now proposed is a huge mistake. The consultation should not be about something that is settled; it should be a real consultation where we can make the case for Swansea.

[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.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the hard work he has clearly done. I also want to put on record my thanks to my colleague, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who along with me fought a strong campaign on behalf of the people of North Down and Strangford. I pay tribute, too, to the staff who have worked hard as well, and been very supportive. I should add that the shipping Minister was very courteous and helpful. He came over to Northern Ireland, and to Bangor, to see exactly what needed to be done and to hear the views of the people and explain the options.

The decision that has been made reinforces the position of Bangor and its status as a 24/7 station. It was a 24/7 station before this consultation process, but there was a proposal to downgrade it to a daytime station. The current proposal, however, is to maintain it as a 24/7 station, for which we are thankful to everyone involved. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has done.

In the penultimate paragraph of the statement, the Secretary of State refers to the consultative process that will take place. He does not specifically mention Bangor, however. Can I take it that in respect of the process outlined today the position of Bangor is secure? If that is the case, we will be very happy to welcome the shipping Minister and the Secretary of State to the Bangor station in the near future.

[Mr Hammond]

I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that we consider that the issue of the potential closure of the station at Bangor was addressed in the previous consultation and there is no need for further consultation on that. I acknowledge the local issues he raised, but I should say that the decision to keep Bangor was made primarily on the basis of the national importance of having a station that could deal with the specific civil contingency issues in Northern Ireland and the very important relationships with the Irish Republic in search and rescue.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement today, which is most welcome in relation to Holyhead. May I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for his leadership of what was a strong cross-party campaign? Does the Secretary of State agree that the waters around north Wales will be safer as a result of this announcement because of the retention of local knowledge in Holyhead, not least the ability to recognise Welsh language place names?

[Mr Hammond]

I am glad that there was that outbreak of cross-party consensus. My hon. Friend is right that the concerns about Welsh language competence, and particularly recognition of Welsh place names, was one of the factors that determined the ultimate decision.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Choosing to close one of each pair is more like a party game—or “The Apprentice”—than any rationale for designing a service. I do not want either Milford Haven or Swansea to close, but given what my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Martin Caton) said about Swansea’s expertise in covering the whole of the Bristol channel and north Devon and the volume of its work compared with that of Milford Haven, am I to understand from the Secretary of State’s comments that he has made his decision not on who is best qualified and most experienced to do the job, but on what alternative employment is available, and is that really a rationale for providing the best service to the public?

[Mr Hammond]

If the hon. Lady had listened more carefully, she would have understood that there is no difference between Swansea and Milford Haven in terms of operational, technical or financial considerations. The professional advice we received was that either of those centres could provide the service required. Before the hon. Lady gets on her high horse about this, she should remember that the proposal my hon. Friend the shipping Minister inherited from the previous Administration when coming into office in May 2010 would have provided a single coastguard station in the whole of Wales. What we are proposing today gives Wales two coastguard stations and a very effective solution to protect the safety of Welsh coastal communities and seafarers.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

The shipping Minister should be applauded for the fact that the consultation process has led to the remaining stations being a 24-hour operation. That was very important, but can the Secretary of State clarify how these stations will operate alongside the proposed single maritime operations centre and can he assure me that this will not lead to any scaling down of operations at the remaining centres?

[Mr Hammond]

We have already set out how the local stations will operate, with 23 full-time equivalent staff. They will be permanently networked with the marine operations centre, which will have 96 staff in total, so that each centre will deal with a core base load of work, but will easily be able to transfer overload work via the marine operations centre, either to be handled at that centre or to be transmitted on to another centre elsewhere in the UK that is experiencing low work load at the time. This will be a genuinely national networked solution.

[Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)]

I am obviously very pleased that there will still be a coastguard station at Aberdeen, but I am deeply disappointed that it has been downgraded from a marine operations centre to I do not know what status. Aberdeen is a crucial location because of the North sea oil and gas industry. My disappointment is mitigated somewhat because we have managed to keep the stations in Shetland and Stornoway, which is one positive measure. The station in Aberdeen has been gearing up for its new status, and there has been investment in new technology. What are the jobs implications of the fact that its status has been downgraded?

[Mr Hammond]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, and I appreciate the measured way in which he has presented it. He will, perhaps, have to discuss the decision that has been made with my hon. Friend the shipping Minister. It is only by deciding to go for a single marine operations centre that we have been able to provide the resources to allow 24/7 operations to continue at eight other sub-centres around the country, and to deliver the result that reflects the consultation responses we received and the recommendations of the Select Committee on Transport in respect of local knowledge. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, Aberdeen currently has 31 staff. As a result of these proposals, it will lose eight full-time equivalent posts, operating like all the other sub-centres 24/7 with 23 full-time equivalent staff.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Twenty-five staff are employed at the Brixham maritime co-ordination rescue centre. I pay tribute to their dedication. Can the Secretary of State reassure those staff that they will be treated fairly when applying for jobs either at Falmouth or at the maritime operations centre? That is a real concern and will be essential to retaining local knowledge. I am concerned at the suggestion that those staff will not have an opportunity to contribute to the further consultation, because neither I nor anyone else in south Devon can understand how safety can be preserved with the closure of that maritime operations centre.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the measured way in which she makes her point. First, her constituents, like anybody else, will of course be able to respond to the consultation, but the consultation itself is limited to the issues that represent changes from the previous consultation. The coastguards employed at Brixham are civil servants. They will be entitled to be considered for deployment elsewhere in the civil service. Wherever possible—and where they are willing—we will look specifically to secure their knowledge and experience by redeploying them to other stations that will remain open. This process will take place over a number of years; it is not going to happen overnight. If at the end of that process there are people remaining who cannot be accommodated elsewhere in the service, they will be offered voluntary redundancy terms. We hope that it will not be necessary to make compulsory redundancies, and any that are made will be made only as a last resort.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

There will be considerable anger in Liverpool at the Secretary of State’s announcement today. Can he tell the House how many jobs will be lost in Merseyside as a result of this decision, and what account, if any, he has taken of the concerns expressed by the Merseyside fire service about the implications for safety at sea?

[Mr Hammond]

We have taken account of all concerns that have been expressed to us through the consultation process. The hon. Gentleman will know that under the previous proposals, the Liverpool centre would have been reduced to 10 posts; therefore, today’s announcement that it will close represents a net loss of 10 further jobs. He should also know—as he indeed does know—that my hon. Friend the shipping Minister has bent over backwards to try to accommodate the aspirations of Liverpool city council to change the status of the cruise liner terminal in Liverpool in a way that will create jobs and enhance the status of the city.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), and I take some assurance from the fact that we are keeping the 24-hour service on Humberside. When it comes to harnessing local knowledge, my concern relates to leisure and tourism. Norfolk has a long coast, with remote beaches and currents that change, and Suffolk and Essex have plenty of estuaries. We are about to embark on the holiday season. I would be grateful for an assurance that it will be possible to transfer that detailed local knowledge to Humberside.

[Mr Hammond]

The Humber station already covers the coastline of Norfolk and part of Suffolk, and the people working there will have the experience and knowledge that my hon. Friend talks of. I would like to take this opportunity to remind hon. Members that part of the proposal involves reinforcing professional coastguard support for the volunteer coastguard operation. An additional net total of 32 uniformed officers will be deployed in direct support of the volunteer coastguard, further reinforcing the resilience and effectiveness of the service.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

When the Minister was proposing two marine operations centres, he proposed to have 96 staff at the Solent centre. Now that he is proposing one marine operations centre, he is still proposing to have 96 staff at the Solent centre. Does he envisage the service being half as good nationally or the staff working twice as hard?

[Mr Hammond]

Neither. The point about reducing the proposal to a single marine operations centre is that resources that are not deployed in the other centre will remain deployed in local stations around the country, which is the thrust of most of the representations that we received—that we should seek to protect and maintain local knowledge deployed in local stations. Resilience in the event of disaster will be provided by a ghost facility at Dover, which would allow the marine operations centre in the Southampton-Portsmouth area to be transferred en masse to Dover in the event of any catastrophe befalling the Southampton-Portsmouth area.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the news that, subject to the consultation, Milford Haven will remain open. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the work of the Save Milford Haven Coastguard group, the Western Telegraph and the Milford and West Wales Mercury, and my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on the measured way in which they put the case for our area and the wider Welsh community? Can he assure me that during the consultation, the unique nature of Milford as an energy hub for the whole of the UK will be taken into account?

[Mr Hammond]

I am happy to congratulate all those who have taken part in the process for the measured way in which, on the whole, they have done so. As he has travelled round the country, my hon. Friend the shipping Minister has found that behind what can sometimes be the public rhetoric, well thought through, well argued and sensibly considered proposals and cases have been put to him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) has asked me about the status of Milford Haven as a major port. I have said before—I will repeat it—that the professional advice that we have received is that either Milford Haven or Swansea could have delivered the requirement in south Wales from a technical, operational and financial point of view. Ultimately, we made the decision to come down on the side of Milford Haven in the interests of equity.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

First, I pay tribute to all the volunteers, coastguards and full-time search and rescue crews operating helicopters and lifeboats around our coastline. I welcome the retention of the Holyhead station, which is based not only on the importance of the Welsh language, as has been noted, but on the links with 22 Squadron at RAF Valley. The Secretary of State mentioned a nationally networked system, as well as consultation. When that is set up, will he ensure that there is internal consultation of individual front-line coastguards, so that they can contribute to the best and safest network, one that is fit for the 21st century?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, of course, that process is already under way.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Well, well, what a surprise! Faced with the choice, a Tory Minister decides to close a facility in Liverpool. I genuinely do not believe for a moment that the closure of the Liverpool coastguard station was agreed for any reason other than political expediency. If it was not, why was Liverpool left out of the original consultation document? The Minister cannot justify his decision. He has just mentioned that Liverpool may well get a cruise liner turnaround facility that will increase traffic along our corridors, but he has taken the easy political way out. He should reconsider his decision, based on the information that he has just presented—that Liverpool could indeed get a cruise liner turnaround facility.

[Mr Hammond]

Perhaps I am guilty of making a rod for my own back, Mr Deputy Speaker. I mentioned the cruise liner turnaround facility simply to demonstrate that my hon. Friend the shipping Minister is leaving no stone unturned in trying to help the maritime community around Liverpool, but the decision has been properly made, after a full assessment. The station at Holyhead will provide proper cover for the maritime areas that were previously covered by Crosby. To suggest that there is some kind of party political advantage—[Hon. Members: “Shameful!”] Frankly, it is not just shameful; it is also illiterate. The hon. Gentleman should look at the map.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I welcome the retention of both Stornoway and Shetland on a 24-hour basis, which is a big improvement on the original proposals. However, the closure of the Clyde station leaves a huge area of sea between Bangor and Stornoway without any station, as can be seen from the illustrative map. As I said in the Westminster Hall debate, that coastline presents unique challenges. So far, we have had a genuine consultation. I think that the Clyde coastguard station should be kept. Will the Secretary of State agree to receive representations on that in the coming consultation?

[Mr Hammond]

No. I have made it clear that that will be outside the scope of the coming consultation. My hon. Friend said that the Clyde station covers a “huge area of sea”. I understand that it is difficult to get out of that mode of thinking, but that is not the way to think about a networked 21st-century coastguard service. Belfast has been twinned with Clyde. The station in Belfast has the working local knowledge of the huge area of sea that has previously been covered by the Clyde station, and the arrangements that we have put in place are resilient and will serve us well for the 21st century.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I am a member of the Select Committee on Transport, so I know that he has clearly listened to many of the concerns that were identified, particularly on daylight-only operating. When we spoke to coastguards as part of our inquiry we were very struck by their willingness to modernise the service. May I invite him to say a little more about how the new maritime operations centre will harness new technology to augment the safety that the existing stations provide?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to the Committee for the work that it did. I suspect that he may get the prize for being the Member with the constituency furthest from the coast who has contributed to this discussion today. I would be happy to talk to him offline, but I sense that Mr Deputy Speaker would not encourage me to explain in detail the technical features of the new maritime operations centre.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the new Welsh Government about the proposal to aim the axe at Swansea rather than Milford Haven? Has he received any representations from new Welsh Ministers?

[Mr Hammond]

No, I have received no representations about the choice between Swansea and Milford Haven.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I welcome the improvements to the original proposals that were floating around for some years. I particularly welcome not only the switch to 24-hour cover, which is essential, and the increase in the number of stations from that originally proposed, but the opportunity to improve coastguards’ pay. Morale in the coastguard service has been very poor, and under the previous Government strikes took place—a very rare thing in this service. Ultimately, the purpose of this whole system is not about providing jobs, but about public safety. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that public safety will be preserved or improved by the modernisation and changes that he proposes?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment, and I can give him that reassurance. I can assure him further that the result we have come to and announced today is based on the input of professionals, who understand the needs of the system and the safety issues at stake. As he rightly says, not only the communications resilience and the IT resilience, but, above all, the improvement in morale that will be delivered by lancing the boil of the long-running industrial relations problem that has been festering in this service for many, many years will hugely improve the way in which the service is delivered and the safety it affords to our communities.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given what the Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) about the loss of jobs under the new plans at the Aberdeen centre, it is hard to see that there will be any opportunity for workers from the Forth coastguard station to be redeployed to Aberdeen. Therefore, there is a real risk that their local knowledge will be lost. Does the Secretary of State really expect us to believe that two stations on the entire east coast mainland of Scotland and England, at Aberdeen and Humber, will be able to provide the same kind of local knowledge that we have at the moment?

[Mr Hammond]

I am sorry to be repetitious, Mr Deputy Speaker, but those stations will be working fully networked with the marine operations centre at Southampton, which itself will have a much bigger complement of staff, and much better equipment and communications technology, 24/7. It will deliver the level of resilience and safety that we require.

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I understand why he made the statement that he did, but there is a degree of turnover going on within coastguard stations now, and we expect that, even in areas where the natural twin will not be recruiting additional staff, there will be opportunities for the redeployment of many, if not all, of the staff over the next three or four years.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that he had listened to the consultations. All the coastguard stations said that they should remain open, reluctantly accepted that there should be change and also said that there should be more than 10 stations, so it seems to me that they were not particularly heard. I am disappointed that he is limiting the next bit of the consultation to the few points he has listed. Will he reconsider that decision, particularly if safety issues are raised?

[Mr Hammond]

No, I am afraid not, as a very extensive consultation has taken place. It lasted for 20 weeks, which is much longer than the Government’s normal standard for consultation. We have responded in detail—the response is in the Library today—to that consultation process. The further consultation is simply about the changes that we have proposed since that document was published.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful for your generosity in calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, given that my Public Bill Committee duties meant that I could not be here earlier. The Minister may recall that I tabled a written question on the number of vacancies for watch officers at Fife Ness station, and I was alarmed to hear the number given. On Saturday, I will be at the Dunbar lifeboat day, celebrating, with the local community, the bravery, service and sacrifice of the Dunbar crew. I want to be able to reassure them that this decision was not taken before the end of the consultation and that Fife Ness was not being wound down. Did the Minister visit Fife Ness during the consultation?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady makes the important point that the uncertainty that this process has inevitably introduced has led, in some cases, to recruitment difficulties; there are unfilled posts within the coastguard service as we speak. Our hope is that the signals we are sending today on certainty, better pay, better conditions, better career progression and improved industrial relations will make it possible for the coastguard service to man up to the level it needs to be at to implement these changes and keep our coasts safe for the future.

Aviation Security

Lord Hammond of Runnymede Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Today I am launching a consultation on the Government’s proposals to modernise the way we regulate aviation security. Better regulation for aviation security proposes a new outcome focused, risk-based approach to regulation which builds on the successful and similar approach to aviation safety.

While the UK is recognised internationally as having one of the most effective aviation security regimes in the world, we also face a continuing threat from international and domestic terrorism. The Government’s recent strategic defence and security review set out their proposals for securing Britain in an age of uncertainty and included a commitment to improve aviation security.

The proposals in this consultation offer a new approach to the regulation of aviation security. Our current system can place significant financial burdens on the aviation industry along with inconvenience to passengers, and could be more consistent with the Government’s better regulation principles. I think we can do better—with a new regime that maintains and improves security standards but in a more efficient and passenger-friendly way.

I therefore propose that the Government should move from prescribing security processes to setting security outcomes. This will give airports and airlines greater flexibility to deliver high standards of security in ways that that are better integrated with their day-to-day business and designed around the needs of the passenger. It will allow them to adopt appropriate new technology as it become available. I want to move away from the current, highly prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach where all operators run the same regime to one where industry takes a more proactive and more innovative and tailored approach to security.

This approach will also enable the regulator to operate a system of “earned autonomy”—rewarding those operators with the most robust systems of aviation security with greater trust in how they deliver the specified outcomes. Conversely, the level of scrutiny by the regulator will increase proportionately where any concerns arise about the delivery of the required outcomes.

The safety and security of passengers will remain of paramount importance to the Government, and so the new arrangements will have robust oversight procedures in place to ensure security standards are not compromised. To do this, I am proposing to require all industry operators to develop a security management system. This would demonstrate a clear commitment to providing an overall high-level of security and set out how security outcomes specified by the UK regulator and EU requirements will be delivered. Integral to this will be robust internal quality assurance and auditing arrangements which will complement the regulator’s own assurance and compliance processes.

The consultation also proposes new reporting arrangements whereby industry will regularly report to the regulator on performance and occurrences (including the rectification measures to be taken). This gives the regulator a fuller picture on which to base decisions and direct regulatory effort. I also propose to introduce a system that allows staff to report on a confidential basis any concerns relating to aviation security. These proposed arrangements will provide an additional layer of assurance.

This approach offers a new partnership between Government and the industry, one that is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards in aviation security while also improving the passenger experience.

These are complex proposals, which require further development in consultation with the aviation industry and other interested parties. The Department for Transport will be making extensive efforts to engage industry during the consultation process to explain the proposals further and to seek input.

Following the end of the consultation, the Government will then consider all responses and produce a summary report along with next steps. I will make a further statement to the House at that point.