Select Committee Inquiry (Aviation Strategy)

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

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

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

Will the hon. Lady and her Committee look into the historic reasons for the congestion in the south-east of England—namely, the signing of bilateral agreements between the UK and other countries that stipulated the use of only London airports as a point of access into the UK. It is interesting to note that people in Iceland want to be able to fly to Glasgow rather be forced to fly to London and then north again to Glasgow.

[Mrs Ellman]

The issues of international agreements and the decision-making powers of the aviation sector itself are highly relevant to our inquiry.

I have referred to environmental concerns, and the inquiry will address environmental issues. The aviation industry has a number of environmental impacts. The issue of noise can be particularly important to local residents, and we want to know whether this is being regulated appropriately. We will also consider the wider environmental impact of aviation and how the industry can reduce carbon emissions so that further growth can be sustainable. We want to consider the full range of options. We will, for instance, consider whether a new airport should be built in the Thames estuary, whether Heathrow should have a third runway, and, indeed, whether there are other options. We will approach those issues with an open mind, and will consider the evidence submitted to us.

Rail Fares

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

At this stage, that would go well beyond the motion before the House, but I hear what the hon. Lady says. Given that she is now no longer the leader of the Green party, however, I wonder whether it is Green party policy—no doubt we will find out in due course.

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

The motion calls for an increase of RPI plus 1 for fares. I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that the Scottish National party is the only governing party in these islands that has not raised regulated rail fares. Would she be so kind as to congratulate the SNP Government, who are practising what the Labour party preaches?

[Maria Eagle]

I am disappointed by that intervention.

One always has to balance rises with the issue of affordability on the basis of the public finances, but there ought to be agreement around the House that inflation plus 1 is a realistic way forward in this Parliament.

Cost of Living

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I have been looking at the financial arrangements of the green deal. When we are able to announce even more details than we have already, I believe that people will see that it is a very attractive offer. I also believe that there are many low-income households that will actually welcome the rate of credit that will be asked through the green deal, compared with some of the rates of credit that they have to pay other lenders.

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

rose—

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Davey]

I will not give way, because I want to make some progress and address the Queen’s Speech.

We need to make dramatic changes to our energy policies in the longer term. The right hon. Member for Don Valley said, in a rather bizarre passage towards the end of her speech, that we were not really reforming the electricity market—but we are making the biggest reform of the electricity market since privatisation. It is the sort of reform that Labour Members failed to get their head around and failed to deliver, despite 13 years in power.

There are huge challenges for our electricity market, with 20% of our power plants coming offline during the next decade. There is an energy security issue. We will have to ensure that the infrastructure is brought forward in the most competitive way, otherwise there will be a big impact on bills. We will have to attract more than £110 billion of investment in a way that ensures that low-carbon technology can be introduced, so that we can meet our carbon budgets. That is a heck of a challenge, and this Government have developed the policies to meet it.

If we do not act now, we estimate that by the mid-2020s up to 2.5 million households will be affected by blackouts, costing the economy more than £100 million a year. Even without interruptions to supply, our consumers would be exposed to volatile global energy markets if we did not do anything. Wholesale energy costs already make up half of the average consumer bill. Last year, the winter gas price was 40% higher than the year before. That is the real reason why bills have been going up so dramatically. We have to act and make the strategic changes to tackle that issue.

[Mr MacNeil]

Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) about road fuel, what stage are the Government at in introducing a fair fuel regulator, which was much talked about while the two coalition parties were in opposition?

--- Later in debate ---

[Malcolm Wicks]

May I pursue my theme for a while? The hon. Gentleman must remind me later that I was going to give way to him.

This is not a painless revolution. I do not want to compete with the Secretary of State’s soundbite, but for many women and men there is what might be called a care-career collision.

[Mr MacNeil]

That is much better.

[Malcolm Wicks]

The alliteration is better.

What I mean is that the time when young men and women in their mid-to-late twenties and thirties are working hard at their careers, and when their employers are watching them, is precisely the time when they think about the need to have children. That is a dilemma and a difficulty that we have not entirely thought through.

One consequence of the fact that women as well as men are working hard during their period of maximum fertility is the inability of many women to have families of the size that they would like. There is interesting evidence to that effect in a 2006 study by the Eurobarometer, the most recent that the Library could find for me. It states that in the UK in 2006 the mean ideal number of children for women—as it is an average, a funny statistic emerges—was 2.5, but the actual number of children achieved by women aged between 40 and 54 was only 1.9. As I have said, it is possible to laugh at such statistics, but we can see what lies behind them. Many women, and men, who would have preferred to have, say, three children end up with two, many who might have wanted two end up with one, and others may not be able to have children at all.

I am not suggesting that there is some Utopia in which everyone can achieve their ideal family size, but I do believe that there are economic and employment pressures that make achieving an ideal family size difficult in Britain and, indeed, throughout Europe. That ought to concern us, not least at a time when data show that birth rates are below replacement level in this country.

Another consequence of the care-career collision is the sheer hassle and difficulty that many families have to undergo in order to organise substitute child care. The growth of child care is wholly beneficial—it has improved the lot of families and, in many cases, children—but whenever I discuss the issue with younger families today, I have the impression that there is barrier after barrier. Often it is not just one substitute child carer whom parents need to employ. Because of career patterns, children may have to be dragged out of bed early and sent from one carer to another. What happens when a childminder is ill? What happens when the mother herself, who should be working, knows that her child is ill? Many parents have to resort to fibbing to their employers that they themselves are ill, rather than their children.

What I am saying—not too controversially, I hope—is that I do not believe the development of child care has led to some kind of nirvana. People may say, “It would be better if we had more child care, if the training and the quality of child care were better, and if it were cheaper”, and I understand their argument, but I want to challenge more fundamentally the proposition that we have reached a nirvana. I believe that family decisions made by men and women, by dads and mums, would be better decisions for families and for children if parental leave became a much more important feature of our employment and social policy. We have made some progress and I welcome that, but the average citizen of the 21st century will live until her eighties or nineties, and we are threatened with the possibility that many children born today will reach the age of 100. That is a long life span. Are we really saying that, during the two or three critical years after a child is born, substitute child care is the only way of ensuring the well-being of our children and their parents?

Now I will give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as I promised to do a long time ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

I am talking about total taxation, which is the important thing to understand. I know that it is difficult to compare countries. For instance, we often talk about Italy being a basket case in terms of Government borrowing, but private borrowing is very low in Italy. We have to address this problem by considering the total taxation of all output, because that is what is of interest to efficiency and an efficient Government.

As I was saying, big government is accompanied by big waste. I am sure that many hon. Members were shocked, as I was, by a National Audit Office report in January—or rather by a report of reports; I am sure that everybody in this House avidly reads what the NAO says every week. This report was published in January, so it was not an attack on the previous Labour Government; it relates to now and the situation this minute. It is about this apparently hard-hitting, right-wing Government who are cutting left, right and centre, and persecuting the people—that is the charge against the Government; I would not say anything like that, of course. The report suggests that there is waste, at the moment, of more than £31 billion across government. Hon. Members may recall that Philip Green carried out an efficiency review, after which he said:

“You could not be in business if you operated like this. It would be impossible.”

His review identified, among other things, £700 million in saving on the Government telephone bill alone. In the past two Parliaments, the Public Accounts Committee conducted more than 400 hearings on waste. Such hearings are carrying on in this Parliament, as they will in the next Parliament and the Parliament after that. Nobody can tell me that enormous opportunities to cut waste do not remain.

Why is that issue important, given that this is a debate on the cost of living? This is not some anorak issue in which only accountants or economists should be interested. Every taxpayer in this country should be interested in what is going on in government at the moment, because the public sector is funded from the pockets of ordinary people and ordinary firms—many of them small, struggling firms—across Britain. Spending money in such a way means that the public and firms are being hit by a double-whammy, as prices are inflated by wasteful government spending, and firms have less of their own money to invest and families have less to spend. That situation is not fair.

We have mentioned the complexities of the benefits system and discussed child benefit. In addition to a hugely wasteful government system, Britain suffers from a horrendously complex tax system. Our tax code is now the longest in the world. Do a Conservative Government find that satisfactory? Our tax code has recently overtaken India’s in length and has doubled in size since 1997. Our horrendously complex tax system may have allowed the previous Government to keep many of their taxes a secret, but it has led to Britain being ranked 89th in the world, behind Nigeria and Zimbabwe, on the burden of government regulation in a recent World Economic Forum report. That simply is not good enough. I know that my friends on the Treasury Bench are doing their best, but they are not trying hard enough. They have to do better, because ordinary people and ordinary firms are paying for all this.

That complexity is structurally biased against ordinary workers and small businesses, because they lack the resources to investigate all the available loopholes. According to the Centre for Policy Studies, the effective marginal tax rate for some people on low incomes is as high as 96%. We know that, because we have done all these studies; the right hon. Members for Croydon North and for Birkenhead (Mr Field) served with me on the Select Committee on Social Security for many years, and for many years the right hon. Member for Birkenhead has campaigned on the issue of the trap for ordinary people, particularly those at the bottom of the heap, of paying marginal tax rates of 96%. We are crushing our own people, and not just with the waste for which we are responsible in our own spending. We oversee that waste in this House of Commons—we are responsible for it; nobody else out there is responsible. We crush our own people under a hugely wasteful system of government inefficiency and with increasingly complex taxes and benefits.

The rich do not suffer from that. The marginal tax rate for top-rate taxpayers is just 57.8%—the very richest do not even pay that. They do not even pay 57%. With the benefit of having successful and hugely expensive accountants, they are paying 10% or 15%.

In the most recent global competitors report by the World Economic Forum, three of the four biggest problems facing UK businesses were identified as tax rates, tax regulations and inefficient Government bureaucracy. Let me set out what I believe we should have in the Government. Apparently we are going to have a reshuffle soon. What we need are Ministers—the Prime Minister has to check on their performance—who are, like a non-executive director on the board of a private company such as Tesco, obsessed not by policy but by efficiency. We have three excellent Ministers sitting on the Front Bench—the Secretary of State for Transport, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) and the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns)—as well as our Whip. I am sure they are doing these sorts of things every day, but much more could be done. I hope the Whip is listening to all the kind comments I am making about the Ministers. I sincerely believe that this is one of the most important things the Government could do.

An obvious conclusion to reach, given what I have said, is that the tax system should be simplified. That would reduce costs and simultaneously be likely to increase revenues. As I have argued again and again, this is not necessarily a market-driven, right-wing point of view, because the lower-paid would benefit from it. The natural conclusion of such simplification would be a much flatter rate, or even a flat-rate tax system. Such a system has been successfully introduced in places as diverse as Serbia, Hong Kong and Russia. When I was in Russia recently, I spoke to a young entrepreneur. The flat-rate tax in Russia is 13%. How extraordinary that the former Soviet Union now has a more entrepreneurially based system than we have—a flat-rate tax of 13% in a large economy such as Russia.

There is a precedent for such an approach in this country. When the Thatcher Government more than halved the top tax rate, the proportion of income tax revenue paid by the highest earners rose. As I said in our debates on the Budget, I welcome what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in cutting the top rate from 50% to 45%; indeed, I think it should be cut from 45% to 40%. Such people do not bury their money in the ground. If they are taxed less, there is more entrepreneurship and more of them stay in this country. They earn more and give more, and less effort is spent on tax evasion and tax avoidance.

As important as tax reform is, the key to Government finance is a reduction in spending. If we spend less, we can tax less—it is that simple. There is nothing inherently good about Government spending, although Ministers from parties on both sides of the House have apparently congratulated themselves on how much they have spent on the health service and education. They congratulate themselves on spending inefficiently what other people earn.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman says there is nothing inherently good about Government spending, but good can come from Government spending if it is on assets in order to redevelop capacity in the economy. We could have that rather than the current austerity programme, which is starving the economy.

[Mr Leigh]

We all accept that the Government can usefully spend on assets. I do not deny that. There is nothing wrong with Government spending, but there is something wrong with wasteful Government spending. In a recent global competitiveness report, Britain was ranked an unbelievable 72nd in the world behind Ethiopia and Tajikistan on the wastefulness of Government spending. That simply is not good enough. If a private company was ranked so low in the pecking order, questions would be asked about the people serving on the board, would they not? We have to try harder and do better. Government money does not come from nowhere. Every pound wasted by Whitehall is a pound that could have been invested by a British company or spent by a British family.

Before I conclude, let me speak about a few other issues, including aspects of the Queen’s Speech which I welcome. The right hon. Member for Croydon North talked about family life. One reason I have supported a marriage tax allowance, which sadly was once again not in the Queen’s Speech, is that it would address precisely the point he was making—the tax disincentive for a parent, usually a woman, to stay at home to look after her children. Nobody pretends that a tax gets people married or keeps people married. It simply deals with the totally unjust situation that a married person, normally a woman, who stays at home and looks after her young children is uniquely attacked by the tax and benefit system. That cannot be right.

I am glad that the high-speed rail line was not in the Queen’s Speech. I will do a deal with my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, who will sum up the debate. I will support her high-speed line, which will admittedly cut the journey time between London and Birmingham—no doubt that is all very good and means spending the assets that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) spoke about—if she will support the building of a third runway at Heathrow airport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is entertaining to follow the speeches from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who have shown that there is an obsession about House of Lords reform, at least in trying to stop it, among certain people who have been in this House for a very long time. It is a project that has been going on for a long time, too. It was in all three party manifestos. We can achieve it; it does not have to be an obsession for any of us.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

If the Deputy Speaker does not object, I will happily take an intervention.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that House of Lords reform will not be meaningful in this place while there are a number of people hanging around who view the House of Lords as a political lifeboat when their careers here are finished?

[Dr Huppert]

I do agree, and at some point we can have the debate about why we need that reform to have a properly democratically accountable Chamber in the other place, but now is not that time.

We heard an interesting take from the hon. Member for Gainsborough on how the Government would be doing much better if they were a pure Conservative Government—they would be cutting much more—and we heard from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton that they are cutting far too savagely. The truth is that a pure Conservative Government probably would be cutting more and we are acting as a restraint on that and trying to achieve the correct outcome, which lies somewhere between the—in my view—excessive cuts advocated by one side and the continued overspending advocated by the other.

There is often a debate about Keynesian economics. Keynes was a good Liberal and a good Cambridge man, and he said a number of very sensible things. One was about making sure that we spend in recessions, but the flip side of that is that we do not spend as much during the boom years, so that we have money left. We cannot spend in the boom and also have money to spend in the bust; it simply does not work. Keynes was also clear about how much could be spent and, indeed, the high priority on keeping bond yields low so all that could be afforded. He was a very complex man and his work should not be reduced to a simple catch phrase.

I want to talk about the cost of living in relation to transport, because it is one of the areas I focus on in this House and on which I lead for the Liberal Democrats, but also because it is one of the few parts of Government activity that affects most people pretty much every day of their lives. Transport has a huge effect on us, and the cost of travel affects a huge amount of what we do throughout our lives. Governments for many decades, when focusing on the cost of transport, have thought principally about cars; too little thought has been given to cycling, walking and public transport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who was courteous in giving way. I pay tribute to his late father, who was Secretary of State for Wales and an Energy Minister—I will discuss energy reforms later in my speech. When I lobbied him when he was Secretary of State and a Minister, I found that he agreed with me more than he agreed with Mrs Thatcher, his leader at the time.

The grocery market ombudsman is a very good inclusion in the Queen’s Speech. In the previous Parliament, I introduced a private Member’s Bill on a supermarket ombudsman, which gained cross-party support and went into Committee. We unfortunately ran out of time, but there was a consensus. The Conservative party said at the time that such an office would be a priority in government, as did the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, and here we are, two years down the road. I am a bit disappointed that it has taken two years for the Government parties to achieve action on a “priority”, but I welcome the fact that it has been achieved.

If we are to have an adjudicator for the code of practice, it is important that it has the right tools and the teeth to do the job. The adjudicator should not exist in name only. We should work together to continue that consensus to ensure that our suppliers, producers and consumers get a better deal out of the code of conduct by having an independent adjudicator to oversee it. I look forward to scrutinising and improving the Bill.

As hon. Members know, the code of conduct has been in place for a couple of years, which is why it was a priority to have an adjudicator. I want the adjudicator to be more proactive in looking at the industry—not just waiting for there to be victims of rogue trading in the grocery market industry. It is important to include in the legislation provision for a third party to bring a problem to the attention of the grocery market adjudicator.

I welcome that proposed legislation, but given that it has been two years since the last Queen’s Speech—Her Majesty has not visited Parliament in only three years of her 60-year reign—many people, including me, were expecting this one to be a beefy Queen’s Speech. However, it is paper thin. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is not in his place, said that we do not need a legislative programme to create growth and do many of the things we need to do in the country, but then he mentioned Liberal Democrat taxation policies. I must remind him that getting taxation measures through the House needs a Finance Bill, so he was not quite correct.

It is important that we have a programme, particularly after what has been described—not by Labour Members, but by the Tory-friendly press—as a botched Budget and a Queen’s Speech that lacked any strategy for growth and job creation. I welcome the drop in unemployment announced today, but it is not a trend and we should not get carried away. As the Prime Minister said in Question Time earlier, we must do more to stop the increasing number of part-time jobs. The rate of full-time equivalent employment is falling not rising. Many people are moving from full-time employment into part-time jobs, and as a result their cost of living is rising and their standard of living falling. We need to address that issue.

I want to mention the Chancellor’s botched Budget. Like the hon. Member for Worcester, I have been visiting businesses in my community, including Conservative businesses that have never been particularly Labour friendly. They have told me that the measures on VAT have reduced their capacity to invest, and that is hurting them. The fact that the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and others have said that businesses need to work a little harder shows, unfortunately, how out of touch the Government are. Those businesses are telling me that they are working flat out, while their costs are rising. Some of those rising costs are the result of external factors—I acknowledge that energy and wholesale prices have risen—but many extra burdens are not as a result of that.

For instance, the Budget contained a 20% increase in taxation on the caravan and hospitality industry. Many hon. Members either abstained or voted for that measure and did not vote against it. Operators have told me that it is a huge burden, because 60% of their turnover comes from the sale of caravans. In the past, it was from that profit that they could reinvest in their parks—and they invested substantial sums. In my constituency alone, an estimated 300 jobs will go if that measure is introduced, because operators will be unable to reinvest. That is a tax on jobs. Before the election, the Chancellor, with his political hat on, talked about a tax on jobs, yet now he has created a tax on jobs by increasing VAT.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the vote on VAT. Was it a mistake, therefore, for Labour not to vote with the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru against the rise in VAT from 17.5% to 20% and instead to abstain?

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not always vote with my party, and if he checks the record, he will see that I have voted for several SNP measures. If they are sensible, I will vote for them, but not many are. [Interruption.] I cannot speak for the rest of Labour, but I can speak for myself very comfortably in this House, and have done from both the Government and Opposition Benches.

It was wrong to increase VAT. It took money out of the economy at a time when we needed a fiscal stimulus. That is what business is telling me. That is why it is disappointing that the Budget increased VAT instead of addressing the situation. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said, VAT is a regressive tax which most hurts the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. The Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrats said as much before the general election, yet when they entered government, they increased it. That is what turned small economic growth into a double-dip recession. That is what business tells me. I am willing to stand up and speak for businesses, especially hard-working businesses. It is a disgrace for senior Ministers to say that businesses should simply work harder, given that the Government are increasing taxation and taking money out of the economy, as a result of which people are not spending on their businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Mr Speaker, I am mindful of what you have said about time and self-restraint when it comes to interventions. I would like to focus my remarks on something that the Queen’s Speech seems to have flown past: the cost of living. Right hon. and hon. Members are no strangers to my concerns about the cost of living, particularly in Na h-Eileanan an Iar, an island constituency that feels the impact of UK Government changes harder than most. Fuel duty and VAT are exacerbated in remote, rural and island communities and businesses face ever-increasing costs for services. However, we do welcome the rural fuel derogation, which will hopefully lead to a better differential between fuel prices on the islands and on the mainland. I hope that the pilot projects for the change of 5p a litre prove a success so that it can become permanent and be extended to other areas on the mainland. I am sure that people in Sutherland, Caithness, Argyll, the Isle of Skye and other areas would welcome it.

Another problem recently is that companies delivering to my island constituency have been charging my constituents exorbitant rates simply because we live there. I would like the Government to act on that and ensure that people are treated equally no matter where they live in the kingdom. Those companies frequently cite distance and difficulty as the reasons for the ever-increasing prices. Ever since I came to this House, I have fought to ameliorate the cost of living for my constituents and those travel costs. That is why I have chosen to speak on that in the Queen’s Speech debate. I feel that, sadly, there is too little in the Queen’s Speech that will bring down the cost of living for Scottish families.

I will start with fuel. I know that the Government have put off the 3p duty rise until August and brought in the fuel duty derogation, as I have said. The 5p is very welcome, but we still have the ever-present problem of the high cost of fuel in rural Scotland. Some drivers in my constituency currently spend nearly a quarter of their yearly income on fuel. Some fill up their tanks only once a week, but others do so several times a week. As long as the UK has the highest petrol duty in Europe, we will still have to pay that price. We have heard the Chancellor speak about dealing with that through the fair fuel stabiliser, but to date we have seen very little action on this subject, and I hope that the Government bring that forward as a second leg to follow the welcome rural fuel derogation.

Additionally, VAT adds to the burden of the cost of fuel, and that 20% hits our pockets hard. It is a shame that the Labour party, with a couple of honourable exceptions, did not support the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru in the Lobby by voting against the VAT increase. Instead, they abstained. As we know, VAT is no respecter of ability to pay; it is a tax that hits need and hits lower incomes disproportionately.

The list goes on. The cost of energy in general is increasing at an untenable rate, and in my constituency that means increasing costs for the basics, such as light and heat. Sadly, my constituency leads the UK fuel poverty statistics. The Government say that we cannot spend our way out of a recession and that in theory the Government and the people have to tighten their belts to survive until something happens to bring the economy back on track. Some might say that that is a good microeconomic plan for growth that follows the example of how an individual saves money, but I question it as a macroeconomic plan. Here is a quotation:

“Unemployment, and fear that it will spread, drives down wages, incomes, and consumption—and thus total demand. Decreased rates of household formation… depress housing prices, leading to still more foreclosures. States with balanced-budget frameworks are forced to cut spending as tax revenues fall”.

That is a destabiliser that Europe, and the UK specifically, seems intent on adopting. That quote was from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, who once worked in the Clinton team but has now gone on to higher and greater things: he is on the Scottish First Minister’s council of economic advisers. In essence, his words are a stinging rebuke to the Prime Minister, who has said that the answer to debt is not more debt. I think he sees that from the wrong perspective. Surely the answer to hunger is not greater starvation, and that is what is happening to the economy at the moment.

What we need is to get people back to work. When the private sector fails to provide jobs, surely the Government should look at jump-starting the economy by investing to create assets, as I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh). I am saying not that we should spend recklessly for its own sake, but that we should invest in the country’s long-term assets and make wealth by going from cash to assets in the long term. Joseph Stiglitz argues that countries that do that will enhance their long-term growth. That is why in Scotland we have £320 million-worth of shovel-ready projects, from Ullapool pier to Glasgow university and the Clyde gateway to name but a few. We are ready to put people back into work—to stimulate, to prime the economy. Those projects are ready to go and ready to create jobs.

That would surely help the wider economy and the cost of living. Everything that involves getting people back to work sees a community become more active and people off the streets—undertaking productive activities and gaining and providing long-term assets for their communities. It means that locals see an increase in people making purchases, from eggs to clothes and, of course, iPads, which have become a common feature in the House, and that in turn travels up the economy, letting the world know that it is okay to start spending again. Confidence will grow and we will, I hope, see prices moving in the right direction. Rather than waiting for the mystical something that I mentioned earlier, we need to ensure that the tangible something is happening, increasing capacity in our economy.

Mr Speaker, you might be interested to know that new figures point to Scotland having avoided a double-dip recession. How is that possible? The figures are tentative, and of course I make the proviso that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan, but it looks like a possible success. There will be many claims on it, but it is potentially because the Scottish Government have been investing, where we can, and taking economic decisions, where we can, to help alleviate the cuts from the UK Government, following the example and advice of economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and making the right decisions for Scotland.

Scotland needs to be able to grow confidence in our economy, and the only way to do that is to get people back to work. Unfortunately, we currently have to ask permission to help ourselves, but by autumn 2014 we will not need to do so: we will have removed the brakes from Westminster on the Scottish economy, and Scottish growth and recovery from current troughs will be faster and more efficient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

There is devolution in Wales, where they make the choices on the basis of the budgets assigned to them by this Government. We have been very clear that we abandoned flex and stopped it, and Lord Adonis made it clear that, because times were so tough, we were not going back to it. The current Government have reintroduced it, while pretending that they are cutting fares, which they are not. It is simply not true, as Ministers claim, that this is just an additional cost to the taxpayer. As the National Audit Office has said,

“there is a risk that the benefit of the resulting increase in passenger revenues will not be passed on to taxpayers fully, but will also result in increased Train Operating Company profits.”

This is a Government who are not just out of touch with the impact of these fare rises, but unwilling to stand up to the train companies and enforce even the cap they claim to have set. This is indeed a Government who are in hock to the TOCs.

The pressure on commuters is set to spiral over the next two years because Ministers have decided that next year’s fare rises are to be even higher—up to nearly 12% on the current rate of the retail prices index. That is nearly 12% in both 2013 and 2014, and the tender documents for the new franchises reveal even more pain on the way. Bidders are promised even more freedoms on fares, including the right to introduce a new super-peak fare at even higher prices, hitting hard-pressed commuters still further. Franchise bidders are promised that they can cut daily services by up to 10%. They are no longer required to improve performance over the life of the franchise and no longer required to maintain the same level of CCTV on trains.

As we exposed last month, a programme of ticket office closures has already been signed off by Ministers, but staffed ticket offices are not a waste or an inefficiency that can be cut out with no resulting impact on service. The impact will be passengers cheated out of the cheapest fares, which are not always clearly advertised or available at ticket machines. Those without access to the internet, often those seeking work or older people, are unable to get the better deals and are left to pay over the odds for their train tickets.

Ministers continue to deny that they have signed off these closures. At the last Transport questions, the Minister of State assured the House that “they are not happening”. That is what she said, yet we have seen the e-mail from the Department’s own rail fares and ticketing review, warning the Department’s press office not to deny that ticket office closures have been given the green light because

“the Minister has already decided to approve some ticket office closures…it’s just not been announced yet.”

I have a further leaked document with me. This is from London Midland, the company set to be the first to implement a closure programme—for the first of the 675 ticket offices across the country that we know have been earmarked for closure. This leaked document reveals that London Midland will save £1.25 million a year by closing 86 ticket offices—profits before passengers. It also refers to a payment of £200,000 from the Department for Transport. Perhaps the Secretary of State—or the Minister of State—can confirm when she closes the debate whether the Department for Transport is actually paying companies to push through these closures? A reference in this document suggests that that might be the case. The Minister of State can tell me now if she would like to intervene. She does not want to, so perhaps the Secretary of State will address the issue at the end of the debate. The future of rail under this Government will be higher fares, more overcrowding, less CCTV and fewer ticket offices.

If Ministers are out of the loop when it comes to what is happening to rail fares and ticket office closures, they are even more delusional when it comes to bus services. Last month the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes, told the House that what had been said about bus cuts was “entirely untrue”, and claimed that

“there have not been the cuts that the Opposition are so keen to talk up.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 485.]

It is not the Opposition who are talking up bus cuts, but the major operators. Arriva told my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) that

“with the 20% reduction in BSOG, the ongoing cuts to the concessionary fare scheme, and a reduction in tenders across the UK, this has put enormous pressure not only on Arriva, but the bus industry as a whole.”

These are real cuts. Evening and Sunday services have been withdrawn on Route 32 in Wycombe. The Saturday service has been withdrawn on Service 84 in Maidstone. Route 1 in Watford, Route X9 in Milton Keynes and Service 50 in Guildford have all been cut. In fact, one in five of all supported services have been lost, and fares are spiralling. The Under-Secretary of State should stop coming to the House and claiming, as he did during last week’s Transport questions, that there have not been any bus cuts, because there have.

The Government need to understand that not just buses but lifelines are being cut: lifelines connecting young people with colleges, parents with child care, and older people with shops and services. The loss of a bus service can have a devastating impact on those without cars, and on those in rural areas in particular. It can have a devastating impact on their lives, their chances, and their capacity to get out and about.

Like the train fare rises, the bus cuts are a direct consequence of the Government’s decision to cut the councils’ funds for local transport by 28%, and their decision to remove any requirement for what is left of that money actually to be spent on transport. At the same time, the Government have cut the subsidies given directly to bus companies by a fifth. The result is that not only are there additional pressures on family budgets, but young people are simply unable to reach their full potential.

Ministers need not take my word for that. They can listen to the Association of Colleges, which has warned of a drop in further education enrolment. They can listen to the 60% of colleges that report a drop in transport spending by their local authorities. They can listen to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which has revealed that 40% of young people say that their decisions on post-16 education were influenced by transport, not by courses. When students travel, on average, between nine and 35 miles to get to college, and when 72% of them rely on the bus to get them there, it is no wonder that the loss of bus services will hit them and their life chances hard.

The hon. Member for Lewes told the House that he had held discussions with bus companies about the costs of travel for young people. No doubt they delivered the same message to him as they have delivered to me when I have raised our own proposals for a concessionary fares scheme for 16 to 19-year-olds in education or training. I believe that the bus companies want to be helpful, but Brian Souter of Stagecoach told me—

[Mr MacNeil]

A good man.

[Maria Eagle]

He is a controversial man. Anyway, he told me,

“we do not believe we could fund this as BSOG is being cut by 20% next year”.

Let us be clear about the fact that it is the policies of the two parties on the Government Benches that are preventing us from reaching agreement with the bus companies on such a scheme.

Ministers should consider the impact on school transport. They should listen to the Campaign for Better Transport, which has demonstrated that almost three quarters of local education authorities have made cuts in school transport. As a result, parents are struggling to afford the fuel costs of the school run, or to juggle their jobs with getting the kids to school. The Government’s actions are adding to the burden on families. They should also take account of the impact on older people, and listen to Age UK and the National Pensioners Convention, which have said in a letter to the Prime Minister:

“Cuts to bus services will hit the poorest and most vulnerable hardest—contrary to the Government’s message that the cuts will be socially fair”.

They are not fair. The Prime Minister may think that he has stuck to his election pledge to protect free bus passes, but up and down the country pensioners are asking, “What is the point of a free bus pass if there is no bus?”

For motorists, too, the Government have created higher costs. Despite all the pre-election promises, they have failed to tackle the cost of fuel. Those on average incomes have seen the cost of running their cars reach 13% of household expenditure, and it now accounts for a quarter of the monthly budgets of those in the lowest income group. That is before we consider the huge rises in insurance premiums in the past year—up 74% for a small family car. Yet all the Government’s claims to have cut fuel duty have been wiped out by a VAT hike that has pushed up the price at the pump by more than 3p a litre: the wrong tax at the wrong time, hitting families and businesses hard, and all because Ministers stubbornly refuse to stand up to the banks and repeat the bank bonus tax that we imposed in government.

So on rail fares, on bus fares, on fuel costs, this is a Government out of touch with the impact of the rising costs of transport. Fare increases are outstripping wage increases several times over—if people are fortunate enough to see a wage rise at all. There are families now paying more on commuting than on the mortgage or rent. That is the cost of living crisis facing households up and down the country—families feeling squeezed across the board, energy and water bills rising, the cost of transport rising, nothing in the Budget to help, and nothing in the Queen’s Speech to help. Whether it is the energy companies or the train companies, this is a Government unwilling to stand up to vested interests. We will do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was extremely helpful.

We have taken action to limit the rise in rail fares, but all in this House know that if we are really going to tackle the underlying reason why rail fares are pressured to go up year after year, we have to make the railway system that we inherited from Labour, which is costing us £3.5 billion a year more than it needs to, work more efficiently. That is the best way of bringing a long-term end to the era of inflation-busting increases in regulated fares.

I have to say that one of the most depressing things in this House is to hear Labour Members raise a whole load of problems but provide no solutions. Making the railway industry work more effectively together is another area where I have heard no solution from the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). I recall that when I delivered my Command Paper oral statement she said, “I will be setting out our alternative shortly,” but she has never done so. I will not even talk about the response to the flex, because the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), demolished the hon. Lady’s argument so comprehensively that there is no need to go over that, compounding injury with further insult. In addition, we are, of course, making huge investments in rail and road. Those things will not only tackle some of the challenges we face today, but will build our country for the future.

On fuel duty, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) made vital points about why it is important that we make sure that motoring remains affordable, and about some of the pressures on motorists arising from the high cost of fuel. We have all seen the oil price go up across the world and how that has fed into the price of petrol at the pumps. It is one of the reasons why, last April, we cut fuel duty, why we scrapped Labour’s automatic fuel duty escalator and why we have postponed the planned rise this January to August, as well as cancelling the next planned increase. As a result of that action from the Chancellor we have eased the burden on motorists by £2.5 billion this year. In fact, over the coming two years it will add up to £4.5 billion in motorists’ pockets that otherwise, under the previous Government’s plans, would have been in Treasury coffers.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Is there any news on the fair fuel stabiliser coming down the tracks at all?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we have done that. He knows that we introduced it in the Budget last year and that it was partly funded by the tax rise for oil companies. I know that he welcomed the rural fuel duty discount pilot and I was pleased to get that from him. It is an important pilot and we will see how it progresses over the coming months and years.

Let us make a comparison with what would have happened under Labour’s fuel duty plans. Labour would have had motorists paying £144 more and the average haulier would have been £4,400 worse off if we had not taken the action we have taken. When it comes to prices at the pumps, no one will forget Labour’s record: 12 increases in fuel duty while they were in office and a further six fuel duty hikes planned for after the election.

Let me address the very important issue of buses. I listened intently to the speech by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) and I am happy to meet her to talk about her local issues. She asked whether we could have a Transport for London-type approach in the rest of the country, but local transport authorities have had the power to impose such a model locally since 2000 and the flexibility to do so should they want to do that. The Government think it is up to local authorities, rather than Whitehall, to take that decision, but I am very happy to talk to her about her particular local issues.

We have protected capital spending on transport but have also had to take difficult decisions regarding the bus service operators grant. Nevertheless, I am delighted that we continue to make improvements in bus services, not least through the £70 million for the better bus area fund, the £31 million for green bus funding to cut carbon emissions and support British jobs and, of course, the £560 million of local sustainable transport fund money that funded 35 successful bids in part, including for improvements to bus services. Some £200 million has been spent on local major bus schemes. There is £20 million going to community bus services and £15 million supporting the roll-out of smart ticketing technology across England’s bus fleets. There are lots of good things going on in buses and we are still taking the steps needed to tackle the fiscal deficit left by Labour.

To conclude, whether we are talking about an income tax cut for 24 million people, taking 2 million of the lowest-paid out of income tax altogether, freezing council tax, helping home owners with their energy bills or limiting increases in rail fares, the Government recognise the pressures on the cost of living. Wherever we can we will continue to take action to help further, but there is no getting away from the fact that we are operating in a financial straitjacket as a result of the deficit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) pointed out, there is no magic wand we can wave; we have to work hard to sort out our public finances and get our economy back on track.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the Labour years in office was what we got for all the money that was wasted and all the debt that was racked up. Nothing. In addition, there was an infrastructure deficit that was as bad as the financial deficit. Long-term security of energy supplies? Nothing. Low-cost railway? No. Reform of the welfare system? Nothing. Sustainable pensions? Nothing.

The reality is that tackling the financial deficit is one of the problems the Government need to solve, but we will make sure that we help out on the cost of living wherever we can as we rebuild our country. It would be fundamentally wrong to continue with Labour’s failed policy—to spend more, borrow more and pass the buck for our debts to our children and the next generation.

DVLA Closures (Scotland)

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mike Penning]

I urge the hon. Gentleman to bear with me, because I want to make a little progress. I am conscious that, otherwise, Mr Williams will shut me up before I have had an opportunity to address the issues that he raised.

I fully accept that there is some concern in the motor industry, but it is split. I regularly meet the industry’s representative bodies, and I have met representatives of the motor trade in my constituency. What we are proposing will be more efficient. It will not be a case of putting documents in the post and losing blank tax discs. We will use a secure system, and speed will be subject to a contract. Delivery will be the following day, and it may sometimes be possible to offer same-day delivery.

Most of the complaints that I have heard from colleagues have come from people at local offices, who believe that they may lose their job. I fully understand their concerns, but the necessary efficiencies will mean that the risk to the motor trade of holding whole books of blank tax discs in their showrooms will be removed. At the moment, showrooms receive them in blocks, and are responsible for those blocks, which they may return if they do not use them. That is not efficient for them or for us, and we intend to roll out a more efficient way.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that the system in England and Wales is different from the system in Scotland. The system in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) knows, is completely archaic, and no electronic portals can be used because the database is not compatible with the database in Swansea, so we must do something about that. There may be an Adjournment debate on the subject, but I thought I should raise the matter. We must deliver a much better service for the Province of Northern Ireland. In Scotland, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North rightly said, the procurator fiscal is the prosecutor, but we do not intend to have everyone sitting in Swansea and then taking lovely journeys to Shetland and the Western Isles.

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

Hear, hear.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman agrees that it is a lovely journey. I have been to Shetland and the Western Isles, and I agree, but it takes a while and requires an overnight stay.

We will work with the procurator fiscal. I am not a lawyer, but this place is full of lawyers, and we will ensure that case notes are available with the evidential base for prosecution. I want the number of prosecutions to rise, not fall. If anyone in Shetland and the Western Isles believes that they will not be prosecuted because of the cost analysis, they are wrong. We will be able to roll out prosecutions on a level playing field throughout the country. I fully accept that at the moment that is not the case. I apologise to those who live at the extremities of this great nation of ours, but we will ensure that whether people live in London or Shetland, they will be prosecuted if they break the law.

The consultation is genuine, as is any consultation I introduce. I remember standing here and speaking about a completely different consultation and saying that it was not a closed deal. Matters that were not in the consultation will arise. Some 400 colleagues and others have contributed to the consultation, which closes on 20 March. We will consider all submissions, whether or not they were detailed in the consultation.

The issue is categorically not just about saving money, although there will be savings. It is my responsibility, and the responsibility of the chief executive of the DVLA, to ensure that we provide a service to the public that is as cost-efficient and as accessible as possible. There is demand for a more digital service, and for it to be provided through the excellent post office network, which we have all defended in this Chamber over the years.

It is imperative that at the end of the consultation we ensure that all the issues are considered. If the plans go ahead, we will ensure that, wherever possible, staff will be transferred to other departments if that is what they want. If there are redundancies, we will ensure that we handle them correctly, and if retraining is required, it will be provided. Only the other day, I met a group of DVLA workers who were worried because they had never filled in a CV or applied for a job. Assistance will be given to everyone who applies for a new job in a Government agency or Department, or who are leaving DVLA. That is a moral responsibility, as well as a legal one.

We must ensure that the cost base is delivered correctly and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) said, we do not lose the benefit of the current level of non-payment, which is 1%. I cannot claim full responsibility for that, because I have been in the job for only 21 months, and the figures cover three years, so the previous Government must have been doing something right to achieve that figure. Some of that excellent work is done in local offices but—I hate to say this—most of it is being done through technology and at Swansea.

There will be more than 300 new jobs at Swansea. That does not equate with the 1,200 jobs at risk around the country, but some of those new jobs may be taken up by existing DVLA staff if they wish to relocate, although I fully understand that relocating from Aberdeen to Swansea would be extremely difficult. That is why we will offer redundancy packages if necessary.

My job is to ensure that we deliver the best possible service for the public, who are telling us that they want a more digital system. I accept that some businesses are saying one thing, and others are saying another, but as long as we can ensure that we deliver the service to the motor trade professionally and without much of the risk, I think they will be happy, and they have mostly indicated that they will be.

We want to sell many more cherished numbers, particularly in parts of Scotland where there are affluent people who want to use their disposable income in such a way. We must make it simpler for them to do so, and end the present bureaucratic and archaic system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Lynne Featherstone]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she and the APPG do on body image issues. It is important that the link between dieting and eating disorders is looked at closely. She rightly mentions that 95% of diets fail. As a Government, we believe that a diet is not just for Christmas but must be about one’s lifestyle. The best advice is common sense. It is to eat healthily all year round and take appropriate amounts of exercise.

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

Dieting and calorie counting can be positive as well as negative, as has just been pointed out. A positive development might be to have calorific information on alcoholic drinks as well as the unit count. Have the Government given any consideration to that?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point and I will take it up with the appropriate Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

It would be a pleasure to meet the family, and I praise the work they are doing. This tragic loss was the result of a medical condition that is very difficult to diagnose, and we need to do a lot of work prior to diagnosis so that people are not driving with this terrible illness.

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

Will the Department for Transport carry out a full risk assessment before removing emergency towing vessels from the waters around the Hebrides and Orkney and Shetland?

[Mike Penning]

I met the hon. Gentleman recently to discuss this. We have made an assessment. The contract ends at the end of this month. I have worked closely with all local communities and the Scottish Government to try to find out whether there is more funding. We do not have the funding for it. The present contract, which was brought in by the previous Government, is a disaster for the taxpayer and the local community. I am still willing to look at other proposals, but they will have to be brought forward quickly.

Coastguard Modernisation

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

Coastguard Service

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend has addressed some of the wider issues that the Minister raised with me. I had been looking at the issue of funding, and we have heard evidence that there is concern about that issue. The point that I was making was about the way that the Government proposals were drawn up, but my hon. Friend makes a much wider point about the impact of the loss of local knowledge and the concerns that the RNLI has raised about that issue. I think that we will discuss local knowledge in greater depth shortly.

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

Regarding the wider point about the RNLI, I have long-held reservations about the way that the RNLI has gone about this process of consultation. Local crews have felt that they have not been able to speak out publicly and have had to go through RNLI channels. I know people who work on lifeboats who have plenty of opinions on this subject, but their opinions have not actually been fed through the RNLI. Actually, because of the process that the RNLI has gone through, I would say that the RNLI evidence is incomplete and it could have been stronger if there had been greater input from certain crews in certain areas. I will put it no more strongly than that.

[Bill Esterson]

I welcome the points that the hon. Gentleman makes and I hope that the Minister will take them on board.

I make the point that this issue is not just about the RNLI; it is about other voluntary rescue services too. I mentioned the Southport coastguard services, members of whom I met at the consultation meeting recently. There are other services in the Crosby area and of course around the UK that carry out these rescue services. They all make similar points about co-ordination and the loss of local knowledge and expertise; they are extremely worried about that loss. In addition, they all make the same point about funding. That is why I am asking about funding—it is an important question. Neither I nor the people I have listened to feel that that has been considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I was coming on to the number of incidents. As far as technology goes, it was only last Wednesday that the London ambulance service system failed, and it was recording emergency calls with pen and paper.

The incidents involving MV Willy and MV Kodima both happened off the coast of my own county division, when I sat on Cornwall county council. I witnessed at first hand the superb co-ordination provided by the Brixham marine rescue co-ordination centre, with the marine emergency rescue organisations and the Cornwall fire service and its emergency planning department. I doubt that the Minister has experienced that unique way of working within a coastal fire and rescue service, but I appreciate that he has absolute expertise as far as an inland fire and rescue service is concerned.

I would like to highlight in more detail three incidents in which Brixham MRCC has been involved in co-ordination with other emergency services. The first occurred just before midnight—that is, outside daylight hours—on 13 January 2008 and involved the Torbay and Salcombe RNLI lifeboats, coastguard rescue helicopter India Juliet, HMS Cumberland and several merchant vessels. They proceeded to merchant vessel Ice Prince, with 20 persons on board, 27 miles south-east of Start point after its cargo shifted in heavy weather and it began to list to port. The vessel was abandoned by 12 crewmen, one with a suspected broken leg, and they were airlifted to Portland by helicopter. The remaining eight were rescued by Torbay lifeboat and conveyed to Brixham. A French tug attended the scene, and damage was assessed in daylight.

The second incident occurred on 11 October at 8.38 am and involved a missing person. Brixham took broadcast action and tasked the warship Westminster and coastguard helicopter R106 to assist the French coastguard at Cross Corsen in a mid-channel search for an 80-year-old male reported missing from passenger vessel Balmoral.

Finally, on 10 February this year at 6.43 pm—again, outside daylight hours—Brixham coastguard received a mayday distress call from fishing vessel Amber J reporting that fishing vessel Admiral Blake had collided with MV Boxford approximately 30 miles south of Start point. The Amber J reported that two crewmen from the Admiral Blake had entered the water and only one had been recovered. Salcombe RNLI’s all-weather lifeboat, coastguard rescue helicopter 106 from Portland and Royal Navy helicopter 193 were tasked to search for the missing crewman. After a mayday relay, numerous vessels assisted in the search, along with a rapid rescue craft from the Boxford. After a brief search, the missing crewman was located by the Boxford’s rapid rescue craft, winched aboard the coastguard rescue helicopter and taken to hospital. Rescue helicopter 193 stood by while the Salcombe lifeboat assessed the damage to the Admiral Blake. After the damage was assessed and controlled, the Admiral Blake was towed back to Plymouth, where the Plymouth lifeboat met the vessel and took her into port. That shows essential local partnership working among our local coastguard stations at the moment.

Complicated incidents at Brixham have increased year on year since 1998, when 767 incidents were recorded. In 2002, there were 903 incidents, in 2003 there were 1,025, in 2009 there were 1,324 and last year there were 1,355. Of greater concern is the fact that this year, there have already been 546 incidents, an increase of 90 from the same period last year. I acknowledge that, taken at face value, the number of incidents at Falmouth appears higher, at 971. However, that can be broken down into 233 incidents similar to those that I have just described and another 738 that occurred under the international global maritime distress safety system. Some of those incidents might have been search and rescue, but others would have been passed to the relevant MRC centre to deal with.

I am afraid that I must take issue with the Minister’s comments about Falmouth’s international role during a debate on 2 February this year. He said:

“Falmouth is internationally renowned for its international rescue capabilities. If we have a problem in Falmouth, where does that get picked up? Nowhere.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 320WH.]

He is clearly unaware that Brixham takes over GMDSS when Falmouth suffers an outage, and has taken over the system every Thursday for the past 12 months. Perhaps he will take the opportunity when he speaks to correct the statement that he made in February. It would also be interesting to hear from him whether there have been any incidents in which both stations in a pair have gone down at the same time.

As I am sure the Minister knows, Falmouth was allocated GMDSS due to its proximity to Goonhilly Downs satellite earth station, which has closed. Many incidents are subsequently passed on to other coastal co-ordination stations, and it is unfair of him to include them in the number of incidents dealt with by Falmouth alone.

I am disappointed that the Minister chose to describe Brixham and Falmouth as “ridiculously close” during the Adjournment debate last week. In fact, Brixham and Portland, Milford and Swansea, Thames and Yarmouth, Portland and Solent, and Forth and Aberdeen have fewer road miles between them, and if we measure as the crow flies, we can also include Holyhead and Liverpool on the list. Does he consider those stations to be ridiculously close?

Brixham MRCC is bought and paid for. We now need to cover only the station’s running costs. It contains an operations co-ordination room, an emergency planning room, a coastal safety manager’s office, a sector manager’s office, coastguard rescue equipment for the Berry Head rescue team, a coastguard rescue emergency vehicle, a marine surveyor’s office, a coastguard training office for the region and an aerial site, and it still has space to expand. Brixham has been approached to lease a whole floor to another emergency service for its offices and operation area. If the property is sold, new premises will need to be found and bought for all of the above.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Lady is making a fantastic speech. It underlines the fact that the more we find out about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s plans and the more detail emerges, the more concerned I become, as I am sure do other hon. Members, about what the MCA was thinking when it first took its plans to the Minister. I am sure that he would not have started the process if he had known the sort of detail that the hon. Lady has described.

[Sheryll Murray]

I am absolutely certain that my hon. Friend the Minister has the best intentions, and that he does not intend to make savage cuts to the best rescue service in the world.

Brixham is the busiest fishing port in England. It has the third highest number of leisure vessels registered on CG66, the voluntary safety identification scheme, at 2,200, and that number is increasing daily. It has a search and rescue area and is a popular holiday destination. Brixham has unique expertise in UK search and rescue. Due to its position along the busiest shipping lanes in the world, it has gained unique search and rescue expertise from incidents such as those that I have listed.

I end with a message that I hope the Minister will accept in the spirit in which it is given. He says that we will not end up with the proposal outlined in his consultation document, and I welcome those words. However, he must accept that by issuing a five-year-old proposal that takes massive cuts as a starting point, he has effectively moved the starting line as well as the goalposts. Coastguards all around the coast have told me that their response would have been different if they had not been working with a proposal to cut MRCC numbers and hours so drastically. That is why it is essential that we start with a blank sheet of paper.

No one knows better than I how dangerous the sea is and how important it is to co-ordinate all rescue services locally when an incident occurs at sea. The proposals remind me of 1994, when two fishermen lost their lives off the Cornish coast, below a recently closed coastguard post, and local people decided to open and restore the visual watch. That could not happen once we lose our marine rescue co-ordination centres around the coast, because they are professional. I make a plea to the Minister to think again about the closures. He has used examples of other nations operating with fewer stations, but has failed to mention that in those countries the coastguards operate in different ways, with different responsibilities. Yes, modernise, and yes, have better equipment, but please do not destroy the best coastguard service in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ritchie]

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

The chairman of the North West mountain rescue team said:

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

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

[Mr MacNeil]

I note the hon. Lady’s words on efficiency but, over and above efficiency, this is a maritime insurance policy. Sometimes, we have to be careful that we are not spoiling the ship for a ha’penny worth of tar. We have to make sure that when something is needed it is there and that we do not dismantle it beforehand. In that respect, it is important that we keep Liverpool, Bangor, Clyde, Stornoway and Shetland. Losing Oban a few years ago has had its own knock-on effects and I am sure that that will come through in the inquiries that are going on at the moment. I reiterate the importance of keeping those stations and the fact that this is an insurance policy over and above efficiency.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that vital intervention. He raises the serious point of co-ordination throughout the British isles. That should be taken on board and given due recognition during the whole consultation process. I hope that the Minister will respond to that particular point in an apt and empathetic way.

In conclusion, the courage of those who devote time to rescue efforts on our shores must not be taken for granted by Government. The Bangor centre is the only full-time station in Northern Ireland and its funding must therefore be protected. As we approach the end of the consultation process—it is one month away—we must end the current state of confusion. I strongly urge the Minister to respond in a helpful way to those officials in the Bangor coastguard station who have suggested strong and compelling proposals to safeguard the service for the people of the island.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing the debate and on giving us another opportunity to demonstrate the strength of feeling there is about the coastguard service.

The Government are, of course, right to consider ways of modernising the coastguard service—they must constantly look at options for improving all their services—but I want to draw their attention to my concerns about the closure of the Clyde coastguard station in Greenock, which is just outside my constituency. The tragic early death of David Cairns means that Greenock does not have a Member of Parliament at the moment, but it is incumbent on hon. Members such as myself and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who secured an Adjournment debate last week, to point out the importance of the Greenock coastguard station to the west of Scotland.

My constituency has many islands and peninsulas, which means its coastline is longer than that of France and that the Clyde coastguard station has a longer coastline than any of the coastguard stations to look after. Islands, peninsulas and sea lochs create a wide variety of currents and sea conditions, which is one reason why local knowledge is very important. The most spectacular area is the giant whirlpool in the Gulf of Corryvreckan. If I may put in a tourist plug, that is well worth going to see. In addition, as my constituency is on the west coast, its coastline is regularly battered by severe storms. All those factors make local knowledge very important.

I also want to stress the importance of local knowledge in differentiating between different places that have the same name. On the islands and the mainland of the west of Scotland, a large number of places are called Tarbert because Tarbert means a narrow neck of land in Gaelic. It would be easy for someone not familiar with that to send the rescue vessel to the wrong place. It is also important to be able to differentiate between, for example, East Loch Tarbert and West Loch Tarbert. They are only a few hundred yards apart as the crow flies, but one is on the Clyde and one is on the Atlantic, so it is very important for someone to know the difference between the two.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned East Loch Tarbert and West Loch Tarbert and said that one is on the Clyde and one is on the Atlantic. I would argue, of course, that one is on the Minch and one is on the Atlantic, but I am talking about the island of Harris.

[Mr Reid]

That is correct. There are plenty of other places called Tarbert, including one called Tarbet without an “r.” It would be very easy to get confused.

Those seas are sailed by a wide variety of different kinds of ships: for example, cargo ships, cruise liners, ferries, fishing boats, naval vessels—both surface and submarine—fish farm support vessels and leisure craft, in which there has been a significant increase. In addition, in the coming years, an increasing number of vessels will support offshore renewable energy installations. Over recent years, there has been a huge increase in the number of leisure craft of all kinds and it is important to remember that most of them are crewed by amateur sailors. If an incident should occur, inexperienced amateur sailors are obviously more of a challenge for coastguard staff to deal with. There are many new marinas around the coast and there will be a vast increase in leisure craft in the years to come.

Clyde station has 41 coastguard rescue teams under its control, and seafarers have received a first-class service from the Clyde coastguard station over many years. Once the Government have had an opportunity to consider the responses to the consultation, I hope that they will recognise the unique challenges posed by the area served by the Clyde coastguard station and that they will keep it open to retain the valuable local knowledge that exists. It is important to point out that, if staff are forced to relocate to Aberdeen, as appears to be the case from the Government’s proposals, that is well over 100 miles away and many staff will not be able to do so, either for family or financial reasons. Valuable local knowledge will therefore be lost.

One positive part of the Government’s proposals is that there will be a significant increase in the number of regular coastguards who will be supporting Coastguard Rescue Service volunteers. It would make sense to spread those regular coastguards across the country to minimise their travel time to where the volunteers are based and to ensure that they have contact with local emergency services. It is important to stress that getting to the remoter parts of Argyll takes a long time even from Greenock. The journey would be even longer if the support staff were travelling from Aberdeen to remote parts of the west coast all the time.

I am aware that the lease for the Clyde station comes to an end in 2012. That appears to be a major consideration in the reasoning behind the Government’s decision to close the station.

[Mr MacNeil]

Was the hon. Gentleman as surprised as I was when I mined into the MCA’s proposals and realised that, as he is saying, the lease of Clyde station is coming to an end? When I first spoke to the MCA, it was apparent from the outset that the prime driver for the decision on the Clyde station was real estate and not maritime safety. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that.

[Mr Reid]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Real estate considerations should not be paramount. Safety should be the prime consideration and the fact that the lease is up for renewal should not be a major factor. I am sure that there are plenty of buildings that the Government could secure in the Greenock area if they wanted to continue to have a coastguard station in that area. I hope that the Government will secure further premises.

For all those reasons, the most important of which is local knowledge, I hope that the Government will recognise the importance of the Clyde coastguard station and realise that they do not want to lose its staff’s experience and expertise. I hope that they will reflect on the consultation and will agree to keep the Clyde coastguard station open.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you presiding over the debate this morning, Dr McCrea.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on providing us with the opportunity to discuss this important matter again.

It is good to see the Minister in his place, back under pressure, which is where Ministers should be—keeps him honest. I know that he is well regarded by most Members in the House and by the shipping community, and we are also confident that he is doing everything he can to protect the service, given the coalition’s deficit plan.

As I have said before, the Opposition are not here to oppose all the coastguard reforms, nor am I a deficit denier. It is important to say straight away that the global financial crisis happened in every country—it was not a recession made in Britain, but was caused by the banks, and Labour accepts that we should have been tougher on them. Like every other country, though, we need to get the deficit down, which means cuts. We recognise the Government’s position.

However, the Tory-led coalition is creating a vicious circle in our economy because it is cutting too far and too fast. That is our fear about the coastguard proposals: they are too deep and too fast. We certainly disagree with the presentation of options, such as either Stornoway or Shetland, and we are uncomfortable with having to choose between Belfast or Liverpool—to name just two of the main locations. We therefore seek and hope to hear assurances about the future from the Minister.

We have heard from several Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central asked the central question about the role of the other emergency services and their relationship with the coastguard service. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) has more reason to be listened to on this issue than any of us—I am sure that the Minister is listening to her and her constituents. She made the point about local input. There has been huge interest in the consultation exercise, as we have heard from hon. Members. Despite the miles clocked up by the Minister, about which I am sure he will tell us in due course, areas such as Cumbria and the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), would have been pleased to have the opportunity to meet the Minister as well, to express their real concerns about the possible closure of the Liverpool station. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall made her points on local knowledge and the case for Brixham strongly—as ever.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) made a powerful case for the station at Bangor and the international implications given its cross-border arrangements. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) mentioned Greenock and, generously, that our departed and much missed friend, David Cairns, championed this matter when in the House representing his town. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned language issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who has spoken knowledgeably on the question on several occasions, again raised the issue of Holyhead. His role in the RNLI council gives him greater insight. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who was generous with his time, and gracious as ever, rightly applauded the RNLI and paid tribute to everyone involved. Given that he is the MP for RNLI headquarters, which I had the pleasure of visiting during my time as shipping Minister, he is the right person to make such comments. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) repeated the concern of her constituents—and more widely—about the future of their station.

I wish to ask about the maritime incident response group, mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Sefton Central and for Ynys Môn, and about the future of the emergency towing vessel contract in association with the reform of the coastguard services. I submitted some questions to the Minister, but can he furnish more information on top of his answers of 26 April? First, he addressed the maritime incident response group, which was set up to help fight fires on board vessels around Britain’s coast, given the gap in our armoury:

“We are finalising a risk assessment on the review of Maritime Incident Response Group which we hope to publish shortly.”

I wondered if that was likely to be soon. He also said a consultation exercise was going on with the fire and rescue services, and:

“Final decisions on future arrangements will be taken once this consultation is complete.”—[Official Report, 26 April 2011; Vol. 527, c. 91W and 92W.]

Has the consultation been completed? Finally on the response group, are discussions with the Department for Communities and Local Government complete, given that it has responsibility for Britain’s fire services? What was the outcome of those discussions?

The question of the emergency towing vessel contract still causes concern, which was expressed most powerfully by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) in the February debate because of the Donaldson inquiry and its recommendation about the contract and the £100 million cost.

[Mr MacNeil]

Last week I happened to be in Torshavn in the Faroe Islands, where the West Nordic Council was meeting—Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, with Denmark present as well. Coastguard safety generally was discussed, but emergency towing vessels were taken especially seriously because of the increase in cruise ships in the north Atlantic, and that applies to the north and the west of Scotland. We should be playing our part internationally—international countries with difficulties were mentioned, Iceland in particular is having them, but it is not cutting back on maritime safety. In fact, Iceland is going in the opposite direction of travel. There is a lesson there for us, as well as for international safety—anyone we know could be on a cruise ship.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman speaks knowledgeably on the issue, which I am grateful that he raised, and which the Minister has been considering, so an update on whether the work on the replacement service or arrangements has been finalised would be helpful. Can he say anything further, given the suggestion of some movement in the area?

I am sure that the Minister has seen the Oxford Economics report on “The economic impact of the UK’s Maritime Services Sector”. I was generously supplied with a copy by Mr Doug Barrow of Maritime UK, who is well known and highly regarded in shipping circles. The summary of this authoritative report reminds us that the UK maritime services sector directly creates 227,000 jobs, contributes more than £13 billion to the UK economy and generates £3 billion plus for the UK Exchequer. It also supports considerable activity in other sectors, including direct, indirect and induced impacts supporting more than 500,000 jobs and generating more than £7 billion for the UK Exchequer. Given, in addition, the millions of recreational users of our seas and coasts, we must get the conclusions of the consultation right.

As colleagues have articulated this morning and previously, here in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber, there is much disquiet about the initial Government proposals. The Minister has given us some encouragement in previous appearances here and at the Dispatch Box that the proposals are not set in stone. The coalition’s policy adjustments in recent months—on forests, NHS reforms, sentencing guidelines, school sport partnerships and housing benefit rules, not to mention something we might be hearing today on bins—give some encouragement that the Government will listen to the various contributions from Members and from those outside the House and not proceed with the original proposals.

I congratulate all Members on their efforts. We know that there will be reforms to the coastguard service—of that, there is no doubt—but we will strive to ensure that they are neither too deep nor too fast. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

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

It is a pleasure, Dr McCrea, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing the debate, although most hon. Members linked it to matters wider than the link between the emergency services and the coastguard service. I pay tribute to their ingenuity in doing so, and I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for bringing her knowledge to the debate. I know how difficult that must have been, and she did so courageously. We may not agree on everything, but I promise that we will remain friends.

The Government set out the consultation process, we extended it, and we are reopening it so that the report of the Select Committee on Transport can be included in our thoughts. We will almost certainly have another consultation process because, as I have said since day one, as has the Secretary of State, what comes out of the process will not be the same as what we went in with, because we are listening. We have said that from day one, and I have said that as I have gone around the country. How that can be deemed a U-turn is strange. We did not say at the start that we would not come out with something different. Perhaps Her Majesty’s Opposition would prefer me to ignore everything that is said in the debates, be rigid, ignore public opinion, and have sham consultation, which is what happened under the previous Administration.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I am conscious that colleagues have, rightly, used most of the time available, and I am also conscious that I may repeat what has been said again and perhaps again and again, but I will not give way because I have about nine minutes left, and I want to cover the issues, especially those that are slightly different from those that arose around the country.

I praise the hon. Member for Sefton Central, because the debate is important, and its title has helped me. I was not aware that there were problems regarding the roles of the Merseyside fire and rescue service and Her Majesty’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency on the Mersey estuary, especially involving mud rescues. That was interesting, but I understand now, and with some impetus from the debate and perhaps a bit of size 10 from me they will be resolved. Clearly, there is duplication in who co-ordinates the service.

May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall that although I represent a landlocked constituency, I was a member of the fire and rescue service in Essex, and was based at a coastal station for many years? About the third major incident that I went to was a freighter fire. As the shadow Minister, my friend the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—he is my friend—knows, that is one of the most frightening experiences.

We heard that there is often a difference of opinion between the crew of a ship and the firemen about how best to put out a fire. That is not surprising, because firemen have a habit of chucking a huge amount of water at fires—that is what we are trained to do—and if you do that to a fire on a ship, it tends to sink. Such instances have happened around the world. There is a debate about what should be done about fires at sea. It is right that that debate is taking place, and it is happening around the world. The truth of the matter is that it is enormously dangerous to put fire crews on to ships at sea to fight fires, and we must make a decision between lives, cargo, pollution and other issues.

I met Roy Wilsher, the country’s lead fire officer and Chief Fire Officer of Hertfordshire the other day and we discussed where we are with the agreements in place, and where we should be.

[Mike Penning]

Such concerns were properly raised in the debate, and the shadow Minister raised the issue of fighting fires at sea, which was also important.

Another issue was the future of emergency towing vessels, and negotiations are continuing. We intend to terminate the contract, which costs £10 million a year, in September, and I am fixed in that position, because if I move one iota, the commercial sector and everyone else will say that I have gone soft, but they do not have to cough up the money. The key is where the risk is.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I apologise, but I cannot give way. I am sure that there will be another debate on the subject fairly soon. During the remaining five minutes I will not be able to answer all the points that have been raised, but I will write to every hon. Member about any specific points that they raised, and particularly those issues that do not come within my portfolio.

We have a legal responsibility to co-ordinate the work with other emergency services, and I know that that happened when I was a humble fireman. My previous history was praised, and I was proud to be a fireman but, as when I was in the Army, I did not rise far through the ranks.

Interestingly, although during these debates colleagues have not been saying, “Save my station and close someone else’s,” that is not quite what we have heard from the coastguards themselves in the larger and more detailed submissions that we have received. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) referred to my visit to Bangor. It was a wonderful visit, and it was like groundhog day, because I had not been in the Province since I had served in another way. She rightly said that the proposals on the service’s future nationally, not just on individual stations, were detailed and indicated clearly that no change is not an option, as the coastguards are saying, and that nine or 10 stations is the optimum number. The shadow Minister said that some stations should not close, and it would have been interesting if he had said which ones should close, because that would have been informative, especially as most if not all the proposals were on the table when he was a Minister.

Coastguard Service

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In a meeting that I attended with the chief executive and staff at Crosby, staff said to the chief executive that they had in previous years come up with proposals that would lead to a reduction in the number of stations while addressing the issues of how to integrate new technology and maintain safety. However, no one has ever asked them for those proposals. Staff from around the coast are coming up with proposals, which I hope will be considered and taken on board. We should listen to people with front-line experience. That is certainly the direction in which we should go. By the way, I have not heard anybody say that they are against the introduction of new technology, although they do have concerns about the current set of proposals.

The volunteers who work with the Liverpool coastguard fear that their safety will be compromised by the changes and the loss of Liverpool if the proposal goes ahead. That would lead them to consider seriously whether to carry on. If that happened, the impact on search and rescue operations would be extremely serious indeed. I hope that that point is taken on board by the Minister. As I mentioned earlier, there is an issue about volunteers knowing the staff with whom they are working and trusting the judgment of those people who are sending them out on missions. Understandably, that is incredibly important to them and their safety.

Briefly, on the issue of maintaining stations as daylight stations, I have mentioned Morecambe bay. Another serious incident dealt with at Liverpool was the Solway Harvester. Both of those incidents happened at night. They would not be handled—whether by Liverpool or Belfast—from the station; they would be handled remotely. The point made to me by staff is that, if the proposals go ahead, there will be even less local knowledge. Those crucial minutes of delay make a difference to whether lives are saved. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

On the number of staff, my understanding is that the proposal will lead to job losses of more than 220. We are talking about coastal communities that are already experiencing difficult economic circumstances. The impact on those communities of losing many jobs would be drastic. It would be challenging for people to find alternative employment. Coastguard workers are some of the lowest paid emergency service staff in the country and frequently take second jobs to supplement their wages. It is recognised that technological advances offer some opportunity for rescues to be co-ordinated from a distance. However, I have been told that technology should complement the knowledge of local coastal areas that coastguards possess, not supplant it. The loss of those jobs would threaten that .

A number of constituents have written to me on the matter. Mr Hughes from Crosby says:

“The proposals would see most co-ordination of incidents run from two Maritime Operations Centres—one based in Aberdeen and the other in the Solent area. This will mean a heavy reliance on yet to be designed software and a loss of what is often invaluable local knowledge. We believe technology should be used to complement the knowledge of coastal areas which Coastguard staff on the local stations possess, not replace them. The technology will be unable to cope with the new structure and could result in risks to people’s lives. We have already seen similar schemes with the fire service scrapped due to the fact that the technology would not work.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has experience of those proposals, and no doubt, he will make comparisons when he comes to make his speech.

Another of my constituents wrote to me to raise something that concerns me greatly. He says that the chief coastguard—or some of his senior managers—has stated to staff on some of his visits that

“this afternoon’s debate will only be a few MPs whingeing about their own stations and is nothing to worry about.”

I do not know how other hon. Members feel about that statement.

[Mr MacNeil]

That statement shows unbelievable arrogance.

[Mike Penning]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

As I said earlier, my constituent has indicated that he is concerned that if I give his name, or the name of other members of staff, they will be victimised. They are very concerned about that. Perhaps that is something that the Minister can discuss with me a little later, but I am certainly not going to give names now.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is right not to give the name. He has parliamentary privilege and is using it wisely. Perhaps the Department for Transport should find out in the MCA who exactly is saying that.

[Bill Esterson]

I am happy to talk to my constituent further to find out the information but, as I said, I am not going to give the name of my constituent.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I was sent here to whinge on behalf of my constituents, and if a senior member of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency predicted that, not only was he right, but he was conferring upon me and upon everyone else here a mark of distinction of which we should be nothing other than proud. I begin with an apology, Mr Crausby. Because I have an urgent matter waiting for me in my office, I will not be able to stay for the full duration of the debate, but I will, as a consequence, confine my remarks as much as I possibly can.

I have already mentioned the meeting that I attended where, as appears to have been the case in Liverpool and elsewhere, there were consideration and good manners but a distinct lack of answers. Local knowledge was the centrepiece of the discussion on that occasion, and it was most interesting that the seafarers were the most sceptical of what was being suggested.

The sea plays an important part in my constituency. It once played an historical part in relation to the fishing industry. That fishing industry is much smaller, perhaps, than it once was, but it operates out of Pittenweem and other harbours, and the coastguard is clearly an important part of the safety network required by that industry.

There is a great deal of leisure sailing on the River Forth. That has also been encouraged in the town of Anstruther, which was formerly a fishing port and is also in my constituency. In addition, the traffic on the Forth is substantial, as the Minister acknowledges by nodding his head.

In 2010, the number of Scottish lifeboat call-outs was 1,012. The 10 stations within Forth coastguard’s responsibility were involved in 373, or approximately 40%. That makes the point about the relationship between the coastguard and the lifeboat, and also the need for lifeboat services because of the intensity of the activity on the sea in and around the area for which Forth is responsible.

The Forth coastguard at Fife Ness has the lowest running costs in Scotland. If one takes out staffing costs, the bill for Forth is £44,662. There is a good reason for that: the coastguard owns the building and therefore does not have to pay rent. If economic advantage is being sought by closing Forth, it would be very much smaller than would be achieved at several other stations.

[Mr MacNeil]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions the real estate at Forth, but is that not counter-productive and working against Forth? Had it been tied into an expensive lease agreement, it might remain, as is the case with Aberdeen, which seems to have a 25-year lease that is difficult for the MCA to get out of. Hence, it plans to put a maritime operations centre in Aberdeen.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I am always a bit nervous about the argument that one cannot take a decision on the merits because of the relative cost. My argument is that the decision on the merits properly ought to be to retain the Fife Ness coastguard station, serving the Forth as it does. On the basis of the statistics that I have given, I say respectfully that the case is overwhelming. I invite the Minister to reach the same conclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who I believe knows more about this subject from, among other things, direct experience than anyone else in the House. If people listen to no one else this afternoon, they should listen to the hon. Lady, because of what she says from direct experience of what it is to go to sea, what is involved in safety at sea and in calling out the people who can provide support and assistance for those at sea. What she says about the idea that all those things might be co-ordinated from somewhere in Southampton is something of which I am very aware.

Being the Member for Southampton, Test, I do not think that I fall into the category of Members who come along to the debate to whinge about their particular centre, so perhaps it is particularly important that I say a few words this afternoon because I am not a Member who could be accused of coming along to the debate and whingeing about their centre. As is generally known, although the MCA headquarters is not in my constituency, it is 85 yards away, so it is almost there.

According to the proposals, the Solent will have a brand-spanking-new centre, with 24-hour cover. One might say that that is fair enough: the Solent is one of the most congested areas of sea around our shores, so it should have that centre. However, it is also true, as we have heard, that our seas in general are becoming more congested. The volume of shipping is increasing in many areas. Many more large ships are confined to deeper water in restricted channels. As we have heard, large numbers of offshore renewable energy installations are being developed around our coasts, restricting the areas available to shipping.

Our shipping is getting larger. Today’s ultra-large crude carriers carry up to 500,000 tonnes of oil, some five times the capacity of the Torrey Canyon. The largest container ships—those coming into Southampton —are 1,000 feet long and can carry more than 11,000 containers.

Our coastline is getting busier. The UK has more than 10,500 miles of outstandingly beautiful coastline. Millions of people use our seas, coasts and beaches for an increasingly wide variety of recreational purposes, often in areas that are also used by commercial shipping, as is the case in the Solent.

Weather conditions are becoming more extreme. More frequent and more intense storms have been occurring. That increases the risk to ships. Therefore, there is an increasing requirement for the coastguard to provide navigational advice to mariners in the most congested areas.

As a result of all those factors, the number of incidents to which the coastguard has to respond has been rising—from 16,500 incidents in 2005 to 20,544 in 2010—and it is likely to continue to rise.

I have to make a confession now, Mr Crausby. All the words that I have said since the phrase “our seas are becoming more congested” are not mine; they come from page 12 of the consultation document. Anyone reading those words and then turning the page would expect to see many proposals to strengthen, expand and enhance the coastguard service, for precisely the reasons set out in the consultation document. The problem that we are grappling with is that it is very hard to see how the proposals in the consultation document would bring about that level of enhancement.

It is claimed that the service is being modernised, and I think there is widespread consensus in the Chamber that a lot of modernisation of what the coastguard service does can be undertaken. The problem is that the consultation document is not clear, and therefore the debate is not clear, about whether the proposals are designed to save a large amount of money, in which case the first thing that should have happened at the point of the proposals being made was a series of risk assessments to see whether a safe coastguard service would be retained after their implementation. However, as far as I am aware, no risk assessment, no modelling and no simulation tests have been done as a result of the proposals being made.

Alternatively, if the proposals are indeed modernising proposals to make the service better, an understanding needs to be reached of why the service will be better, and why a service based on two centres, one of which would be Southampton, with the other centres open only during daylight hours, would be better, more modernised and more efficient. In terms of the future for the service in Southampton, yes, it will have 24-hour cover. Nevertheless, it will be a maritime operations centre in addition to anything else it may do. The definition of that maritime operations centre includes, among other things, co-ordinating the whole service, as one of two such centres in the country. As we heard, taking calls and co-ordinating services across a huge expanse of coast is way beyond any experience that centre may have of what such a service would consist of. I wonder about the strain and stress that will come upon those people. Yes, they will have jobs in the centre, and yes, it will be a 24-hour service, but they will be co-ordinating a service on the basis of quite possibly nothing much being on the other end of it. We are talking about circumstances in which people are directing services in a remote part of the country and hoping that they have done a good job and got it right.

It was stated at a recent hearing of the Transport Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), that the proposal was okay because 70% of incidents occur during daylight hours. Another way of putting that is that 30% of incidents occur during night-time. If a centre is co-ordinating a number of other centres that are physically not available during night-time hours, the strain on that centre will be quite considerable.

[Mr MacNeil]

Sometimes the issue is not the number of incidents. If we have one more Braer, we will have quite a disaster on our hands. Sometimes the magnitude of one incident can almost eclipse every other incident. That is the crux of the matter. We are talking about a maritime insurance policy, but unfortunately it seems to be being cast aside.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about what the service consists of and the problems that it encounters. That suggests to me that the idea that the consultation document is about modernising the coastguard service is only partially correct. Again, that was underlined by the evidence recently given to the Transport Committee by Sir Alan Massey, who made this curious statement:

“For my agency, I am required to find a 22% budget reduction in my programme between now and 31 March 2015. In seeking to find those savings, we have had to put forward a number of savings options. One of them does affect the coastguard modernisation programme.”

As I read it, that means that there was a coastguard modernisation programme and that the proposals for making savings have affected it. That may have been a misstatement, and it may deserve further analysis, but if the proposals are about savings that could affect a modernisation programme as opposed to being about the modernisation programme itself, that should be the basis for discussing the consequential examination of the proposals, and not otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sanders]

Many hon. Members have made precisely that point, and made it very well indeed.

Assuming that it is delivered, the significant amount of communication between operators and local volunteers needed to confirm that the correct actions are taken will lengthen the process of the search and rescue mission and place lives at risk. The over-reliance of these proposals on upgraded technology is another matter of concern. If new technology is fully integrated, the availability of video mapping and local tidal information covering the entire 11,000 miles of the UK’s coastline will undoubtedly improve existing services. Why can those systems not be installed and integrated within the existing structure? It is essential that the software can determine a unique position when the information is provided by those involved in an emergency. Given the large number of coastal locations with the same or similar name and often without a postcode, it is essential that human knowledge is involved in the process.

Despite constant reference to upgrading software and fully exploiting the capacity of existing technology, I remain unconvinced that a centralised maritime operation centre could effectively manage the large volume of emergency calls that can be expected during busy operation periods. Moreover, fire and rescue control rooms were only required to operate one communications system with their units. However, the mix of communications systems needed to operate search and rescue is far more complex, including very high frequency, medium frequency, satellite, mobile phone and pager systems and landlines. The enormous additional work load of the data processing element of operations officers’ activities has not been fully evaluated.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Sanders]

I will not, because I am trying to stick to the agreed time so that the Minister can make a full speech.

As with air traffic controllers, coastguard operators can only safely control a limited number of search and rescue missions at any one time. Last year, Brixham coastguard dealt with 1,300 incidents and co-ordinated the rescue of 300 people along the south-west coast. The Government accept that the cost of the loss of life is £1.4 million. Multiply that by 300 and we can see that Brixham alone possibly saved £400 million. The entire-cost saving over 10 years of this proposal is £60 million. It is crazy.

During the summer months, it is not unusual for both Falmouth and Brixham simultaneously to co-ordinate 15 to 20 incidents each during a 12-hour shift. Considering the proposed staffing cuts in the new operating model, it is impossible to imagine how two national centres could safely manage such large quantities of calls from across the country. Furthermore, the Department’s own risk assessment recognises that, although the likelihood of mission failure is slightly lower, the effects of a system failure are likely to have a much greater impact on the proposed operating model.

Equally concerning are the consequences that the plans pose to the economy of small coastal communities. That is particularly pertinent in my area, where many of my constituents are employed in tourism, fishing and maritime industries and rely heavily on the invaluable service provided by the operation centre. Of the proposed job losses, 24 will be from Brixham and the surrounding area. As an unemployment hotspot, the area can ill afford to lose a single job.

A parliamentary question that I tabled recently further highlights my concern that recommendations in the consultation document for a two-year transition period do not provide sufficient time for employees to adjust to the reconfiguration. The Minister’s response that a five-year transition period “was not necessary” fails to take account of the substantial impact that the proposals will have on the lives of those currently working in the service. Although career opportunities within the new operating model exist, current staff would be forced to compete for fewer jobs and to relocate.

I understand that the proposals are still open for consultation, and I welcome the Minister’s decision to extend the consultation period. Indeed, I am assured that the enormous public response will serve to broaden debate on coastguard reform, as is appropriate for an issue of such importance.

Given the ongoing nature of the consultation, I am not sure how much detail the Minister can give in response, but I want him to recognise that the link between coastguard operators and the local community is of the utmost importance for maintaining high levels of safety at sea. Equally, will he recognise that the proposals place too much faith in the capacity of untested technology upgrades in the planned operating system?

Ultimately, safety at sea, rather than cost-cutting, should be the priority. The proposals achieve neither. I hope that the Minister will assure me that the Government will reconsider their proposals on wholesale reform and instead conduct a sincere investigation into strengthening the existing structure of Her Majesty’s coastguard.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) was absolutely right when she opened her speech by saying that we were on the graveyard shift. I almost thought that I would be in the graveyard of the debate, so thank you for calling me, Mr Crausby.

Unfortunately, we are in here because of the machinations of the Backbench Business Committee, and that deserves a few words. We must ensure that more Members lobby the Committee so that we get on to the Floor of the House, as we hope to do, on 28 April—that is a possible window. I urge hon. Members to lobby the Chair and members of that Committee. I was very perturbed when, because of the internal politics of the Committee, the entire day that we were meant to have for this debate was given over to the debate on UN Women. I contributed to that debate, and was told by, shall we say, a senior voice to speak for as long as I could and to take interventions. It is my belief that we could have had our debate on the Floor of the House that day, with all the attendant publicity and spotlight that that would have given us. I know that the Minister would have been welcomed holding our debate on the Floor of the House, and that he, too, was perturbed when it was moved.

As a result of my complaints at the time, I was kindly given an Adjournment debate by Mr Speaker, but I pulled it to allow the Minister to go to Stornoway and Shetland—I am grateful that he did. I am also grateful for the extension, but I am perturbed that we are again in a situation in which we are rushed by time. In the previous debate, I spoke for three minutes and crashed my remarks together as quickly as possible. We are nine parties united on this.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I just want to demonstrate that point. I am the only Member here from the Humber, and I will be unable to speak due to the time available, so no one from the Humber will be able to put forward the case for our particular coastguard. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that the machinations are stifling debate on this important subject.

[Mr MacNeil]

Absolutely. We want this issue to be considered on a substantive motion on the Floor of the House on 28 April, and with hon. Members’ support, I hope that we will achieve that.

I am delighted that the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), is in the Chamber to hear our proceedings. I can but hope that I will see her and her Committee in Stornoway at some point in the future.

I am the MP for the longest chain of islands in the UK, and my constituency has probably the longest coastline. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) might dispute that, but we are not going to walk every inch to find out whose coastline is longer. However, my constituency’s coastline is certainly disproportionate to its area.

The modernisation proposals coming from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency are concerning in the extreme. When the Minister was in Stornoway, he visited the Iolaire memorial. On new year’s day in 1919, 205 men out of a crew of 280 lost their lives when returning from world war one, and that is still a sore and well-remembered point in Lewis.

The reduction of the number of co-ordination centres in the UK from 18 to 10, with only two in Scotland, is the wrong decision. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) asked whether there should have been a statement to the House at the time of that announcement. I asked Mr Speaker for a statement on a point of order, but unfortunately I was not given one. I agree that we should have had something more thorough in the House at that time, so hopefully we will get that later.

The modernisation proposals will result in England having six co-ordination centres, while Scotland will have only two. The current proposal is that the two Scottish centres will be based in the north: one in Aberdeen, for real estate and lease agreement reasons, and one in Stornoway or Shetland. That proposal is unacceptable because both Stornoway and Shetland need centres, given the considerable distance between them. Only one of the two centres will be a 24-hour centre, while the other will be open only during the hours of daylight. When the MCA was in Stornoway, it was asked what hours of daylight might mean—would the centre ever close in summertime, and would it ever open in winter? There was no real answer. There was an answer on the hoof about the times being perhaps 7 am to 7 pm, but no consideration had been given to that very basic point.

Scotland will be left with just two stations to cover 60% of the UK’s coastline, yet the MCA thinks that that is more than adequate. According to its consultation paper, it feels that it could monitor the waters around the UK from one central location, but it has chosen not to pursue that argument. That feeling has been comprehensively destroyed by Members from the nine parties with concerns.

There is concern about the loss of local knowledge. The MCA feels that it can address the issue of local knowledge by using highly detailed maps or GPS technology, but I am referring to local knowledge—we heard about this in relation to Wales—that knows the difference between Marivig and Maaraig in my constituency. As the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) mentioned, the area is predominately Gaelic, and the place names are Gaelic, or Norse but gaelicised in the intervening centuries. The local knowledge to which I am referring allows a co-ordinator to communicate a position to a rescue team down to a specific tree in a specific field, if they are an urban dweller, or down to a specific rock on the coastline, because they know the area so well.

We know that the life-saving helicopters contract has had its problems, and our rescue tugs will have question marks over them as well. I really do not understand how cutting our co-ordination centres and the assets that the coastguard uses to save lives will result in a better coastguard. To be fair, I do not think that the MCA has thought it through either—I have given some examples. I really do feel sorry for the Minister because he has been given a poisoned chalice by the MCA. If he could have looked in a crystal ball and seen how things would pan out, perhaps he would not have accepted that chalice quite so readily, but I will leave it to him to tell us that.

I was the first Member to raise the issues of risk assessments on the Floor of the House. From the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State for Transport told me that a risk assessment had indeed been carried out. However, in a briefing in the House five days later, the chief executive of the MCA, Alan Massey, said that no formal risk assessment had been done. It was distressing to learn that the coastguard was considering the proposals without being able to know whether the basic work had been done to see if they were safe. A risk assessment was eventually published, of course, but who can trust a risk assessment that was done to fit the MCA’s story, which is what I suspect has happened, as opposed to one that leads the process? I do not trust it, and I am sure that many others do not either.

I also want to mention the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Perhaps we could pressurise it to free up its teams—its crews and coxswains—to speak with a freer voice, instead of our just hearing something from the RNLI centrally. In my area alone we have teams in Stornoway, Lochinver, Mallaig, Castlebay, Portree and Kyle, and I would like to hear their opinions, including on a very formal basis. Some of the coxswains and crews tell me that they do not in any way praise the proposals. The RNLI has to empower its crews and enable them, their coxswains and their launch secretaries to enunciate their very real concerns, which are based on their knowledge of the areas in which they work.

The coastguard service needs to be improved and to adapt to the changing conditions at sea. The MCA has said in its consultation that the seas are getting more congested, ships are getting larger and weather patterns are getting worse. Scotland is responsible for 70% of UK fish landings, and we need to ensure that when our mariners go out to sea, their lives are as safe as possible. I reiterate how concerned I am that the proposal has been pushed in some ways by real estate considerations. In addition, the savings are minimal. I think that £120 million will be saved over 25 years, or £4.8 million a year, which is such a small figure that it was not mentioned in the comprehensive spending review.

A letter has come to me from Councillor Dominic Lonsdale of Weymouth and Portland borough council with reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. He wrote to Sir Alan Massey:

“The MCA lodged a planning application on 20 May 2010 with Gosport Council for a new MRCC at the Deadalus site.”

The councillor’s contention was that the planning had taken place long before the paper came out following the change of Government. In its first answer to him, the MCA had said that it was going to change the type of building, but he could see from the scale of the work that such serious plans were in hand that there was clearly another agenda. The letter goes on:

“I put it to you that the reply I was given of 9 June 2010 was neither full, honest nor within the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act.”

I will certainly pursue that issue further.

I am feeling harassed, because although there are a number of details and issues that need proper time for discussion, we are again not getting that because this debate will be truncated. I am aware that I have spoken for 10 minutes and that other Members wish to speak.

It is disappointing that our debate has been rushed and that we have not had the opportunity to consider a substantive motion on the Floor of the House. There are plans in the air among the coastguards that we would be happy to support in a motion, but a debate needs to be held on the Floor of the House. I hope that that will happen on 28 April. This is about safeguarding our coastguards—the maritime insurance policy around our coasts. That is an important issue, and it should be debated on the Floor of the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Crausby. If I finish before 5.15, as I think I may, you might have time to indulge another colleague before the Minister gets his 15 minutes.

I congratulate everybody who has participated in the debate. It demonstrates the strength of feeling and concern across the UK about the proposals being consulted on for the future of the coastguard service. I am disappointed that we are debating the issue in Westminster Hall and agree with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) that a debate in the main Chamber would have been better. I also support the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) that the Minister should make an oral statement when the matter is concluded. I am sure that he would welcome the opportunity to do so, and it would be a good way to allow colleagues to question his conclusions fully.

I thank the Minister for his correspondence on 8 March, which has already been referred to. He gave us more information, further to our previous debate on the issue, and the extension of the consultation allowed the Transport Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), to carry out its investigation and to contribute properly to the consultation. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about how far he has got on his UK tour and how many more visits he is likely to undertake.

Right hon. and hon. Members have raised various concerns. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) opened the debate and challenged and asked about the validity of some evidence in the documents. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) indicated the strength of feeling among 250 people at his local public meeting and questioned the effect that the cuts would have on the confidence of volunteers if they were implemented. The hon. Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Torbay (Mr Sanders), for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) raised the issue of local knowledge. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for North Down (Lady Hermon) showed, again, the united front of, not all Ireland, but Northern Ireland on the proposals for Belfast and asked the Minister to address the alternative strategy.

We heard a right honourable whinge from the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who correctly made the point that we are here to whinge on behalf of our constituents, although “strong representations” might have been a more complimentary way to put it—the word “whingeing” sounds a little derogatory.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn made powerful arguments and cited real-life incidents, and the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who has personal knowledge of and family involvement in the fishing industry, made a very strong argument indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) said that, because Southampton will, possibly, have a super-centre, he has no constituency axe to grind, and neither do I, because the London centre is being retained. My hon. Friend, however, asked serious questions about the reduced 24-hour cover throughout the country. The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) raised other shipping concerns, such as the ending of the emergency towing vessels contract, which was mentioned by other colleagues during our previous debate.

At this week’s all-party maritime and ports group meeting, we heard from the chief executive of the MCA, Sir Alan Massey, and the chief coastguard, Rod Johnson, who outlined the proposals to the group’s members and other attendees. Questions were raised there, and have been raised here and previously, about the technology and about its being tried and tested.

Hon. Members have referred to the parallels, or not, with the regional fire controls, which we covered extensively in our previous debate. I was the Minister who accepted advice from officials that we should go down that route, but it has not worked out. The Minister and I share fire brigade background, so I know that he is sensitive to the issue. He has followed it closely and is looking at it in relation to the controls under discussion. The relocations, the redundancies and the willingness to transfer or not have been raised, as have the general resilience and robustness of the proposals.

It is important to say, as I did in our previous debate, that the Opposition do not oppose reform, reorganisation and improvement, but we have serious concerns about the proposals and whether they are cutting too far, too fast and too deep. Two super-controls seem to be one too few. If one control goes down, there will be only one left. If they work and the technology and communication equipment is effective, I am not sure whether the country ought not to have three. As I have mentioned, we have seen what has happened with the fire controls.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned cuts. Is he aware of any cuts in the upper echelons of the MCA?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am sure that the Minister is more up to date with the proposals. He is nodding and I am sure that he will cover that when he winds up. I have said that the two super-controls seem to be one too few, and the number of day-staffed stations seems too restricted, which several colleagues have commented on. The overall numbers make the proposals look as though they are finance-driven rather than operationally driven. Given the historic pairing of stations, which has been explained to us on a number of occasions, there might have been stronger logic in suggesting that a single station from each pair should be maintained, with three super-stations on top. Obviously, the Minister will assess all the representations and submissions in due course.

The coalition document said that there would be no cuts to the front line. Notwithstanding that this is a reorganisation, what is the coastguard if it is not a front-line service? Many people are saying that these cuts go way too far. It is important to remember, however, that this is a consultation, that it has not concluded and that it is being extended. This is, therefore, a good opportunity to put the Minister under pressure. I have spoken informally to the Minister outside this Chamber and know that he is listening and learning, and other colleagues have said the same. We will look closely at the finished document and his conclusions.

I know, owing to my former ministerial positions, the conflicting pressure that the Minister is and will be under, but at least he knows from Prime Minister’s questions only a few weeks ago that the Prime Minister has expressed some scepticism about the proposals. He said that the Government remain to be convinced by the MCA’s proposals. That is a very reassuring starting point. Every Member who has spoken today and in our previous debate has expressed real concern. I hope that the Minister, in the restricted comments that he will be able to make during his winding-up speech—he has not yet reached the end of the consultation—will give some reassurance that the efforts of the brave men and women of the coastguard service and those who depend on them, as well as those who support them, will not fall on deaf ears and that we will see some changes to improve the proposals, which, at the moment, do not appear to command any support in the House.

Coastguard Service

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hancock. I am pleased to have secured this debate, which is on a subject I believe to be of great concern to coastal communities and seafarers alike. I sought the debate so that the House could discuss the changes proposed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to reorganise our coastguard service.

I welcome the recognition given in the proposals to the importance of a volunteer coastguard service. I recognise the importance of improving incomes and career structures for the coastguards; doing so will resolve years of industrial action. However, I am deeply concerned about some aspects of the proposed changes.

I am sure that all Members here today share my pride in the work of the coastguards in our communities. As a nation, we are reliant on the sea for trade and commerce. Our economy depends on a well-managed maritime environment; 95% of all UK trade is shipped to and from the rest of the globe.

Shipping is the UK’s primary means of transport not only for commerce; we also depend on shipping to meet our energy requirements. As much as 80% of the world’s liquid fuel energy resources is transported by sea. If even a single tanker carrying liquefied natural gas were to fail to reach our shores, the lights in UK homes and factories would go out within a week. In short, our security and prosperity are almost entirely dependent on a well-managed maritime environment, and the coastguards provide an essential service in enabling that to happen.

It is not only large commercial shipping that uses our seas. Consider for a moment our fishing industry, which is important to many coastal communities, and the pleasure craft used by tourists and water-sport enthusiasts alike. I know that many constituencies benefit from the tourism industry, and I am well aware of the role that it plays for my constituents in Cornwall, with more than £1.6 billion being spent by visitors each year. All of that could be jeopardised by a single oil tanker losing control or being damaged in bad weather. Only an effective coastguard service could prevent that from happening or minimise the impact of such events.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She mentions the possibility of an incident happening that could devastate her constituency. Does she not agree that she may be looking through the wrong end of the telescope at the proposals of the Government and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? It is about cost savings; it is not an insurance policy for the communities she mentions.

[Sarah Newton]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but I do not agree with him. I am assured by the MCA that it is not about cost reduction but modernising the coastguard service to ensure that it is fit for the 21st century.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton]

I shall make a little more progress before giving way again.

The MCA has developed its proposals over a number of years. The previous Government ducked the question of modernisation because they feared a backlash of public opinion. Having reviewed the proposals and discussed them with the coastguards at the Falmouth marine rescue and co-ordination centre, I am disappointed that significant areas of work undertaken at Falmouth for the nation have been missed from the consultation documents. It is particularly disappointing that none of the architects of the plans visited or discussed ideas for modernisation with the front-line team at Falmouth before the proposals were published. Had they done so, we could have had a better set of proposals.

We are very proud of the international rescue centre at Falmouth. It sits below the castle built by Henry VIII to protect the entrance to the Carrick roads, the third largest natural harbour in the world and the most westerly safe haven for ships. It is the Atlantic gateway to England. The port of Falmouth currently handles more than 4,000 shipping movements a year, and the Fal estuary has room for more than 10,000 leisure craft. As a result of European Union air quality directives, ships crossing the Atlantic have to bunker in Falmouth.

Falmouth coastguard station is responsible for search and rescue services for more than 450 miles of coastline and 660,000 square miles of the north Atlantic. It has the largest rescue area of any UK coastguard station, and it clearly has huge responsibility for safety at sea. Not surprisingly, given its location, Falmouth co-ordinates international rescues at sea, as well on the coastline.

Falmouth is the one point of contact for British ships anywhere in the world. In short, when a distress signal is sent, it goes to Falmouth. Falmouth is listening, and Falmouth takes action. Falmouth is also the UK co-ordinator of the global maritime distress and safety system, which assists vessels in distress. That includes the emergency position indicating radio beacon, which identifies stricken vessels anywhere in the world and co-ordinates the search directly or relays the information to the relevant authority.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Lady agree with the assessment that I have heard from the MCA, which is that the pivotal work that she says happens in Falmouth could happen anywhere, in any office of the MCA? It does not particularly need to happen in Falmouth.

[Sarah Newton]

I shall come to that point later, but I refute what the hon. Gentleman says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark]

It is far from clear what criteria have been used to develop these proposals. I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate, he will address that issue. It has been suggested that the Clyde coastguard station has been proposed as one of the stations that will close, because its lease is due to expire in the next few months and it is therefore cheaper to close that particular station than, for example, the station in Aberdeen, where the costs of closure would be extensive.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Lady has made an important point. The principles that are pushing this process are not the principles that should be pushing it. The considerations are not marine considerations, but real estate considerations. The Aberdeen situation is particularly interesting, because the MCA has problems with the leases on the Aberdeen building. In addition, the MCA has not considered the high turnover of staff in Aberdeen in comparison with other stations.

[Katy Clark]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman has made some powerful points.

People who have not visited a coastguard station might be surprised to learn about the role of coastguards. The reality is that the way in which a station operates is that the operative who takes an emergency call usually stays in charge of that incident throughout the whole process, which hopefully leads to the person who called being rescued. That operative has to liaise with a range of other agencies, and they have to call on their own experience as a coastguard and on the knowledge that they have developed of the terrain in which they are operating. In the west of Scotland in particular, there is a huge amount of concern that if there is only one coastguard station in Scotland, much of the expertise and local knowledge that individuals have developed over many years would be lost.

The Clyde coastguard station’s area of responsibility is the largest coastguard area in the UK, and the station has 41 coastguard rescue teams under its control. There are 26 ferry operations to island communities in the area, including to Arran and Cumbrae in my own constituency, as well as a number of other ferry operations to other islands off the west coast of Scotland. If we include the sea lochs, which are part of the terrain in the area, there are 1,900 miles of coastline. I have always been told by those who work in the coastguard service that a huge amount of local knowledge acquired over many years is essential for the role of coastguard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ritchie]

It is important to emphasise for the historical record that, in 1994, the then chief coastguard, Commander Derek Ancona, told the Select Committee on Transport that the importance of local knowledge should not be underestimated, and that point needs to be taken on board.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am heartened to hear that Liverpool and Belfast are not accepting the framework that the MCA has given them to set them at each other’s throats. We have had the same situation between Stornoway and Shetland, and we are not accepting that, too. We in the Western Isles believe that Shetland should stay open 250 miles away because it is needed for the safety of mariners there. Stornoway should stay open as well. I am pleased that our message to the MCA is the same.

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

Order. Ms Ritchie, I urge you to watch the time.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Mr Hancock. I will dispense with the normal formalities to allow other people to speak.

In the past week, the coastguard at Stornoway has dealt with a French fishing boat on Rum, rescuing 14 people aboard, and a Tornado aircraft in the water off Rubha Reidh near Gairloch. Submarines have grabbed the headlines. Sometimes it is not about the number but the seriousness of incidents. We have had only one Braer, but that was serious. If Lord Donaldson were alive today, I wonder what he would say about the proposals. I hope that the Government have approached the co-authors of the Donaldson report to ask them exactly what they think of the proposals.

Nearly all this week in the Hebrides, we have had force 6 to 7 gales. On Thursday night, we are expecting storm 10. A person has to be there to appreciate exactly what that involves. In cold, calm London—I refer, of course, to the weather—it is difficult to do so; it is necessary to be in the locality. We need coastguard stations in the locality.

The weather primarily affects maritime safety, which is where I expected the consultation to start. Unfortunately, I discovered through various consultations and briefings from the MCA that the proposals are driven not by maritime safety but by real estate considerations, lease deals and hangovers from old industrial disputes within the MCA. The MCA management has desired to do it for some time. Safety and risk have been way down the pecking order, coming in a distant and shabby last to all the other considerations. I find that absolutely amazing and appalling.

I find it even more amazing that a risk assessment was not carried out specifically on the consultations. I am now hearing that a risk assessment will be carried out after the consultations, to make up for what has been done. Who can trust a risk assessment done after a consultation? We will be suspicious of any risk assessment from the MCA that is done to dovetail with MCA proposals. I am shocked, as are many other people. When we had a meeting, all the Stornoway coastguard workers were shocked that no risk assessment had been done.

Leaving Scotland with only one coastguard station in Aberdeen, where staff turnover is high, is also worrying. We need Shetland and Stornoway. They are 250 miles apart. Stornoway covers about 50,000 square miles at the moment; I do not think that it needs more.

As I said, no risk assessment has been done. No evidence is available on the impact of the reforms. The councils in the Hebrides and Shetland have commissioned their own research into exactly what they will mean. We feel that the proposals are technically flawed, and there are serious doubts about the reliability of the communications technology on which they rest.

The proposed reforms are also being touted as an efficiency saving, but I argue that the potential gains are minimal. It is estimated that just over £120 million will be saved over the next 25 years, or about £4.8 million a year. To put it in perspective, that is such a small part of the Department for Transport budget that it was not even included in its comprehensive spending review figures. It is absolutely astonishing what is going on.

I am aware of the time, so I will come to an end fairly quickly. To give a wee illustration, if someone in distress is using their radio and the ship is at Miavaig or Meavaig, but they only say it once, where is that ship in distress? That is what we are talking about. Ultimately, we are considering not efficiency but a marine insurance policy. I have not even mentioned the tugs that we are losing on the west coast of Scotland. There are huge questions connected with the plans. They are ill conceived, ill thought out and ill advised. The Government should go back to the drawing board and make absolutely sure that we are not compromising safety or our insurance policy in the maritime arena.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Mr Hancock. It is a pleasure to speak as the Minister with responsibility for shipping under your chairmanship. Like the shadow Minister, I come from an emergency service background, so I am exceptionally proud of my position. The issue is not devolved, and we should be very proud of the fact that there are people throughout this great country of ours who wish to serve their community. I shall try to touch upon as many points as possible in the very short time available to me. I want to state from the outset how proud I am of the emergency services that serve under me, whether they be the coastguard—my volunteers and my full-time staff—or the other emergency services that work with us, namely the RNLI and the hundreds of volunteers who work in other boats, crews and rescue services that, while they may not be generally well known, are well known in their communities.

It is way above my pay grade to decide whether there will be a debate on the Floor of the House, but I will speak to my Whips about it. Of course, we have a new wonderful system, under which we can go to the Backbench Business Committee. Thursdays are also available for exactly this sort of debate. That hint might be taken up by some of our colleagues. It will be very difficult to do the debate justice in the short time we have had together. If I do not answer each individual point, my officials are listening and I will write to colleagues. If hon. Members want a meeting about any specific points, that option is available. My officials, including the coastguards who are represented here today and are listening, will be available to hon. Members.

I thank colleagues who took time yesterday to come to the Back-Bench meeting that we had upstairs. For some colleagues, it was a busy time in Parliament, but I think those who attended the meeting felt that it was useful to have face-to-face conversations, and not just with me. It was a cross-party meeting. Interestingly, not as many colleagues attended as are here today, but I can understand that. We will arrange some further meetings.

The consultation is progressing. I stress that, at this point, we have not made a decision. That is why it is a consultation and I am pursuing people to take part in it. There is no opportunity for no change at all. All the union representatives to whom I have spoken around the country accept that. Only the other day, when I was at a coastguard station, one of the senior officials said after discussions, “Well, we think it should be nine.”

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I will make some progress and, if there is time, I will take interventions. However, there have been a lot of interventions during the debate and I think my hon. Friend—I call him that because I know him very well—has done very well at getting in. Colleagues might want to listen to the Minister a bit now.

Interestingly enough, I do not know what those nine stations are. I hope—the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) was present when it was said in his constituency and I met the coastguards there—that some proposals are made to us. Proposals in some shape or form, not dissimilar to those we have been discussing, have been on the table for a considerable time—before I became the Minister; when the shadow Minister had the role. The chief coastguard has been in the role for two years. He said to Back Benchers yesterday that the proposal was on the table when he arrived two years ago.

The debate is about: where, how many, resilience and how we take this into the 21st century. As much as there is expertise in, passion for, dedication to and, in some cases, love for the coastguard service, it is not a 21st century service. If we try to say, “It’s okay. We could each individually save our coastguard station,” we are not doing the service justice. We have to make progress.

There is a debate about the matter, and when I first looked at the list, there was certainly a discussion on which stations would close, which would go to part-time working and which would be made into larger hub stations—the national resilience stations. The hon. Member for Sefton Central is absolutely right: Liverpool was listed for closure. I apologise, if it is not technically Liverpool, but it is Liverpool on the paper. I said, “No. It is a very balanced argument between Belfast and Liverpool.” We will look at that matter.