High-speed Rail

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which was nevertheless significantly in excess of the allotted time for ministerial statements. An allowance for that will be made in the response from the shadow Secretary of State. The House can rest assured, as it can always rest assured, that I have the interests of Back Benchers at heart. They need not worry; if they want to get in, they will be heard.

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

May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement? I welcome her decision today. As the right hon. Lady was generous enough to say, it was the previous Labour Government who started us on the journey that has now reached this important milestone. I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), for having the boldness to set out a vision for a new high-speed rail line to address the capacity issues on our existing mainlines while cutting journey times across Britain. This is a vital project for the country, and I welcome the decision to give the green light to this investment in the face of considerable opposition—not least from many of the Secretary of State’s own colleagues, including from inside the Cabinet.

Labour Members believe that it is vital that the new high-speed line is built—not just between London and Birmingham, but on to Manchester and Leeds. So while I welcome the commitment given today to the whole HS2 scheme, there will be disappointment that the Government’s announcement has stopped short of committing to legislating for the entire route to Manchester and Leeds in this Parliament. That was always Labour’s intention, as confirmed by the former Transport Secretary Lord Adonis in his evidence to the Transport Select Committee—a position the Select Committee said had merit.

Of course it is right that a single Bill would need to await completion of preparatory work for the second phase of the route. However, by introducing it later in this Parliament and carrying it over to the next, as we did with the legislation for Crossrail, we would secure Parliament’s approval for the whole route at an earlier date than under the Government’s plans. That would, of course, open up the possibility, if it proved feasible, of beginning construction in the north as well as the south—something that the Transport Select Committee urged the Government to consider. The Secretary of State should do so and the Government should think again on the issue of using a single piece of legislation to make HS2 possible all the way to the top of the Y route. At the very least, will the Secretary of State agree, as a minimum, to follow the Transport Select Committee’s recommendation to include a “purpose clause” in the hybrid Bill that she plans, providing statutory force to the commitment to continue the scheme to Manchester and Leeds?

Turning to other issues in the statement, the Secretary of State says that there will be “direct links to Heathrow airport and the continent via the HS1 line”. There will be disappointment that the Government have not accepted the case—not least in her own team—to build a transport hub at Heathrow, enabling a direct connection between the airport, HS2, Crossrail and the Great Western mainline at one site. The Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) is on record as saying that

“failing to take high speed rail through Heathrow…would be a big mistake”.

This is a failure to learn the lessons of successful high-speed rail schemes across the world. When the Government claim this route would cost more, they fail to include the cost of building the spur; and when the Government claim it would increase journey times, they fail to make clear that this hub would be instead of Old Oak Common and would allow for non-stopping services.

Can the Secretary of State confirm the cost of building the separate spur to Heathrow? Can she confirm that the Government’s intention is to enable at least the possibility of direct services between Heathrow and the continent at the end of phase 2? Can the right hon. Lady tell the House what discussions she has had with the European Commission over the potential for EU funding towards the costs of HS2? Is it correct that the decision not to take the route via Heathrow and the concerns over the planned link to HSl mean that such support is less likely to be forthcoming?

In respect of Scotland, the Secretary of State has said that HS2

“will form a foundation for a potentially wider high speed network in years to come.”

Can she confirm that the Government still intend to begin discussions with the Scottish Government on the future development of the network to Scotland during the next Parliament? When do they expect to start work on the business case for further extensions beyond the Y?

As for what the Secretary of State said about mitigation and costs, I welcome the steps that she has taken to address some of the concerns that led the Labour party to propose its alternative route, although none of these measures addresses the impact on the Chilterns as effectively as would a route via Heathrow. It is the Government’s own stubbornness that has forced them to commit themselves to significant additional spending to prevent a Cabinet resignation.

Will the Secretary of State tell us what the extra cost of each of the new mitigation proposals that she has announced today will be, and whether those costs will be met within the existing cost envelope for HS2? What assessment of value for money has she made in respect of the costs of these measures, compared with those of offering greater protection to the Chilterns through a different alignment? I welcome the mitigation measures proposed for London, although there remains a significant impact on the area around Euston station. Will the Secretary of State assure the local community in Camden that she will listen to their concerns, and will take appropriate steps to mitigate the impact of the redevelopment of Euston station? What discussions has she had with Transport for London on how best to address the concerns that have been raised about the impact of the very large increase in the numbers arriving at Euston on HS2?

There has been considerable debate about the affordability of building the line, but not about the affordability of using it once it opens. I note that the Secretary of State had nothing to say about that in her statement. Does she agree with us that now is the time to move the debate from whether we should build to discussing the type of high-speed rail network that we want to see in this country? Her predecessor as Secretary of State—I am pleased to see that he is present—told the Transport Committee:

“If you are working in a factory in Manchester you might never get on HS2, but you will certainly be benefiting from it if the salesman and sales director of your company is routinely hopping on it to go and meet customers, to jet around the world from Heathrow in a way that brings in orders that keep you employed.”

Is that not precisely the wrong approach to high-speed rail? Does the Secretary of State agree that we need a high-speed rail network that is affordable for the many and not the few—a network that is not a “rich man’s toy” or simply a business class service?

Today we have reached an important stage in the development of high-speed rail in this country, a process begun by Labour. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the issues that we have raised. This is a major scheme which deserves proper scrutiny. We have raised questions with the clear intention of ensuring that we have the best possible high-speed rail network, one that the country needs and deserves. We strongly support the building of HS2. [Hon. Members: “Hurray!”] I said that in the first sentence of my reply. I look forward to working on a cross-party basis with the Secretary of State and her colleagues to ensure that parliamentary approval is secured, and that this vital project can move ahead and become a reality.

[Justine Greening]

I am delighted to hear that the Labour party supports our high-speed rail proposals. As I think even Labour Members would have to admit, the original proposal did indeed come from my party. I must point out that high-speed rail did not feature in the Labour Government’s 2007 White Paper setting out the 30-year vision for the railways. However, we are pleased that Labour has belatedly seen the real potential of a high-speed rail network in Britain.

The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) asked about legislation for the full Y network. I am considering whether it is possible for us to build that into the hybrid Bill, but I can give a categorical assurance that I have decided that we should go ahead with the full Y network. I have also announced today the final decision on the route of phase 1 of that network.

The hon. Lady asked about Heathrow, which has clearly been an important aspect of the issue. HS2 will go directly to Heathrow. That will happen as part of phase 2. People will be able to get on a high-speed train in Birmingham that goes direct to Heathrow. The hon. Lady raised the question of whether HS2 should go directly via Heathrow. The last Labour Transport Secretary of State, Lord Adonis, looked at that, and he concluded— as did I and my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) —that that is not the most cost-effective or line-effective route for the line to take. It would be a longer line, and it would be more expensive.

The hon. Lady asked whether we will seek EU funding. The business case we have presented to the House today is based on a working assumption that the £32 billion cost of this railway will come from the rail budget—that it will be taxpayer-funded. The business case would improve if we were able to get private sector and EU funding. We believe that this is a high-value project and we will look to see whether we can secure such contributions, especially from the private sector, and they would make that business case even stronger than it already is.

I am keen to talk with the Scottish Government about their aspirations for high-speed rail further north. Their desire to see this project go ahead underlines its strategic value to the entire UK, not just the London-to-Birmingham part of our country.

On mitigation, the hon. Lady raised the important question of how we tackled the issue of the line going through an area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chilterns. I want to emphasise that I looked very hard along the entire line. I understood the specific concerns people had in respect of this AONB, and I took them very seriously, but I looked at the whole line to see how we could mitigate its impact on local communities wherever possible, because that is important and the right thing to do. The changes in the Chilterns that we have made will result in that stretch of the line costing in the region of £250 million to £300 million less, because the engineering solutions we have found will involve less use of deep cutting. That will mean that we have less spoil, and the removal of spoil is often what causes huge expense. I hope that provides some reassurance to the hon. Lady. For some parts of this route, improving the line is good not only for local communities but for the business case for the line.

The hon. Lady also raised the question of the redevelopment of Euston station that will happen as part of HS2’s phase 1 proposal. We believe the line coming into Euston can be part and parcel of the regeneration of the Euston area. We must ensure that Euston makes the most of the investment that will go into Euston station. I fully understand that two-thirds of the homes that will be demolished will be next to Euston station, and we will work very closely with Camden council. A number of statutory processes are already in place to provide safeguards for tenants who will be affected, but I can assure the House that I will work very closely with Camden council in considering how we can minimise the impact of the redevelopment of Euston station on current residents. I will, of course, also be delighted to work with the Mayor in considering traffic flows on the tube and how high-speed rail will interact with our tube network.

The hon. Lady asked about affordability and pricing, and I agree that that is very important. The business case we have done assumes a pricing level that is the same as the standard pricing on the current network. That has been the presumption. As we get closer to the finalisation of the route and its development, I am sure we will look at the pricing, but I can assure the hon. Lady that the success of this high-speed railway network will be based on its being used by many people, not a few. I have no doubt that the pricing of the tickets will be set in order to achieve that.

Aviation Industry

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), first, on securing this debate on the future of aviation, which has clearly been in demand from other Members—we have had an excellent debate—and, secondly, on the birth of his granddaughter, Rosie, who will think that she is the centre of the universe by the time she is old enough to read Hansard. I also welcome you, Mr Gale; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

Our aviation industry is central to our economic prosperity and should be a key driver of the growth without which we have no prospect of emerging from the dangerous economic situation in which we find ourselves. The industry contributes more than £11 billion to the UK’s gross domestic product—more than 1% of the total—and supports up to 200,000 jobs directly and 600,000 indirectly across the UK.

I regret, however, that just as the Government do not have a credible strategy for growth, neither have they yet managed to set out a credible strategy for aviation, let alone set out the role that aviation could play in improving our economic situation. For a crucial sector on which our economy depends, the reaction from business to the Government’s decision not to set out an aviation strategy until the latter part of this Parliament has ranged from incredulity to plain bemusement.

I would much rather that we were not in opposition—it is a deeply frustrating place to be, as the Minister may recall—but the one thing that it provides is the time and space to develop ideas for the future, as well as some detailed plans. However, after 13 years in opposition, it is clear to the industry and to the wider business world that this Government came to office without such plans.

We have had lots of consultations, relentless industry engagement, scoping documents and taskforces. That is all very laudable, yet none of it makes up for the lack of a policy, let alone a strategy. With the economy on the brink, holding out the prospect of a policy late in the latter part of a five-year Parliament is, frankly, not good enough. It represents a total failure to prepare for government, and Members do not have to take my word for that. The chairman of the Airport Operators Association, Ed Anderson, has said that, while the industry knows what the Government are against,

“we are not sure yet what it is in favour of”,

and he went on to describe “better not bigger” as an “election slogan”, saying:

“Better not bigger doesn’t constitute a strategy.”

The Government also face international criticism. The chief executive of the International Air Transport Association, Giovanni Bisignani, has been quoted as saying that the Government seem

“intent on destroying its competitiveness with a policy agenda focused on increasing costs and limiting capacity growth.”

Sir David Rowlands, a former permanent secretary at the Department for Transport, has described the Government’s policy as “mildly extraordinary”, which is damning criticism from somebody from the higher reaches of the mandarinate.

Baroness Valentine, speaking for London First, said in another place earlier this year that

“government seems content for aviation policy to drift.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 2011; Vol. 726, c. 872.]

She has also said, most damningly, that

“the Government’s aviation strategy is damaging our economy and enhancing that of our EU rivals.”

We have heard that criticism echoed by some Members who have contributed to today’s debate.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

In a moment.

I am sure that the Minister saw the letter in The Times earlier this year signed by 74 senior business leaders. Setting a long-term strategic direction for aviation in London, the wider south-east and across the country is a vital part of delivering the growth and jobs that the country needs, and the letter concluded:

“All options must be considered, short term and long term, to address growing demand.”

We agree with them, which is why earlier this month, in a speech to the Airport Operators Association, I made an offer to the Government, which I am happy to repeat today. We are willing to take the politics out of aviation, put aside party differences and work together on a joint aviation policy for the good of the nation. As I have said, this is a clear, unambiguous offer, with no catch.

Aviation matters to our country—every Member who has spoken in this debate has said so—and to businesses and families throughout the country. It is an industry that needs stability for the long term, and a long-term plan that straddles Parliaments and Governments and that is capable of surviving after fruition.

In addition to the Government’s more immediate work that they must conclude—that is fine—I believe that the best way forward is the establishment of a cross-party commission to set out our long-term aviation strategy for a generation or more. We should not have rows from one Parliament to the next about an element of the strategy, but set out a long-term plan. We must not repeat the party political wrangling that turned the proposed third runway at Heathrow into a political football. We must also agree that we will then stick to that agreed strategy, whatever the outcome of the next election.

Any terms of reference for such a cross-party examination of capacity will inevitably start with an understanding that the answer for the south-east will not be to fall back on the proposed third runway at Heathrow. We have accepted that the local environmental impact means that that is off the agenda. The cross-party body must have the freedom to look at all options for growth, including in the south-east, while prioritising making the best use of existing runways and airports. A bigger prize is available for us all if we put political battles to one side and develop a long-term strategy for aviation to which everybody can sign up. It is time to move on and find an alternative way forward.

I should like the Minister to clarify the Government’s position on two further issues: first, the link between high-speed rail and aviation; and secondly, emissions from aviation. We have offered Ministers our clear, cross-party support for the high-speed rail line that we proposed when in government. I have been clear that we will work with the rest of the House to deliver the legislation needed to take forward that vital project. We fully accept that there is simply no other credible way to tackle the growing capacity issues on our existing main rail lines. We have, however, argued that there is a clear case for connecting the new high-speed rail line directly to Heathrow from the start. The Opposition and the Government agree that the line should connect to Heathrow; the only debate is over whether that happens from the start, or via a costly, multi-billion pound spur, tacked on at a later date.

As we have argued, taking the line via our major hub airport opens up the prospect of private sector funding, potentially saving the taxpayer billions. It would lead to a new route that made better use of existing transport corridors and better protected the area of outstanding natural beauty that the current proposal crosses. It would also open up the opportunity to connect to the Great Western main line, thus bringing the benefits of the high-speed line to the south-west and Wales and increasing connectivity for the south-west to Heathrow.

Creating a major new transport hub to the west of London at Heathrow—rather than several miles away at a site with other, inadequate transport connections—that mirrors the hub in the east at Stratford represents the joined-up thinking that is too often lacking in our transport infrastructure planning. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government are looking at that alternative proposal.

Our proposal is one that the Minister herself supported when she was the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, and I suspect that she still sees its merit. I hope that she will indicate a willingness to look again at it. She has our support as she seeks to do better at persuading her new Secretary of State of the merits of the case than was possible with the previous Secretary of State.

On carbon emissions, I hope the Minister agrees that we will simply not achieve the goal set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 to reduce emissions by at least 80% by 2050, compared with 1990 levels, unless aviation does more. That is why we believe that future aviation growth must go hand in hand with a greater cut in aviation emissions than we agreed when we were in government.

The Government have failed even to re-affirm their commitment to the existing emissions target for aviation that we set in government. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to do that today and that she will support our call for the Energy and Climate Change Committee to set out what it would mean for aviation to go further and ask it to update accordingly the carbon budgets that have been set.

I hope that the Minister will agree with us that, in principle, international aviation should be included as well, once the Committee produces its advice on accounting methodology. As the Minister will know, the industry’s sustainable aviation road map makes it clear that, by 2050, it is possible to get absolute emissions down to levels seen at the turn of the century, even as passenger numbers are projected to grow by a factor of three, so we all agree that it is possible to do more. Therefore, this should be seen not as a threat but as an opportunity. Fuel efficiency improvements in aircraft engines and air frames, improvements in air operations, both in more fuel-efficient practices and air traffic management, and the use of alternative fuels produced sustainably—all those things can make a contribution. The UK should be at the forefront of developing the new technologies that enable the aviation industry to thrive, while reducing emissions.

I again thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. I hope that the Minister will feel able to respond positively and make up for the Government’s failure to date to provide an aviation strategy, which this country so badly needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

I am happy to offer my congratulations on that. Contrary to the allegation that the Government have created a policy vacuum, we have a range of initiatives designed to make our airports better—our priority is to make them better, rather than bigger. We are legislating for a much more passenger-focused system of regulation. We are improving air space management through the Future Airspace Strategy in the Single European Sky programme, which is already delivering real benefits in the UK and Ireland. We are changing the way aviation security is regulated to enable the industry to deliver the same high standards in security, but in a more passenger-focused and more hassle-free way.

Our south-east airport taskforce also included proposals to improve resilience and address delays. As a result, we are trialling the tactical use of greater operational freedoms at Heathrow. This is very sensitive, because those freedoms mean that occasionally there will be some incursions into the respite period, with occasional use of both runways for departures, or, occasionally, use of both runways for arrivals. However, I emphasise that that is not mixed mode and the Government remain committed to runway alternation and the benefits it brings. Very careful consideration will be given to the impact of the trial on local communities. I emphasise that the measures being trialled are to be used only to improve resilience, and prevent or recover from disruption, and not to increase capacity, which remains capped at current levels.

We have published our scoping document, setting out the issues to consider for the future of aviation. We know how crucial it is to have a successful regional airport sector, as hon. Members have highlighted today. We will look at ways to harness spare capacity to support economic growth and help to relieve crowding in the south-east. High-speed rail has strong potential to provide an alternative to thousands of domestic and short-haul flights. HS2 to Manchester and Leeds will deliver a three and a half hour journey time between London and Scottish destinations, providing a viable alternative to thousands of Scottish flights.

[Maria Eagle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am sorry, but I really do not have the time. We accept that the international nature of aviation, as has been said, means solutions are often best delivered at a multilateral level. That is why we are working with the International Civil Aviation Organisation towards agreement on emissions and on noise issues. That is why we have worked very hard on the inclusion of aviation in the emissions trading scheme. We will publish our draft strategy in spring next year for public consultation, with a final strategy due in 2013. We want to see Britain, and British companies, spearheading the global debate on greener air travel and shaping a low-emission aviation sector of the future. We need to work with the industry to find new ways of decarbonising air travel, boosting investment in low-carbon technologies and fuels, and enabling the aviation sector to generate the headroom it needs to grow in a sustainable and successful way. Our world-beating aerospace sector will play a vital role in that. The challenge creates great opportunities for that world-beating sector.

We want to open a new chapter on the aviation debate. We are interested in working on a cross-party basis, as has been discussed today. Our goal is to move away from the polarised opinions that have dominated the discussion in the past. We want to develop a broader consensus for the change we need to deliver a flourishing air transport sector that can support economic growth, while addressing its local environmental impacts and playing its full part in combating climate change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

Yes, we do. We are very interested in safety at stations for the reasons the hon. Lady rightly mentions. She will be aware of the secure stations programme. Around 90% of the railway network has been designated as having secure stations, which is well over 1,000 stations. We take that very seriously and want to ensure not only that stations are accessible physically, but that people have no fear of using the railway network so that we maximise the number of people who are able to travel by train.

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

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many category E station ticket offices will be closed as a result of the Government’s plans for the future of the rail industry?

[Norman Baker]

As I mentioned a moment ago, we are looking at ticketing and fares generally as part of the review we are undertaking, but no decision has been made on the closure of any category E stations. That matter will be considered in the round to ensure that we retain proper access to the railway network. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady keeps asking, “How many?” I have just indicated that no decisions have been taken, so the answer so far is none.

[Maria Eagle]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman the answer: 675 stations will lose their ticket offices as a result of his plans, while another 302 will see their opening hours cut. With passengers facing up to a 13% hike in the cost of their tickets in January, does he understand that his plans to replace staff with machines will make it even harder to get the best deal and are totally out of touch with the public?

[Norman Baker]

It is unfortunate that the hon. Lady asks her supplementary question without listening to my answer to her first. Indeed, she seems to be reinventing her party’s railways policies. The chief executive of the Association of Train Operating Companies accused the hon. Lady’s leader of suffering from “amnesia” and of displaying—these are his words—“rank hypocrisy” when it came to Labour’s railways policy, so she ought to examine her own policy and her own history before she starts attacking the Government.

M5 Motorway Accident

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement to update the House on the serious collision that took place on the M5 motorway in Somerset on the evening of Friday 4 November.

As the House will be aware, at approximately 20 minutes past 8 on Friday evening, a road traffic collision occurred on the M5 northbound in Somerset involving multiple vehicles. Some of those vehicles subsequently caught fire. The incident occurred between junction 25, Taunton, and junction 24, Bridgwater North, approximately a third of a mile north of junction 25. The emergency services and the Highways Agency responded to the incident immediately, and therefore a large number of emergency service vehicles and resources were able to attend the scene very quickly.

At approximately 9 pm, based on the numbers of casualties and vehicles involved, Avon and Somerset police declared a major incident. Due to the nature of the incident scene, it took some time to confirm exactly how many people and vehicles were involved in the collision. Avon and Somerset police have now confirmed that 37 vehicles were involved in the collision. Tragically, seven people lost their lives. A further 51 people were injured and were treated at Musgrove Park hospital, Yeovil district hospital or at the scene.

I would like again to offer my condolences—and I am sure those of the House—to those who have lost friends or family in that horrific crash, as well as to offer our thoughts to those who have been injured. The families of those who lost their lives are being supported by specially trained family liaison officers from Avon and Somerset police, who will continue to work with them as long as they are needed.

Police investigations on the motorway were completed at 10 minutes past 4 on Sunday 6 November, and the scene was then handed over to the Highways Agency and its contractors to begin repairs to the carriageway.

The collision incident caused a significant amount of damage to the highway: a stretch of 40 metres of road was damaged by fuel spillage from vehicles and a stretch of 60 metres was damaged by intense fire. Two lanes of the southbound carriageway reopened yesterday at 20 past 5 and, following extensive resurfacing works, all lanes on the northbound carriageway reopened shortly before 9 pm. The final remaining lane closure on the southbound carriageway was removed at 20 past 9 last night, and the road is now running in both directions.

The Minister responsible for roads, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), visited the scene of the incident on Saturday, and I was there yesterday. I was tremendously impressed by the determination and professionalism of staff from the emergency services—police, fire crews and ambulance staff—local hospitals and the Highways Agency. They worked with real dedication in the most difficult of circumstances. Our efforts to deal with the scene also involved the Environment Agency. The way in which all those agencies were able to work together highly effectively was critical in ensuring that those involved in the accident were helped and treated speedily. I pay tribute to Assistant Chief Constable Anthony Bangham who, as gold commander, led those efforts.

It was a harrowing and painstaking task for all concerned to deal with the incident, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank massively all those involved for their efforts and bravery, including individual members of the public who were passing or near the incident, some of whom tried to help those trapped in vehicles. I would particularly like to pay tribute to the local community, people and businesses in and around Taunton. From local people and hotels offering to accommodate relatives of those injured and members of the public offering support, to local off-duty hospital staff turning up at their hospitals to help to provide care, it was humbling and inspiring to see how selflessly so many people were willing to offer their support to others who needed it.

It would be a mistake at this very early stage to speculate about the causes of the collision. Investigations into the cause of the crash are still at a very early stage. To put that in context, the recovery phase finished only yesterday, and it is only today that the investigation phase becomes the key focus. While Avon and Somerset police have indicated that the presence of smoke on the carriageway is a significant line of inquiry, Assistant Chief Constable Bangham has been clear that, in his words to me earlier today, it is “far too early” to jump to conclusions on the causal factors of the incident. Our first priority now must be to ensure that the police are able to conduct a comprehensive and thorough investigation of the crash.

As I said, earlier today I spoke to Assistant Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, whose Avon and Somerset force is leading the ongoing investigation. He told me that, given the large number of vehicles involved, and the need carefully to look at the vehicles recovered and of course to talk to the many witnesses, it may be some weeks until the investigation can conclude on any cause or causes of the incident. The police continue to appeal for witnesses, and I encourage anyone with any information to contact the police directly on 101 or by calling Crimestoppers on 0800 500 111.

I would like to emphasise to the House the extremely high priority that I attach to road safety. The UK has a proud tradition as a world leader on road safety, and that is a tradition that I am determined to continue. Although the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads has fallen dramatically over the past 20 years, the horrific crash on Friday has reminded us of the terrible personal consequences of collisions for motorists and local communities. Earlier this year, the Government published a road safety framework that commits us to a range of activities that will enable us to do even better in future. We will of course take full account of any lessons from this terrible collision in developing our future policies and supporting the future safe travel of people.

The safety of our roads also requires effective partnership working across a wide range of organisations—national and local government, police and emergency services, and many others. We need to work together effectively if we are going to do the best job we can of ensuring that people stay safe on our roads. Over the coming weeks, and going beyond any lessons that may be learned from this particular incident, I will be considering carefully our forward plans on road safety to ensure that we have the right measures in place to deliver real and urgent progress on tackling the continuing blight of death and injury on our roads. I commend this statement to the House.

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

I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and for early sight of it. I am sure that we would both have preferred the circumstances of her first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Transport to be different, but may I take this opportunity to congratulate her on her appointment? I wish her well in her new role, and I am sure that her decision to visit the scene of this horrific incident over the weekend will have been appreciated, as will the visit of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), particularly by those still working to deal with the aftermath. May I associate Labour Members with the sympathy that the Secretary of State expressed for those who have lost loved ones and those who have suffered injuries in this tragedy?

I join the right hon. Lady in thanking the emergency services in Somerset. Tales of extraordinary bravery have emerged from what must have been a terrifying situation, and yet again we have been reminded of the professionalism and dedication of our emergency services. I also add our thanks to the staff of Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton and Yeovil district hospital. They provided an exceptional response after the incident and are continuing to provide the first-class care that we have come to expect and rely on from our national health service.

This is one of the worst road accidents we have suffered for many years, and it is right that the police must now be able to carry out the very thorough investigation they have begun into the cause of this tragedy. The truth is that we do not know today whether there were steps that could have been taken to prevent the incident. We must await the conclusions of the investigation and avoid the temptation to rush to judgment.

While families are struggling to come to terms with their devastating loss and victims lie injured, I do not believe it is the right time to pass judgment on specific policies. The Secretary of State said that lessons will be learned for future policy development. Will she confirm that the conclusions of the investigation into this incident will be fully considered before steps are taken to advance any of her Department’s proposals that she has inherited that may have a bearing on road safety?

The Secretary of State referred to the dramatic fall in the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads over previous years. However, she will have noticed the increase in deaths over the last year, which was reported just last week. That is something of which she and this House need to take particular note. She should know that she will have the full support of the Opposition if she brings a renewed focus to the challenge of reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads.

Will the Secretary of State confirm whether she has yet discussed this incident with the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who is in his place, and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills? Have they confirmed whether they intend to review the licensing regime for public events, firework displays and bonfires? Following the fire under the M1 in April, the then Secretary of State for Transport promised a review of the wider lessons that should be learned about the activities that we allow to take place under motorways. Will the right hon. Lady update the House on that work and on any conclusions that have been reached? Will she consider widening that work to consider activities alongside, as well as underneath, our motorways?

Finally, I would be grateful for an assurance that the Secretary of State will make a further statement to the House following the conclusion of the investigation. It is important that there is an opportunity to discuss these issues more fully than feels appropriate today. I thank her for ensuring that the House has been updated at the earliest possible opportunity following this tragedy.

[Justine Greening]

I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s kind words welcoming me to my new role. As she says, it is a shame that I arrived at the Dispatch Box under these circumstances.

In response to the points that the hon. Lady made, of course we will consider the lessons that can be learned from this incident, if there are any. As she pointed out, the most important thing is to ensure that the police can get on with their investigation as it unfolds. It is worth reiterating her point that, for the families of people who have been injured and particularly for the families who have lost relatives, it is important that we do not speculate unnecessarily about what might have caused the accident.

On road safety, the hon. Lady pointed out last quarter’s figures, which showed a rise in fatalities. It is also fair to point out that in the 12 months to the end of June, we continued to see an overall reduction in fatalities and injuries on our roads, so the trend is moving in the right direction. The challenge for this House is to ensure that that does not level off and that we take steps to ensure that the figures come down further, as far as possible.

The hon. Lady’s question about licensing arrangements slightly prejudges where the police investigation may end up. She has made the point that there is a question over whether this event falls under the Licensing Act 2003 as a regulated event. That is clearly something that the police and the local authority will consider.

If the police investigation that is under way presents any conclusions that I think it is important for this House to consider, I will of course come back and make a statement. It is possible that the police will conclude that they cannot say absolutely what caused the collision. However, if there are meaningful lessons and conclusions that it is worth this House discussing, I will ensure that we have a follow-up statement.

Transport

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Shipping: Accidents

[Maria Eagle]

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the projected change is in the number of investigators at the Marine Accident Investigation Branch over the period of the current spending review.

[Official Report, 31 October 2011, Vol. 534, c. 418W.]

Letter of correction from Mike Penning:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on 31 October 2011.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mike Penning]

[holding answer 24 October 2011]: Under plans to reduce its costs in line with the outcome of the October 2010 spending review, the number of MAIB investigators will be reduced from 21 to 16.

The correct answer should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

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

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

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

[Mr Hammond]

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

[Maria Eagle]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

Coastguard Modernisation

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Hammond]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Train-building Industry

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing the debate. He will have noticed not only that everyone has congratulated him on that and on the way in which he made his remarks, but the great agreement among all the speakers.

If rail were in decline in the UK, the loss of our rail manufacturing industry would be a tragedy, but it would at least be understandable. We have seen industries decline because of technological or social change, but in the case of rail, there is no excuse for letting the industry wither and die in Britain. In fact, the reverse is true. Rail is thriving in the UK. More people are travelling now than at any point since the 1920s—1.3 billion journeys are now made every year. There has been growth of an additional 1 million journeys in the past five years alone. Every prediction suggests that demand is continuing to increase and that it could double in the next 30 years. Rail is therefore a priority for investment for the foreseeable future.

The Minister and I may have our differences over spending, not least on the speed and scale of cuts, but there is consensus that as a country we will be investing in rail for many years. Whether the investment is in track and signalling, stations or trains, we will be spending billions of pounds in the years to come. That investment should benefit the UK economy. It will lead to faster journey times and additional capacity. Why cannot it also lead to our supporting, improving and growing our manufacturing industry, instead of our watching it leave the country? It could lead to significant increases in the numbers of manufacturing jobs, which it has done in the past decade.

Sadly, Bombardier is the last train manufacturer left in the UK, but under the previous Government it won successive orders, including £3.4 billion-worth of London underground trains, as well as trains for the London Overground network, London Midland, Chiltern Railways and the Stansted Express. Therefore, the decision by the current Secretary of State for Transport to award the £1.4 billion Thameslink contract to the German-based Siemens-led consortium puts at risk 3,000 British jobs at Bombardier and very many more in the supply chain, as right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have said.

Our train manufacturing industry is at a crossroads. We can see it either follow other sectors and become yet another assembly line, or remain a major manufacturer, taking advantage of the significant investment and orders that the success of rail in the UK will guarantee for years to come. We can ensure that we carry on building trains in this country, but by awarding the Thameslink contract to a company that will build the trains abroad, the Government have given us their view of the future of rail manufacturing in the UK. Today, they have heard calls from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, which I echo, for them to think again and be very clear that that is what they want in the future.

Siemens is a major British employer in its own right, with more than half its 16,000-strong UK work force involved in manufacturing and engineering. The contract that we are discussing will lead to jobs. There is a dispute about just how many, but there will be jobs in the supply of train components and in maintenance. Some will be substituted for jobs that Bombardier would have had if it had won the contract, while others will be new. I welcome the commitment of Siemens to a new UK rail training academy, supporting the national skills academy for railway engineering. However, none of that good takes away from the fact that the Thameslink trains will be built by a work force in Germany. The reality is that the jobs that will be created would have had to have been in the UK whatever the result of the procurement.

The decision is undoubtedly a body blow for Bombardier, as right hon. and hon. Members who represent constituencies in the immediate area, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), have said. The fact that 446 permanent and 983 contract staff already face redundancy is a severe blow, not only to the east midlands but to the whole of our manufacturing industry. The Government have tried to suggest that those jobs would have been lost anyway, but that has been strongly denied by the company, which has said that not one permanent position would have been lost had it secured the contract.

The Government’s response so far to the uproar has been to wash their hands of the process and try to blame the previous Government. That might be understandable, but it does not take us very far forward. We have even seen the nonsense of the Transport Secretary writing to the Prime Minister to complain about the decision that he himself has made.

I hope the Minister today will come forward with some rather more constructive ways in which she can tackle the crisis that the decision has created. It is clear that the Department for Transport has not secured the most economically advantageous outcome either for the local community or for the country as a whole, despite it being perfectly permitted to do so. It is also clear that there has been a particular problem in the Department for Transport, which was referred to by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, including the hon. Members for Amber Valley and for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham). The DFT has awarded not a single contract to Bombardier since it has been in charge of letting them, yet Bombardier won more than 70% of orders for new trains for the UK rail industry when procurement was led by the rolling stock leasing and train operating companies. The company has been incredibly successful around the world—another point made by all who spoke in the debate—yet the DFT has not placed an order with a British-based company since it took over procurement. There is an issue to be addressed by the Minister and there are serious questions to be answered.

Opposition Members have called for a full independent review of the procurement. We are clear that the review must consider the social impact on the UK’s work force, both for those directly employed by Bombardier and for those in the wider supply chain. It must consider the likely impact on the sector as a whole and the impact on future procurement. Despite what Ministers say, the Government are perfectly entitled to do just that. The Secretary of State’s predecessor, Lord Adonis, commissioned an independent review of the entire intercity express programme after the preferred bidder had been announced, and the new Government carried out a further review following the election. Both reviews led to substantial changes to the project, not least the agreement that Hitachi would commit to Newton Aycliffe as the preferred site for its planned European rolling stock manufacturing and assembly centre, generating at least 500 new jobs in the north-east.

There are things that Ministers can do. As someone who was a Minister for nine years, I confirm that it is never the case that Ministers cannot do anything. Today, I urge the Minister to think again and agree to a review of the decision. Labour Members accept that we need to learn lessons from our own time in government. In view of the cross-party consensus among Back Benchers in today’s debate, I hope that we can reach a cross-party consensus on how rail procurement will be carried out in the future, particularly as these decisions inevitably cross Parliaments.

I shall offer three specific suggestions for a way forward. First, we need to consider how we operate these contracts under the European procurement directive—a point made by a number of right hon. and hon. Members. We must examine why France and Germany manage procurement whereby their home-based companies in almost all cases secure the work. Only in April this year, German national rail operator Deutsche Bahn placed a €5 billion order for 200 high-speed trains with Siemens. A major contract such as that being awarded to anyone but a domestically based company would be greeted with outrage and shock in Germany.

Secondly, we need to look at a longer-term capital investment programmes and not just stop-start, feast-and-famine programmes, as several Members have said. Manufacturers are left unable to plan ahead. Why must Bombardier have so many agency workers? It is nonsense for trains to be built by agency workers, when train building is such a skilled job. Those who build the trains should have training, a proper career path and guaranteed employment extending into the future, and they could have that if we organised our procurement better. The lack of certainty created by stop-start procurement hits investment in skills. Network Rail believes that a fifth of all procurement costs could be eliminated if there were continuity of orders. It is 800 days since the last new rolling stock order was placed. The feast-and-famine approach to rolling stock procurement, which has blighted the sector for almost 20 years, must change, and there is no reason why it cannot, given the investment in this country’s rail industry in the coming years.

Thirdly, we need to reduce the number of train designs to enable longer continuous orders, economies of scale and interoperability. Network Rail has recommended reducing the 64 different rolling stock classes that operate on the network to just three. The Competition Commission calculates the average cost per vehicle at more than £1 million, with 8% of procurement costs associated with the development of different bespoke models. Passenger rolling stock costs in Britain are 15% of the industry’s running costs. The three changes that I have outlined would make a significant difference to not only reducing that cost, but enabling British-based manufacturers to plan properly, skill their work forces adequately and secure the large, long-term, ongoing work that is achieved in sectors such as the defence industry.

In the meantime, the Government must not sit back helplessly as yet another UK manufacturing sector is lost. It is not too late to look again at the Thameslink decision. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South, the hon. Member for Amber Valley and others have said, this is not a done deal. Siemens has been named as the preferred bidder, but the contract has not been signed. While that remains the case, there is still a chance to look at the issue again and to take some action.

Interestingly, the Minister for Housing and Local Government said in a written statement to the House on 16 June that Bombardier’s bid

“also presented an attractive proposal and it is our intention to retain them as the reserve bidder.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 86WS.]

If the proposal is attractive and would protect a large number of British jobs, it must surely be right for the Minister for Transport to have another look at whether the right decision has been taken.

I want to ask the Minister a number of questions. Will she confirm on precisely what date DFT Ministers were first informed of the result of the procurement? For what reason did she reject the option of holding a funding competition, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South has mentioned? On a couple of occasions, that option could have been taken forward. Why was it not? Why, as late as the start of this year, were bidders, including Bombardier, asked to supply a range of new information if, as the Government have stated, the decision simply came down to a balance-sheet comparison? If that was the determining factor, it could have been done at an early stage in the procurement.

The Minister will be aware that Deutsche Bahn recently rejected the Siemens bogie design for the new generation of its high-speed trains and that it required the company to use the Bombardier FLEXX Eco instead. What consideration was given to that element of the contract? Will she take this opportunity to accept that it was wrong for her Department to brief the media that Bombardier would have made job losses regardless of the decision on the contract, because the company has firmly denied that claim?

[Heather Wheeler]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady has seen the letter involved, which was dated 23 May, but I have, and I am surprised that she has said what she has said.

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Lady is entitled to her opinion. I am reflecting on what the company said publicly after the Government had made their claim, which it utterly denied.

Finally, will the Minister agree to look at the procurement process for Crossrail trains? That process is at an earlier stage than Thameslink was at when she inherited it. Will she look at Crossrail again, review the contract and the procurement process and bring forward a revised proposal that includes the lessons of Thameslink?

In addressing the Chamber at the end of this excellent debate, I hope the Minister answers the questions that have been put to her. Of course, she will not have time to answer them all, because there have been very many, but it would perfectly acceptable for her to write to us with detailed answers to the questions that she does not get around to answering.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gale. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing a debate on this important issue. I welcome the contributions that he and other right hon. and hon. Members have made on this issue, which is important for Derby and the UK. I emphasise that the Government fully understand the concern that is felt. We, too, deeply regret the job losses that are under way in Derby, and we, too, are determined to do what we can to help Derby and Bombardier.

We recognise that Bombardier was hugely disappointed not be made the preferred bidder for Thameslink, but the procurement was set up and designed by the previous Government. Although we were left to open the envelope on preferred-bidder status, they set the criteria against which bids had to be judged. We are legally bound by the criteria set by Labour at the beginning of the process.

We are also legally bound by European law to judge bids on a completely blind basis. Under EU law, domestic and overseas suppliers must be judged impartially and on a wholly equal footing. Against the published criteria we inherited, the Siemens bid clearly represented better value for money.

We cannot make the location for the proposed manufacturing part of the criteria. Contrary to what the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), said, it was not a criterion for preferred-bidder status in the IEP contract that Hitachi set up a factory at Newton Aycliffe, although it has chosen to do so.

In response to a number of points made by different hon. Members, I should say that we could not simply rip up the procurement started by our predecessors. That would leave the Government at risk of facing damages in the courts and lengthen the delivery of Thameslink, which, as I have said, and as hon. Members have acknowledged, was already running 16 years late when we inherited it from the previous Government. There was no legal way we could simply ignore the Siemens bid and hand the contract to Bombardier; it simply is not in our legal power to do that.

[Maria Eagle]

Is the Minister really saying she has no power in this matter? She is the Minister.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am saying that, as the Minister, I need to abide by the law and by our obligations under the European Communities Act 1972 and the treaty of Rome; I am afraid I have no choice in that. Going forward, we of course recognise the need to examine wider issues about whether the UK approaches the application of EU procurement rules in the right way and achieves the right balance of risk. Similarly, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley that we need to see whether our approach is consistent with those used in other member states. That is why the issue will be considered as part of the Government’s growth review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Once again, I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman will have submitted his views to the Chancellor in the consultation to which I just referred.

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

Britain’s business community finds it incredible that the Government have no intention of bringing forward a proper strategy for aviation and UK airports for the next two years. Opposition Members believe that any expansion in aviation must be sustainable, but is it not nonsense for the Government to rule out any expansion in the south-east, regardless of whether or not it can be demonstrated to be sustainable. Is not the chief executive of London First right when she warns that this failure is

“damaging our economy and enhancing that of our EU rivals”?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady is right that we have a big challenge in relation to aviation growth in the south-east. What I did not hear her do was repeat Labour’s policy to build a third runway at Heathrow airport. Perhaps at some stage she could tell the House whether that remains Labour’s policy. The coalition Government cancelled the third runway at Heathrow because of the unacceptable environmental burden that it imposed, but we are committed to developing a new and sustainable aviation strategy that will allow the growth of aviation in the UK—but only when it meets its environmental obligations.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

As my hon. and learned Friend will recognise, the provision of bus services is primarily a matter for either commercial operators or local councils through tendered services, but we are cognisant of the importance of such services in rural areas and so have provided £10 million extra for community transport initiatives, and the local sustainable transport fund of £560 million allows investment in bus services in rural areas.

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

This morning the Transport Committee asked the Government to withdraw their modernisation proposals for the coastguard and consult on revised plans. Its report is very clear:

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

Despite failing to do so before now, will the Secretary of State finally listen to coastguards up and down the country and abandon his dangerous and reckless plan to close more than half of Britain’s coastguard stations?

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

We welcome the Committee’s report. If the hon. Lady looks at it carefully, she will see that it actually says that the status quo is not acceptable and that coastguard stations need to close. The process we inherited from the previous Administration had been sitting on their desks for years. We said right at the start of the process that we would listen and come up with proposals after consulting. It is a shame that they did not do the same.

McNulty Report and West Coast Rail

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the publication today of Sir Roy McNulty’s independent study into value for money in the rail industry, and to update the House about the west coast franchise process.

Sir Roy’s report notes that UK rail has enjoyed a revival in recent years, with strong and resilient growth in overall passenger numbers and in passenger satisfaction, and huge improvements in reliability and safety. The Government want Britain’s railways to continue to prosper and have demonstrated by their actions their commitment to them. Despite the difficult fiscal climate, we have allocated funding to complete Crossrail and Thameslink, and to support the upgrade of the London underground. We have announced electrification on the great western main line and in north-west England. We have resumed the intercity express programme to improve reliability, comfort and journey times on the east coast and Great Western main lines. We have given the go-ahead to the Ordsall chord project in Manchester and the Swindon to Kemble redoubling. We have confirmed the purchase of more than 2,000 new rail vehicles for Thameslink, Crossrail and other franchises, and the cascading of 100s more. Last but not least, we have begun the High Speed 2 consultation process.

But Sir Roy made another, less welcome, finding. Spending on the passenger railway has increased by 60% in real terms since 1996-97—that is more than £4 billion—and despite significant passenger growth, unit costs in 2009 were almost exactly the same in real terms as in 1996. Therefore, UK rail is now up to 40% more expensive per passenger mile than the railways of our European competitors. Allowing for unavoidable differences, Sir Roy estimates that UK rail costs are 20% to 30% higher than they should be, and that potential savings of between £740 million and £1.05 billion a year could be found by 2018-19 without any reduction in services. Those savings, added to the savings that Network Rail is committed to achieving up to 2014 and the savings that Sir Roy expects the regulator to seek from Network Rail over the period to 2019, should largely close the efficiency gap.

Many of Sir Roy’s recommendations are directed to the industry, and the open and inclusive process that the study adopted means that some of them are already being implemented. The industry has come together to form a rail delivery group to provide the leadership that Sir Roy noted was lacking in the past. Network Rail has announced its plans to devolve significant autonomy to route managers across the network, starting with the Wessex and Scottish regions.

Sir Roy’s remit, which was set by my predecessor and the Office of Rail Regulation which co-sponsored the study, was narrowly focused on the cost base of the railway. He makes a large number of recommendations. Over the coming months, the Government will consider the recommendations that are directed to them, and they will deliver their response later this year. Many of the recommendations on franchises reflect the changes that the Government have already announced. In addition, I can confirm today that my Department will accept Sir Roy’s recommendation that it should conduct a full review of fares policy, which will include addressing anomalies in the current system and the potential for much greater use of smart technology. In parallel, the Government are developing a wider rail strategy to ensure that we have an affordable, sustainable, safe and high-quality railway that delivers a better deal to taxpayers and fare payers. It will set out clearly the roles of central and local government, train operators and Network Rail in securing the future of the railway.

This is urgent and vital work. Let us be in no doubt that the excessive cost base that Sir Roy has identified is the reason that UK rail fares are the highest in Europe by some margin, even though our levels of taxpayer subsidy are also among the highest in Europe. Let us be clear about the potential prize. The successful delivery of cost reductions over the next few years on the scale set out by McNulty would enable us to reduce levels of taxpayer subsidy and, at the same time, put the era of inflation-busting fare increases behind us.

To achieve the challenging targets for cost reduction and industry-wide efficiency that Sir Roy has identified, all players in the industry will have to work together. The train operators, Network Rail, rolling stock companies, unions and the Government cannot avoid playing their part if we are to deliver a sustainable and affordable railway for the future.

Sir Roy makes it clear that the Department needs to step back from excessively detailed specification of train services and the micro-management of rail operations. I recognise that that will represent a major culture change, but it is one that I am determined to deliver. I would like to place on record my thanks to Sir Roy McNulty and his team for the excellent work they have done, and to welcome Sir Roy’s commitment to working with the industry on an ongoing basis.

I also wish to announce to the House the publication of the draft invitation to tender and stakeholder briefing document for the intercity west coast franchise, which lays out the train service specification that I am minded to procure for that route. As I have said, the Government have already adopted Sir Roy’s recommendation that franchise specifications should become less prescriptive. The proposed train service specification for intercity west coast represents a relaxation of the rigid timetable specifications of the past, while retaining obligations that protect the key elements of service such as principal first and last train services and minimum numbers of station stops per week and per day. That marks a significant shift from the micro-management under the current system that has prevented operators from maximising capacity and reacting to the changing demands of their passengers.

Among other proposed changes, we intend to replace the current cap and collar revenue-sharing system that has driven perverse behaviour by train operators with a gross domestic product-based risk-sharing arrangement and a profit-sharing mechanism that will ensure that the taxpayer benefits from any unexpected profits over the term of the franchise.

Because the relaxation of the full prescription of train services in line with Sir Roy’s recommendations was not signalled in the consultation document that we published on 19 January, I have decided that it is right and proper to consult on the proposals again, starting today and ending on 17 August. As a consequence of that decision, I can inform the House that the new franchise for the intercity west coast will now be awarded in August 2012, after a competitive process involving the four shortlisted train operators, and will commence operations on 9 December 2012. In making that decision, I have deliberately avoided a change of franchise immediately ahead of or during the Olympic period. I have also decided to take advantage of the short delay to complete the integration of the 106 new Pendolino carriages into the fleet prior to the commencement of the new franchise. The Department will seek to agree acceptable terms with the existing franchisee for a contract extension to 9 December 2012, but Directly Operated Railways Ltd, the Government-owned company that runs East Coast, will be ready to operate the franchise between April and December 2012 if necessary.

Copies of the rail value-for-money study and the draft invitation to tender for the west coast main line have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the Department’s website. Our expectation is that future passenger franchises on UK rail will allow operators greater flexibility to meet passenger demand and pursue innovation, while protecting the key elements of service for passengers.

Longer franchises and a changed relationship with Network Rail will have a positive impact on the behaviour of train operators and their appetite for investment and risk taking. However, I want to send a clear message that the new culture of co-operation in the rail industry, and the focus on cost reduction, is here to stay and is mandatory, not optional. I can announce today that as a matter of policy for all future franchise competitions, a significant part of the assessment of bidders’ capability at the pre-qualification stage will be evidence of success in collaborative working and driving down costs.

The facts are clear: our railway costs too much, and in consequence fares are rising faster than inflation and taxpayer subsidy has reached unsustainable levels. To secure the future of the railway, we now have to tackle that problem after a decade of ignoring it and get costs into line with those of our European comparators, bringing relief to taxpayers and the prospect of an end to the era of above-inflation fare increases to passengers. I commend this statement to the House.

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

I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. May I place on record the thanks of Labour Members to Sir Roy McNulty for the detailed and thorough work that he has carried out? As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, that work began under the previous Government.

I have said before that we would look seriously at the conclusions of the value-for-money review and support any sensible proposals to take costs out of the industry. I promise again today that we will study the details of Sir Roy’s report, and that it will inform our own transport policy review.

I agree with the Secretary of State that we should reduce the public subsidy to the rail industry, and we need to be clear about why much of that subsidy exists if we are to address it effectively. It is partly the result of the enormous structural fragmentation within the industry, and let us be clear that that fragmentation is the legacy of the botched privatisation carried out in the dying days of the last Conservative Government. The Secretary of State should have apologised today for the shambles of that privatisation and the staggering sums of money wasted as a result. Unlike him, I take our share of the responsibility for being too timid about addressing that fragmentation during our time in government.

Closer working between train operators and Network Rail makes sense, and I support the internal reorganisation that is going on at Network Rail and many of the proposals that have been made to ensure that costs are removed through greater partnership. I am pleased that the Secretary of State appears to have stepped back from his earlier plans for the wholesale breaking up of our rail infrastructure, which would have been a costly mistake and added yet more fragmentation to the industry. Can he confirm that he does not intend to proceed with an experiment of handing track over to train operating companies within any of the franchise areas? Previously there has been briefing that the East Anglia franchise would be used for that experiment. Can he reassure the House that that is no longer the plan?

I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to establish a proper review of fares. Despite the efforts that we made, the current system is too complex and leaves passengers frustrated. However, does he understand why passengers will have very little faith that he does not intend to impose yet further hikes in ticket prices? At a time when families are feeling the squeeze on their household budgets, he has imposed fare rises of more than 30% over the next three years. I believe he was wrong to give back to train companies the right to average out the cap across their fares, rather than apply it to each fare individually as we insisted when we were in government. He was also wrong to increase the cap on regulated fares from 1% to 3% above inflation.

In opposition, the current Minister of State said that fare rises of such a level would

“price people off the railways”,

and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), promised below-inflation fare rises—more broken promises from the two Government parties. Will the Secretary of State reject proposals to give the train operating companies greater freedom to set the level of fares? Will he listen to his own consumer watchdog, Passenger Focus, which has today described the suggestion of reducing regulation on off-peak tickets as a “leap in the dark”? Does he share its concern, as I do, that if the plans go ahead, we might end up with affordable, flexible travel for longer journeys being confined to a brief window in the middle of the day?

Will the Secretary of State also reject the suggestion to remove any role for politicians in the setting of fares, which would effectively remove any public accountability for fares through the ballot box? The link between the fare box and the ballot box should not be broken.

May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to approach reform to staffing levels and pay and conditions within the rail industry in a spirit of partnership, not confrontation? That is something that we have not seen in the language and tone of briefings by his Department in recent days. I urge the trade unions to work with the Government as they look to carry out reforms within the industry, but will he ensure that he includes those who represent staff on the high-level group that he is establishing to take forward these reforms? As he considers staffing, will he understand the value that passengers place on staffed trains and open ticket offices, and the fact that women in particular feel safer in properly staffed stations, particularly late at night?

We have heard today the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman’s policy on rail franchising has descended into chaos and confusion, with his decision to delay the awarding of the west coast franchise. Can he confirm that First Group is to hand back its Great Western franchise three years ahead of schedule? Is the reason that it has given for that decision, as reported in the press, that it has calculated that it will make losses in the final years of its franchise period? Does he agree that that is unacceptable?

Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is a possibility that the east coast main line, the west coast main line and the Great Western franchises will all be run by the Government while he decides what his franchising policy is? Does that not make a mockery of the whole franchising system?

Does the Secretary of State understand why commuters in East Anglia are dismayed at the cost and chaos of his decision to award a contract for less than two years, risking three owners in as many years, with only the companies that supply the paint to redo the liveries benefiting? Are not the future of franchising, the massive public subsidies that go to the private train operating companies, and the vast sums that leave the industry in profits the big missing pieces of the work of looking at costs in the industry?

I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to replace the current cap and collar revenue-sharing system, but does he agree that we will not get the costs of the industry under control until we look seriously at its structure and the future of franchising? The public want a simplified industry—one in which the driving force is less maximising profit and squeezing every last penny out of the fare payer and the taxpayer, and more the delivery of a world-class service. That is why I have committed Labour’s policy review to look at alternative models for the future of the rail industry, including not-for-profit models. I urge him to do the same.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman’s statement was not the only announcement to be widely spun and briefed to the media in advance of his coming before the House. Several newspapers are reporting that he has abandoned his plans to close more than half the UK’s coastguard stations, yet the Opposition understand that far from abandoning the plans, he has simply put them on hold. Those plans were never agreed by Ministers in the previous Government, and I would not have approved them. Will he now take this opportunity to end the huge uncertainty facing coastguard stations and agree to abandon those reckless proposals?

[Mr Hammond]

I might get some guidance from you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on whether it is appropriate for me to respond to the hon. Lady’s comments on coastguards—I would be happy to do so if you indicate that that is in order.