Port of Southampton

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Denham]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I will explain the reason why that September to March period is so critical. For entirely legitimate environmental reasons, that activity cannot take place all year round, so we could miss that deadline. As I will say in a moment, contracts need to be let ahead of September if work is going to be started in September—that is critical. If it is not done by next year, the port clearly will be unable to offer the capacity it would like to for the latter part of 2012 and, in particular, 2013.

This debate should not be necessary. The need for investment was identified in a scoping study submitted by ABP to the Marine and Fisheries Agency, the predecessor of today’s Marine Management Organisation, in 2007—in what most people regard as perfectly good time to get the necessary approvals and to get the work under way. In January 2008, following consultation with various bodies, the MMO issued a formal scoping opinion that advised ABP of the scope and content of the required environmental impact assessment. That point is crucial, because not for the last time in this process, ABP was advised and directed to take a particular course of action, and it complied fully. ABP submitted its application on 15 December 2008. The applications were advertised using a form of words directed by the MMO. In February 2009, issues were raised in consultation by Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and, I understand, successfully resolved. However, in December 2009, nearly two years after the MMO’s original scoping opinion, the MMO then decided that the public notice it had supplied was incorrectly worded. ABP was asked to place further public notices, using replacement wording supplied by the MMO. That mistake delayed the process by a full 10 months. It is worth noting that Hutchison Ports, the operators of Felixstowe, did not raise any objections during the original consultation. However, following the re-advertisement and during the second consultation, it then did, arguing that the original environmental impact assessment, which was drawn up to the MMO’s specification, had not considered operational impact issues.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why Network Rail and the Highways Agency were not included in the original consultation?

[Mr Denham]

The point about this procedure is twofold. Throughout this process, ABP took guidance from the MMO as to what requirements it needed to fulfil. It was reasonable for ABP to do that. It is because it was not well advised—indeed, it was advised to do other things—that we have ended up in this position.

In April 2010, following the re-advertisement and the intervention from Hutchison, which has no local interest at all in this matter—it is purely a commercial rival issue—and having raised those issues, the chief executive of the MMO wrote to ABP, stating:

“Please be assured that the MMO is working pro-actively with ABP to resolve these cases swiftly.”

However, it was not until February 2011, more than three years after the original application, that the MMO finally issued consent, in good time to get this work under way.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is appropriate that we are discussing Southampton port this morning, one day before the House discusses the national ports infrastructure planning document. That document looks, among other things, at the whole question of the strategic role of ports in the UK and at the requirements for ensuring that our ports continue to play such a strategic role in the best way that we can arrange. That is vital.

UK ports provide 95% of our capacity for importing and exporting goods; 95% of imports and exports go through UK ports. So the best possible deployment of UK ports is essential. Historically, Southampton, with Felixstowe and many other UK ports, has always played a major role in providing that national infrastructure, which, as hon. Members have said, is being maintained and improved predominantly on the basis of investment by the companies that run the ports.

Southampton and Felixstowe are particularly important in terms of national strategic planning inasmuch as they are two of the country’s leading container ports with a large throughput of containers. They are either side of London, in close proximity to major international shipping routes, and are vitally placed for receipt of containers, which then go to the rest of the UK. Indeed, the Government have recognised the importance of those strategic ports in terms of what has happened with assistance not to the ports, but to the infrastructure in the recent upgrade of the rail line from Southampton to the midlands, and the proposed upgrade in road access to Felixstowe port.

The Government have recognised the infrastructure considerations for the same reason that ports recognise what they need to do to maintain their competitiveness, not with one another, but as part of the national ports infrastructure. The Southampton rail upgrade is a good example. The international standard now is high-box containers with a height of 9 feet. They cannot be transported efficiently on traditional rail-based container transport, not least because they tend to collide with bridges. To upgrade to international standards and to maintain competitiveness, it is necessary to prevent containers from colliding with bridges on the way north, which is an upgrade to stay in the same place.

It is interesting to reflect on a debate that I obtained 11 or 12 years ago on the future of Southampton port. I speculated about the level of container traffic that would be required in future for UK ports, and the size of container vessels that would come to the port. I talked then about the prospect of vessels of perhaps 8,000 to 10,000 containers coming into the port, and the necessity of considering how we would deal with larger vessels coming in. Now, Southampton’s main customers are talking about shortly bringing in not 8,000-container vessels, not 4,000-container vessels, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) mentioned and which was the standard a few years ago, but 13,000-container vessels. If our ports in general cannot take those vessels, that will be detrimental to Britain’s national strategic port planning, not just to Southampton or any other specific port.

As my right hon. Friend said, the issue is not just that container-vessel traffic is distributed around the UK; ports across the channel are able and waiting to take traffic that comes up through the channel to container ports. If those vessels turn right because they cannot turn left to the UK because of their size, containers will be trans-shipped from the continent to the UK at a cost of £100 per container over and above what happens at present when they arrive in the UK. Yes, we would receive our containers, and yes, business might proceed as usual, but at a considerable cost to the UK economy and considerable detriment to our strategic port planning.

It is essential that ports such as Southampton address the issues, and Southampton has done precisely that in its proposed £150 million investment in its container terminal, not a new container terminal, but an upgraded one. Ships already come into the port, and the £150 million is for dredging and upgrading the facilities to ensure that new, larger vessels can come into Southampton and be dealt with.

As my right hon. Friend said, not only has Southampton addressed the issue, but it thought that it had introduced its proposals in good time a few years ago. It is a sad record that the Marine Management Organisation has been less than fully adequate in dealing with the challenge of that proposal. It had to re-issue the consultation; it apparently retreated in the face of judicial review when permission had been given; and more recently it has cast around to see whether it has the power to resist further judicial review and challenge of its inherited powers from the Board of Trade in terms of permissions. Southampton made its proposals not just in good time, but in very good time. However, it is faced with the prospect that, if matters do not now go absolutely right—among other things, the salmon run up the River Test is an issue—it will lose its very last window to put that vital upgrade in place to cope with future business at the port.

Why has that judicial review come forward, and why has the Marine Management Organisation, apparently petrified about the possibility of further judicial review, reviewed its powers accordingly? Is it because local amenity groups in Southampton are up in arms? Is it because the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is worried about the effect on birds? Is it because English Heritage is worried about the effect on the Solent? Is it because Natural England is worried about the natural environment around Southampton? No. None of those organisations has ever objected to the proposal, and none has ever tried to stop it. All agree that the arrangements are satisfactory. Indeed, I understand that no one in the Southampton area has ever objected to the proposal. Nor should they, because the proposal is to upgrade an existing container terminal to bring it up to date with what is required for the port. That is all.

It is astonishing to hear that an organisation from its vantage point 200 miles away has introduced judicial review of the upgrade’s details into the proceedings. It might be said that that organisation wants a level playing field. That appears to be more of a cover than an up-front argument, and it does not require an enormous amount of brainpower to consider what might happen if the port of Southampton were made to go backwards rather than forwards. That is what happens with port management; ports either lose trade or they gain it.

UK trade can be obtained for everyone; it is not a zero-sum game. It is not, however, difficult to conclude that Hutchison Ports believes that delaying or scuppering Southampton’s plans to upgrade its facilities, thereby making it unable to accept larger ships, would directly benefit Felixstowe. A judicial review is a fairly small investment—perhaps £100,000—for what is potentially a large gain. I caution, however, that such a move does not necessarily mean that more traffic will go to Felixstowe. It may not end up in the UK at all, and even if some of it did, in terms of UK plc it is equivalent to one car manufacturer seeking to sabotage another’s production line in the hope that the public will buy its cars, even if some members of the public then buy imported cars. That is the sort of action we are contemplating, and if that is the motivation behind the judicial review, I deplore the fact that it has been requested.

I have reflected on the importance of the port of Southampton to UK plc, and feel that any attempt to obtain such a review should be resisted. We need the ports of Southampton, Felixstowe, Liverpool, Hull, Portishead, Thamesport and others because, as we will discuss tomorrow, they will play a vital role in planning the UK’s future port capacity. The development of the port of Southampton is not only about Southampton but about UK plc making its way and dealing with imports and exports from and to the world. If Southampton fails to get its upgrade as a result of backstairs dealing and, quite frankly, poor service by the body that is required to decide on such applications, that will be of detriment not only to Southampton but to the UK as a whole.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman makes the case proudly for Southampton port, as did his right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham). It is a bit of a shame, however, to start impugning commercial decisions. We as parliamentarians want companies to be treated consistently by Government agencies, and in the example we are discussing consistency was not applied. The MMO has ended up paying the costs of the judicial review because it failed to apply the law as it should have done.

[Dr Whitehead]

There is some force in what hon. Lady says. It is a shame, however, that we have to think about the possible motivations behind those who apply for a judicial review. From my vantage point, the conclusion that the prime motivation behind this judicial review did not involve a concern for level playing fields is almost inescapable. Level playing fields should exist for everybody, but someone feeling that they were not applied in their particular circumstances does not warrant an attempt to upset the playing fields for everybody in the country. I hope that we will hear no more about the judicial review, and that mature consideration of what is best for all, including the ports of Felixstowe, Southampton and the others that I mentioned, will prevail.

I hope that this debate, and the efforts made by many of my colleagues from across the south to assist Southampton’s progress with its application, will mean that at this final stage, the MMO ensures that the process proceeds as quickly as possible, and that those involved with UK ports consider what is best for all our ports, rather than individual interests. If that is a result of today’s debate, which I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen on obtaining, it will have been a prize worth fighting for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

That is a neat argument, but it would have a little more force if the port of Liverpool were not owned privately by Peel Ports. One should not compare what happened to Southampton before it was privately owned with what is happening to Liverpool when it is privately owned. It was a nice try, however, and I give the hon. Gentleman full credit for it.

In the spirit of consensus we have in the debate, I must acknowledge—I think ABP acknowledges this as well—that Hutchison Ports has had a bad deal. More than one local Member has ably made the point that Hutchison Ports feels that it was treated unfairly in comparison with other ports, so it has been making a point of saying that if it does not get fair treatment, it will put a spanner in the works so that other people do not get fair treatment either. I had some friendly and helpful interactions with Hutchison Ports at the time of the Dibden bay dispute, and I say to the company that it has made its point effectively, but it would be carrying things too far to try to make it again.

Time is of the essence, not only in this debate but in terms of the need to make a decision. I conclude by saying that if the debate has focused Ministers’ attention—and, through Ministers, the attention of the Marine Management Organisation—on the need to conclude this over-long process as soon as possible, it will have achieved its objective.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

rose—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), whom I know represents the port of Felixstowe, I remind her that the debate is about the future of the port of Southampton, to which she must confine her remarks.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I intend to refer to many of the comments that have been made about the actions of Hutchison Ports, rather than to proselytise about the benefits of Felixstowe, which are already well known in the House.

Associated British Ports is an investor in the Suffolk ports of Ipswich and Lowestoft, as well as in Southampton. I want to reinforce the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made about consistency and a level playing field. I commend the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on his advocacy of the port of Southampton. As I mentioned in my intervention, companies that we represent are entitled to expect that Government agencies act within the law, and when they do not, it is reasonable to challenge them. The MMO suffers from the sins of its predecessor, but that happens with Governments, agencies and companies, which have to deal with the hand they are given. The MMO fell down initially in accepting the decision and subsequently admitted that it had acted unlawfully, so the order was granted.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) pointed out some of the challenges of onshore distribution using the rail and road networks, which have received a lot of investment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) alluded to. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen was not able to answer for the fact that ABP did not consult organisations such as Network Rail, the Department for Transport rail department or the Highways Agency when considering the land-side environmental impact assessment of its application. I am sympathetic to ABP’s point that it relied on the advice of the Marine and Fisheries Agency at the time, and hindsight is a great teacher. I am surprised that ABP relied on a fisheries agency to provide full planning advice and did not use its own advice to ensure that it had covered every aspect of the planning application, because it is experienced in doing such things.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) mentioned meddling by a commercial rival. Let me provide a parallel example of what might happen if the law on regulation was not applied consistently. If the Football League brought in transfer conditions that Southampton football club had to apply, but Portsmouth was allowed not to follow the regulations, I can imagine the rows between Southampton and Portsmouth supporters. Members of Parliament would be equally frustrated about the lack of even-handedness. Although I appreciate that the emotions involved in football do not stretch to the technicalities of a planning application, the same issues are involved. Commercially, we want a consistent response from Government agencies.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am in favour of any positive discrimination that involves Portsmouth football club. We are talking about the economic benefit to the whole of the UK. Leaving aside any commercial rivalries or geographical disputes, we have to look at jobs, economic prosperity and income, which are important for the future of UK plc.

[Dr Coffey]

I understand that perspective entirely, and I will address it briefly.

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has been inconsistent in his argument. He was very generous to Hutchison, especially regarding its advice on Dibden bay, which I remember well because I lived in Hampshire at the time. Again, the argument is about consistency, and ABP and Hutchison are united in saying that nobody objects to Liverpool’s having a cruise terminal, but it should be on equal terms. Both port operators share that position. I do not, therefore, accept that we are talking about different things, although the joy of being a politician is that our greatest competence has to be dealing with paradox.

[Mr Denham]

I realise that time is short, but the point about the legal challenge is that no one is suggesting that Hutchison has suffered massive commercial damage because the MMO got its procedures wrong. If the port of Felixstowe faced closure because of bungling by the MMO, I would understand the hon. Lady’s point. However, she is justifying doing enormous commercial damage to the port of Southampton and the United Kingdom because something has been found not to have been done properly, and the action is totally out of proportion to any damage that Felixstowe has suffered. That is really the objection of Members from Hampshire on both sides of the Chamber.

[Dr Coffey]

I understand that perspective entirely. I am not suggesting that I would encourage Hutchison to continue to apply for judicial review after judicial review.

I have no objection to Southampton being able to accommodate the largest boats, just as Felixstowe can now, but it is critical to encourage the MMO to act swiftly and properly. At the end of the day, it is about ensuring that our civil service agencies can tackle things, and as was said earlier there is the question of making sure that there are resources. It is about focusing on what matters for the UK economy. If the agency had pulled its finger out and made sure that ABP had done its assessment properly in the first place, we might not be in this mess. I would encourage the agency to devote its resources to the issue in question, rather than devoting any further resources to marine conservation zones; that would have an impact on ports around the country, including Southampton and Felixstowe. It should make sure it is business-friendly, pull its finger out and ensure that the law is applied consistently.

Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

After that comedy of errors, it is appropriate that it is red nose day today. I will open with a quick question. What do you find lying on a seabed shivering? The answer is a nervous wreck. Perhaps I am a bit of a nervous wreck because I finally get to speak to the Bill that stands in my name.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this Bill. In my constituency, which contains the premier port of Felixstowe, large ships, including many cargo tankers, as well as container ships, are a feature on the horizon looking out across the North sea. However, they also bring to mind the risk of the greatest possible casualty for any marine vessel and any mariner—a shipwreck. Although the seas can be a dangerous place, we are justly proud of our record in this country in preventing accidents and dealing with those that do occur.

However, complacency is no place to be, and we have an opportunity through this Bill to implement the International Maritime Organisation’s international convention on the removal of wrecks. The underlying principle of that convention is that the liability for removing wrecks is placed firmly with the shipowner rather than the British taxpayer. The wreck removal convention is a new international instrument negotiated by the previous Government, and primary legislation is required to implement it. I commend this to my hon. Friends because it is not a European competence; the powers of this House are required to initiate this important law.

The Bill’s provisions will be enacted only if nine other nation states ratify the convention. One state has already done so, and eight have proceedings under way. I believe that the United Kingdom Parliament, by enacting this in due course, will lead as an example to other nation states in encouraging them to get on with it and put this important convention in place.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on having found a piece of legislation that is not a European competence.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. One can imagine that I picked my Bill carefully so that it was not a money Bill and required our primary competence.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Is it not correct that if my hon. Friend were to take all the possible provisions that she could have promoted in the House on a random basis, there would be a seven out of eight chance that she would pick something that was not a European competence?

[Dr Coffey]

That may well be true, but when I came to choose my Bill I wanted something that was relevant to the people of my constituency and to the United Kingdom, and I am proud to have done so.

Why does this Bill matter? A wreck can cause a number of problems. It may constitute a hazard to navigation, potentially endangering other vessels and their crews. It may block a port, which would be highly damaging to our country’s trade, as well as to offshore infrastructure such as oil rigs, buoys, wind farms and similar. It may cause substantial damage to the marine and coastal environments, both of which are precious. It can also be exceptionally expensive to deal with. Currently, there is no requirement for a shipowner to remove a wreck or pay for its removal, except in specific cases of pollution, where the Secretary of State can already act. Even then, however, the cost of recovery is not guaranteed. The UK has no powers to act on UK and non-UK ships outside its territorial seas, except in circumstances of pollution within the UK’s pollution zone.

Let me offer in support of the Bill two examples of recent incidents. In 2007, MSC Napoli, a UK-registered container ship, suffered flooding in her engine room during severe weather conditions. Due to the risk of pollution, SOSREP—Secretary of State’s Representative—an agency of the UK Government, in conjunction with the French authorities, used its emergency powers to intervene. To date, the Government’s costs in dealing with this wreck are approximately £2.8 million, which they do not expect to be able to recover in full. If this convention had been in place, we could have done so.

A second example, which is a bit closer to home for me, is that of the Lagik, a non-UK registered ship that was grounded on the River Nene in 2000. A combination of the weight of the ship and the cargo of steel broke the ship’s back as the tide ebbed. It was declared a total constructive loss. That incident closed the port of Wisbech for 44 days. I dread to think what would happen if the port of Felixstowe was closed for a similar length of time. The Lagik was abandoned by her owners, so the task fell to the Government and their agencies at a cost of about £1.25 million. Despite attempts to recover the costs through legal action, not a single penny has been recovered. Again, that would not have been the case if the convention had been in place.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill. It clearly has the potential to save the taxpayer a great deal of money. Does it extend as far as covering the costs of consequential damage caused by a shipwreck, such as that caused by the escape of its cargo, which could be oil and would thereby have a tremendous, adverse environmental impact?

[Dr Coffey]

I understand that consequential costs could also be recovered. There are already powers to deal with pollution, including oil spills.

The purpose of the convention and of the Bill is to lay primary responsibility for the removal of the wreck and subsequent clearing costs with the shipowner, while providing powers to the Secretary of State to act if the shipowner does not do so expeditiously.

The Bill requires ships of 300 gross tonnage and above to maintain insurance for this liability, which will be enforced through a wreck removal insurance certification scheme. I assure hon. Members that as soon as 10 nation states implement the convention, that will effectively become a worldwide requirement, so it will not deter boats from coming to UK ports. Importantly, the UK authorities will be given the power to take action to recover costs directly from insurers.

It is a great privilege to take a Bill through this House and I am happy to be doing so in my first Session. I hope that it will progress well in the Lords, and indeed in this place. My predecessor, Lord Deben, was never fortunate enough to be called in the ballot, so this is one small achievement that I now have as the Member for Suffolk Coastal. This is an important Bill and I commend it to the House.

Coastguard Service

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I shall do away with the niceties, apart from congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this exceptionally important debate. However, I will say something else that is a bit of a nicety—I do not want to suggest that the Minister is in any way committed to increasing risk for the people of this nation. He and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) both served in the fire service, and they are absolutely committed to the safety of one and all in a far stronger way than I have ever been.

I welcome several of the proposals and believe that change is required. I recognise that changes in technology and the evolving nature of our seas mean that the status quo is not always necessary. I was surprised to discover, as a result of the consultation, that most of our coastguard stations are linked only to each other, and particularly that Thames and Yarmouth are not linked. Those are the two coastguard stations that cover my constituency, with the Yarmouth centre covering down to about Southwold, and the Thames centre at Walton-on-the-Naze coming up the other way. I welcome changes that mean that coastguard centres will be working together, regardless of numbers. I also welcome the changes that will enhance the volunteer side, and I understand that aspects of pay might be being looked at, so that we can invest in the people who remain in the coastguard service.

I want to point out a few issues that relate to my constituency and to try to get some clarity from the Minister. The consultation document discusses how the seas are becoming more congested and how ships are getting larger. It talks about oil carriers, a busier coastline and extreme weather conditions that lead to increased coastal flooding. All those issues apply fully and squarely to my constituency, where we have the largest container port in the country at Felixstowe and, as of April 2011, the only area within inshore coastal waters where ship-to-ship oil transfers are allowed. I recognise that 70% of incidents involve leisure vessels—a high proportion of activities up and down the coast, and in and out of the creeks and estuaries, are leisure based—in addition to incidents in the shipping lanes around Felixstowe.

I am interested to understand how the decisions about which centres should remain open were made. Yarmouth and Thames both respond to a large number of incidents, of which there are more than in Dover. Dover also has responsibility for the Dover strait and the Channel Navigation Information Service. I would have thought that the number of incidents handled by each centre would have come into the review, but I do not see how that has been addressed. On a broader point about the Border Agency, I would have thought that the coastguard service would be one of the links in trying to ensure that we have safer borders. In the consultation, there is a focus on allowing senior managers to free up time to have such a relationship with other partners. The police are specifically mentioned, and I assume that that relates not only to people’s safety but to crime and other such activities.

The narrative from my constituents includes the assumption that the closure of the coastguard centres means that there will be no full-time paid coastguards delivering the service. It would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify whether in areas where coastguard centres are to be closed, we will rely solely on volunteers. If that is the case, I will be genuinely concerned. I share the coastguard at Lowestoft, and its branch at Southwold, with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), and the teams there are about 60% full. Southwold has five vacancies and Lowestoft seven, which means that we have only three people on the Southwold team.

The consultation document also mentions some of the roles that the coastguard will have in the future—vessel traffic monitoring, for example. It talks about how automatic identification systems provide

“precise real time data up to about 30 miles from the coast”,

which is welcome, but it also states:

“In the coming years the development of Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) will mean that ships can be tracked over much longer distances”.

It would be interesting to understand the time scale for that, and how it will fit into the role of vessel traffic monitoring. There is also the creation of counter-pollution officer roles, which all seem to be based in Southampton, and an understanding of some of the risk assessments undertaken would help us to see which parts of the country are perceived to have the greatest pollution challenges.

I come back to ship-to-ship transfers. I do not seek to use the debate to open up that issue, but when it was mentioned, Yarmouth coastguard agency was identified as the monitoring body.

I will finish here, Mr Hancock.

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much.

[Dr Coffey]

I appreciate that. I was one of the hon. Members who submitted a letter requesting to speak before the debate.

I would be grateful if the Minister were to clarify whether the response to incidents will be solely from volunteers, so that instead of having to resort to freedom of information requests we could provide more detailed information, by centre, on timing and number of incidents. I would also be grateful if he were to refer to the monitoring of ship-to-ship transfers.

Winter Weather

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The point I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to make is simply not valid. The problem last year was that domestic suppliers could not keep up with demand. Local authorities ran down their stocks, in some cases to nil, and during the summer they needed to rebuild those stocks. To have had the Highways Agency trying to build a strategic stockpile in competition with them would have been deeply unhelpful. We took the decision to import the large part of the strategic stockpile, even though that means paying very considerably higher prices, so that local authorities could restock and the strategic stockpile could be built in parallel.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State talk to his departmental colleagues, and also to the Prime Minister, about emphasising to people the importance of checking on their neighbours? I acknowledge the work that has been done on ensuring that there is grit, and we have learned the lessons of last winter, but it is essential that we do not forget our communities locally.

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend reminds the House of a very important message. We have talked about people struggling to get to work and wrestling with the transport network, but many people, often the elderly, are stuck in their homes and they may be getting into difficulty—they may be unable to shop, for instance. It is very important that we keep delivering the message that those who are able to get out should check on their neighbours and see if there is anything they can do to help.