Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Debate between James Wild and Keir Mather

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

When I was in Southampton a few days ago, the intricacies, the difficulties and, ultimately, the horribleness of mud rescues were explained to me. The hon. Lady very powerfully makes the point that it is difficult for people who are not active CROs to understand the level of commitment required to carry out this dangerous work in the service of people they have never met.

On changing the law and legislative carve-outs, I have been quite clear that, while there are options to facilitate this, they are not a quick fix. Such options will not give CROs certainty in the moment, but they have been considered. On operational risk, I can confirm to the hon. Member and reassure her that impact modelling based on data was carried out by the MCA to inform the recommendation. Robust contingency plans do exist across the search-and-rescue capability of the coastguard and other services to enable them to respond to people in distress across the United Kingdom. We do not want to get into such a situation, however, and that is exactly why I have said what I have said to the House today.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Hunstanton coastguard rescue officers I have met responded to 150 emergency shouts last year, and the small payment helped them to perform this role for locals and visitors alike. However, with 50% of officers in East Anglia saying they would quit or reduce their availability, is the Minister really prepared to take responsibility for the risk to public safety, or will he now simply stop these changes from coming into effect in September while we work on a long-term solution?

[Keir Mather]

We need to work through this process strategically and methodically to ensure we are taking the right decision based on data and the lived experience of CROs. I have paused the engagement this week to allow us to more clearly get a better read of this situation, and that will inform my approach.

Railways Bill

Debate between James Wild and Keir Mather

Report stage
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

Absolutely. To build on my hon. Friend’s point, this is very much the start of the conversation, not the end of it, in thinking about how GBR can better integrate rail services that are run through mayoral strategic authorities with the wider network, with mayors of course being able to use funding for GBR services where they think it can improve transport provision in their area.

As I begin to wind down, I will touch on issues impacting constituencies, which include amendments 65, 67, 68 and 69 and new clauses 35 and 42. It is absolutely a Government priority to upgrade key areas of the network. For instance, we have already committed £1.1 billion of funding to improve rail services in the north via Northern Powerhouse Rail. However, this Bill is focused on setting up GBR and transforming the structure of the railways. It is not the appropriate place for commitments to specific infrastructure or station projects.

[James Wild]

The Minister referred to my new clause 35, and to £1 billion of funding to the north; how much is the east of England getting?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member is a tireless advocate for his part of the country, and we can continue our conversations. I merely reflected the point that having things about specific transport projects on the face of legislation is not the right way to address it, in the view of the Government, but I would be glad to meet him to take the conversation further.