Coastguard Service

Debate between Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Thursday 24th March 2011 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr MacNeil]

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

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

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

Foreign Affairs and Defence

Debate between Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I am grateful to the Defence Secretary for that intervention, and for his undertaking.

I also wish to deal with the issue of Trident, to which I come as someone who has always been convinced of the utility of nuclear weapons and accepted the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence. We have moved, of course, from mutually assured destruction, through flexible response, to minimum deterrence and weapons of last resort. In fact, the United Kingdom has a good history of nuclear disarmament. When I first took an interest in these matters, as long ago as 1988, we were still talking about nuclear depth charges, nuclear artillery shells and an air-to-surface missile with a nuclear warhead, and we still had free-fall bombs. All those have been dispensed with, so the UK has a solid record on these matters. However, it is illogical not to consider that Trident should be in the full-scale defence and security review. It is a strategic system being excluded from a strategic review, which does not seem to make sense.

The proposal contained in the coalition agreement is that Trident should be examined from the point of view of value for money. I do not believe that we can consider it in that way without considering whether it is required, and whether there are reasonable alternatives. The procurement cost of Trident is approximately £20 billion, and the through-life cost £100 billion, according to a recent estimate. There are those who claim that we can save £100 billion by cancelling Trident. We can, but only by the end of what would otherwise have been the period of the through-life costs. It is not an instant hit, as some have claimed.

The case for Trident’s inclusion in the review is overwhelming. How can we assess its value for money if we do not assess the possible alternatives? The questions that should be asked in that review, anchored in the notion of value for money, are whether it is possible to engage in such a way that there could be a further life extension of the existing system; whether it is possible that we can dispense with continuous at-sea deterrence, which essentially means patrols 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year; and whether it is possible that we could modify Astute submarines to carry Trident. There is already strong anecdotal evidence that work to that effect is being carried out in the Ministry of Defence.

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

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?