Coastguard Centres (Staffing)

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Bill Esterson

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in the last, but I hope by no means the least, debate of the day. I look forward to hearing the response from the Department for Transport on the issues I will raise.

It is now about three years since the coastguard went through the upheaval of reorganisation, changes and closures, onwards towards its new structure. Of course I mourn the loss to Scotland of the Clyde and Forth coastguard stations. Scotland has 66% of the UK’s coastline, but, alas, only 33% of the coastguard stations. I am glad that we managed to save Stornoway station, which is now a very important coastguard station. It has a search and rescue helicopter—at one point, it had an emergency towing vessel, a tugboat—and is located in an important sea area. I am glad that we also still have in Scotland the Shetland and Aberdeen stations.

Stornoway is located between Belfast to the south and Shetland to the north, and covers a large sea area, not least because the next station to the west—perhaps the one direction I have not yet mentioned—is in Canada. Stornoway station’s area of responsibility covers about 250,000 square miles of sea, and meets the Canadians’ area at 30° west, about a time zone and a half away; Stornoway lies about 7° west. I had thought that Shetland station’s area of responsibility would be larger, but the Faroe Islands lie to its west and Norway to the east and north.

Those are just a few facts that can be found out by your average MP when they visit the local coastguard station. I bring them to hon. Members’ attention because they emphasise the international aspect of maritime activity, which could doubtless be further underlined by the station to our south, Belfast, which no doubt deals with coastguard colleagues in other jurisdictions such as the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland.

As I said, it is now over three years since the announcement that, importantly for me, confirmed that the hard work had paid off and Stornoway coastguard station was saved. The date was 22 November 2011, and it was a Tuesday—one that brought great relief not just to me but to those working at the station and people round about. We kept our coastal maritime expertise in Stornoway, and with it the associated local knowledge and jobs, as well as the intimate interaction with our local fishing community.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I do not want to take away from what the hon. Gentleman has said about the people of Stornoway, but on that same date the people of Crosby coastguard station had exactly the opposite reaction, because of the announcement of the closure of that station with the loss of jobs unless people were prepared to relocate to either Southampton or, in some cases, Holyhead. The subject he has chosen for his debate is the staffing of coastguard stations, and I am interested to hear what he has to say on that point. Many of the staff at Crosby have not been able to transfer, and grave concerns have been raised with me about the standard of recruitment and training of replacement staff. Have similar points been raised with him?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I understand from what he says that, unfortunately, Stornoway is not the only place affected like this, but I am pleased to hear that Bangor had a successful localised approach.

The situation facing some of us is an eight-month delay, which has had an unfortunate result for at least one new recruit, who gave up her job when she accepted the coastguard job, only for it to become apparent later that she would have to wait many months, until February, without salaried employment while she waited to start the job with the coastguard.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman is raising some worrying examples, and I can add to them because information given to me suggests that existing coastguard staff have felt criticised by senior agency management—so much so that some of them have left, which perhaps explains some of the evidence he gave earlier. That concerns me not just in terms of what is going on with the closure at Liverpool, but what is happening at Fareham and elsewhere and the knock-on effect on the service’s ability to deliver. It does not bode well if quality and experienced staff are being criticised.

[Mr MacNeil]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have some evidence that I was not going to use because I thought there was not enough support behind it. Essentially, it is an e-mail containing implied criticism of existing staff, saying that there were better, more highly trained, more experienced or higher quality staff—I cannot remember the exact words—and existing staff felt undermined by that. I will be charitable and say that that was unfortunate, but there seems to be more than one example, or it may be the same example in many places, but it is unfortunate that the situation arose.

I return to the new recruit at Stornoway. I cannot help but think that that person has been mucked about by the MCA system—I will be kind and say that it is the system. We cannot treat grown adults, whom we trust to run one of our most important emergency services, like that and expect them to go months without paid employment because of the MCA’s procedures not being clear during the recruitment.

I have outlined some of the problems of undermanning in the ops room and taking in retired people, but there are other knock-on effects. Coastguard volunteers around our coast are also affected. Some people are destined to leave the operations room to train volunteer coastguards and to give them the training they deserve and the professionalism that anyone who is ever in need of their services deserves, but they cannot leave the operations room because of the demands there, so one of the knock-on effects is that that training is not happening. Those who would oversee development of the volunteer teams cannot be in place due to the glacial recruitment issues. Courses that should be happening in rope rescue, water rescue, first aid, land search, and equipment control and maintenance, to name but a few of the 20 courses in the guide, are not happening and cannot happen. We are back at the root of the problem, which is getting people into the service in a timely, speedy, correct and clear manner. This is not good for morale.

I may have sounded critical of the MCA and operations within the coastguard, but I do not mean to. There has been a general pattern of events in the coastguard service over the last few years and I have been critical, but although I am still being critical today, I hope that the criticism is constructive. We would all like nothing better than to have a properly functioning coastguard service. It is important to get to grips with that goal, and it could be happening, but it is not.

I want to spend a few moments putting on the record the importance of another aspect of guarding the coasts: emergency tug vessels. I want the Minister to understand the seriousness with which we on the west coast of Scotland regard them. We have nuclear movements going through the Minch—the stretch of water between the Hebrides and the mainland. The Minch is used by boats carrying nuclear material from Scrabster near Dounreay to the reprocessing facility at Sellafield, and we certainly do not want to contemplate one of those boats with that cargo requiring assistance, but the possibility exists. We also have fuel tankers, and those of us who do a bit of maritime trainspotting with the automatic identification system online often see tankers transiting north and south of the Hebrides between Tranmere and Mongstad in Norway. They carry fuel into some of the roughest European waters. We also have cruise ships in ever-increasing numbers, and the coastguards tell me that these sometimes carry the same amount of fuel as a tanker, which surprised me. They also carry something else very important: passengers. There are many people’s lives at stake, and we do not want one of those ships losing power along the rocky coastline of Scotland’s west coast.

If there are problems on the west coast, we will not be ready to tackle them like other nations, which take their responsibilities seriously and have plans in place to deal with problems. We have been told that we could get a tug from the oilfields west of Shetland and north of the Hebrides, but to my knowledge no simulation of a tanker or cruise ship in trouble has been carried out at the drop of a hat so that we have some experience of what would happen in real time trying to source one of those boats. I ask that such an exercise should take place. I fear that it will not happen and that our first experience will be an emergency.

I have a couple of final points. I mentioned the Faroes, Norway, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and Canada—the internationalisation of the coastguard. I am disappointed that the Smith commission on Scottish devolution has left only a consultative role for the Scottish Government. The issues I have brought to the fore would be dealt with faster and better in Edinburgh. As we saw today in the autumn statement, some of the things that have happened in Edinburgh, such as on stamp duty, have been a good example and have been copied. We have nothing to fear from devolution and control by Government outside Westminster. Sometimes, it may be for the benefit of us all.

As I said at the start, Scotland has 60% of the UK’s coastline but only 33% of the coastguard stations. Those coastguard stations are undermanned. I hope that if anything comes out of this debate, it will be that the Minister looks at the system so that we do not have the same situation in a year, and after four years a new system will have bedded down and we will have the necessary manpower in the coastguard station at Stornoway so that people do not suffer stress, can do their job professionally, and are released from the operations room to train volunteer coastguards.

Coastguard Service

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Bill Esterson

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

Coastguard Service

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Bill Esterson

Thursday 24th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr MacNeil]

That statement shows unbelievable arrogance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

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

[Mr MacNeil]

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

[Bill Esterson]

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