Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate and thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate and for how he opened it.

With 23 inhabited islands, innumerable uninhabited islands and an aggregated coastline longer than that of France, my Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber constituency has 22 coastguard stations—more, I believe, than any other constituency in the UK. On behalf of everyone in the House, I want to say a sincere thank you to those dedicated, highly skilled and incredibly brave men and women who risk their lives at sea working out of Kilchoan, Kames, Salen, Coll, Tiree, Tobermory, Craignure, the Ross of Mull, Colonsay, Jura, Port Charlotte, Port Ellen, Appin, Oban, Crinan, Tarbert, Gigha, Campbeltown, Inveraray, Rothesay, Dunoon and Helensburgh.

Across my vast but sparsely populated constituency, many of those coastguard stations are already understaffed. They have been struggling to recruit volunteers as it is, because of the low availability of suitable candidates. The MCA’s plan to strip these vital volunteers of their pittance of a remuneration will be another huge stumbling block to both the recruiting and retaining of coastguard rescue officers in these rural areas.

I add my voice to those of the growing number of people not just protesting against the MCA’s decision but calling on the UK Government to become directly involved in the dispute and to use their influence to force the decision to be paused, to allow for meaningful consultation and discussion to take place, so that a fair and equitable solution can be found.

Whether they like it or not, the UK Government have a hugely important role to play. Although the decision has been taken by the MCA, the MCA is answerable to the Department for Transport and, ultimately, to the Secretary of State. Should the Government not intervene and pause the MCA’s plan to cut the remuneration and allow meaningful discussion to take place, they will have to accept that serious consequences will inevitably follow—not just for morale or recruitment and retention, but for public safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about CROs across the United Kingdom feeling that their voice is heard. I will take that point away and ensure that it informs my engagement going forward, but, for the benefit of the House, I want to speak a little more about the modelling of potential impacts.

The risk assessment also focused on which workforce groups may be most affected and where any resulting loss of capacity would pose the greatest risk to operational resource and service delivery. The individual circumstances of CROs are diverse, and it would not be possible to model all the possible ways that 3,000 people could respond to the changes. Since the announcement was made, 29 CROs have left the service. Three of them stated that they did so because of the change, although that is not to say that others did not do so, nor that they have not reported it—I would not want to argue that. I hope that that information is useful.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and others made broader points about operational resilience. I reassure them that His Majesty’s Coastguard has contingency plans and measures in place and continues to draw on the full UK search and rescue system, including aviation assets, the RNLI and independent lifeboats.

Turning back to the situation we face today, as many Members will know, on 14 January the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that changed the status of CROs. For many years, the MCA provided the option of hourly remuneration to recognise the impact of such important work. I note that such an arrangement was not, and is not, typical for the voluntary sector. Although not all CROs chose to claim that remuneration, because the MCA had provided regular payments to CROs following call outs and because the remuneration was beyond reimbursement for their expenses, the court deemed them to be workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

That judgment has fundamentally changed the nature of the role of CROs. Those who had signed up on the basis that they were volunteers and could be a CRO alongside their primary employment are now suddenly classed as workers, meaning that they could be subject to liabilities and responsibilities that they did not sign up for. To be clear on what the change could mean, worker designation could push CROs into new tax brackets or put them in breach of primary employment contracts, if they are not allowed to undertake other paid work. We have worked hard and expressly to avoid those threats to people continuing to work as CROs. The judgment clarified the law, which must now be upheld.

[Brendan O’Hara]

As the Minister knows, the changes of duty will come into place in September. He will be aware of the feelings of Members across this House and their opposition to the changes. The Department for Transport has the power to suspend the change; it does not have to take place. Will the Minister take the opportunity to suspend the change to allow meaningful negotiations to take place, rather than bulldozing the change through?

[Keir Mather]

I am committed to continuing to engage with CROs, trade unions and Members of Parliament on that important issue. The risks I just outlined around worker status exist now and it is important to consider that ahead of any implementation date, irrespective of whether that is in September, later in the year or at some other point. I will come back to the specific point about timing at the end of my remarks.

If we believe that CROs should retain the right to remain as volunteers, the existing model of remuneration cannot legally stay the same. I reassure Members that my officials and I have worked tirelessly but, regrettably, at this stage we have been unable to identify any legally robust option to continue payments beyond out-of-pocket expenses. Any alternative would carry a high likelihood of further legal challenge and could still be judged to be creating a wage/work bargain. Any carve-out would require new and complex primary legislation that would take far longer to implement than the immediate action that the judgment demands. I sincerely wish there were, but there is no simple solution to this situation.