Swansea Coastguard

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Martin Caton]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

People who know the coast and the waters covered by the Swansea centre cannot believe that the Government are proposing that there should be no coastguard station anywhere on the Bristol channel. These people know how dangerous a place the channel can be. It has the second highest tidal range anywhere in the world, which is potentially a fantastic resource for power generation, but also a source of increased risk to people on the sea and the coast. They have seen the increase in shipping traffic in recent years and, even more so, the massive growth in coast and marine leisure activities in the area, which has put more and more demands on our coastguard, but demands that the Swansea station has always been able to respond to.

There is a massive campaign, centred in Swansea, but involving people around the Bristol channel. It is cross-party, involving Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Plaid Cymru supporters, and many more people of no political affiliation. A “Save Swansea Coastguard” petition has so far attracted more than 100,000 signatures, and I understand that the number of individual responses to the new consultation on the changed recommendation that call for Swansea to be saved will be at least in the hundreds. Today, that campaign brought its message to the House via the River Thames.

In a letter to me on 16 December 2010, the Minister wrote:

“On the basis of an evaluation of the existing sites and the facilities available at them, it is proposed that three of the proposed sub-centres be located at Falmouth, Humber and Swansea.”

This evaluation was on the basis of a location assessment document that provided the criteria for comparing the existing stations. We can only hope that this was a comprehensive piece of work, because it was the basis for deciding which network of centres could best deliver the service on which this country’s marine and coastal safety depends.

I was therefore surprised that the Secretary of State, in announcing the changed proposal, felt able to say:

“In the light of a further review of the potential costs of vacating the existing sites in Swansea and Milford Haven which has shown that there are no financial reasons to favour either location”,

and then go on to say,

“we should retain the coastguard centre at Milford Haven rather than the centre at Swansea.”

I think that that is wrong. The Swansea centre is a freehold building with a long-term ground lease, providing long-term security of tenure. There is virtually no rent. The Milford Haven site is rented at something like £25,000 a year.

Both the Secretary of State and the Minister for Shipping have also maintained that, from an operational point of view, Milford and Swansea are level pegging, but in fact Milford and Swansea have never been equivalent in operational capacity—if an objective judgment is made. One way to make one is to employ the very location impact assessment criteria used by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to choose the best sites for the future coastguard network.

I am grateful to have received from the MCA a copy of the document setting out those criteria. When we study it, we find that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to believe that it was used at all in deciding between Swansea and Milford. One important factor that the MCA highlights is the need to make best use of the agency’s existing property portfolio. It states:

“This is particularly the case where there are other MCA functions currently co-located with an MRCC”.

Swansea shares its centre with the MCA regional business unit and a radio site.

Another criterion to be employed, according to the MCA, is population. It states:

“Sub-centres would most sensibly be located in areas with a reasonably large population and pool of job seekers to facilitate future recruitment”,

and that is significant when considering Milford and Swansea, because in recent years the agency has found it difficult to recruit in Pembrokeshire. In fact, of the past six coastguards appointed to Milford Haven, only two have been from Pembrokeshire; the rest came from other parts of Wales, including Swansea. In addition, the location impact document states that

“it makes sense to have the sub-centres evenly spread.”

Switching from Swansea to Milford, however, makes them less evenly spread.

Finally, the agency states that

“the broad co-location of a co-ordination centre with the volunteers of the coastguard rescue service, other search and rescue partners and local regional resilience fora is a factor in the overall assessment of preferred sub-centre locations”.

Again, Swansea is the better site—even more so because so many Swansea coastguards are also volunteer rescue officers.

So, using the MCA’s own location assessment document, we find that Swansea outscores Milford on just about every criterion. Swansea is by far the better location, but a sensible location assessment process should look at other factors: the quality of communication links by road, rail and air; the comparison of facilities and space at the centres; the comparison of broadband links at the centres; and hotel space availability in case of major incident. Again, Swansea proves the better option by a long way.

I hope that in responding the Minister will be able to tell me whether those MCA criteria, and the other factors that I have suggested, were used in deciding between Swansea and Milford. He should be able to do so, because we know that the decision was made by Ministers, not by the MCA.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern of Swansea’s inward investors, not just in tourism but in industries such as wind farms, shipping and ferries, about the risk of removing Swansea? Given the growth of those industries, the value of those investments completely dwarfs the cost savings that the Minister is trying to engineer.

[Martin Caton]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point.

As I was saying, this was a ministerial decision. Sir Alan Massey, the chief executive of the agency, told us so when he came to Swansea. He said:

“Ministers have made this judgement based on employment and that's way above my pay grade!”

But that is not exactly what Ministers have done, is it? If Milford and Swansea had been exactly equal, and I believe I have demonstrated that they are clearly not, I suppose that it would have been reasonable to have taken into account comparative unemployment in the two catchment areas. If Ministers had done that, they would have established that unemployment in the Swansea area is worse than in the Milford area, but that is not what they did. Perversely, Ministers decided to look at how many Department for Transport jobs there are in each location.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

We have eight minutes left, and I have taken many interventions. We would have been a lot further on had I not done so, but that would not have been fair to hon. Members.

The hon. Gentleman has made many points, and I will answer as many of them as I can. Many of them were made in the consultation process. Although I am unable to answer all the points today, when the consultation is over we will respond. All the points that the hon. Gentleman has made tonight will be part of the consultation.

I was trying to build a picture of the coastguard around the country and of the people who actually do the job. I have said to myself, and to Sir Alan Massey, the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and to my chief coastguard as we have gone around the country, that the Government know that 18 is not the figure that should remain and that the figure should be around about eight or nine. That was put to us in submissions from around the country. In Belfast, it was put to me that there should be eight. I asked the Belfast coastguard, which works very closely with the Swansea coastguard co-ordination centre, why it had chosen in its submission to keep Swansea and not Milford Haven. Everybody who was there will know that Belfast said that its submission was based on the cost of closing Swansea compared with the cost of closing Milford Haven.

To answer one of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I came back to London and asked for those costs to be analysed. I felt that if we were going to do this right around the country—hon. Members should remember that we had not come to our full conclusions on which stations should stay open and which should close, and whether or not that would mean having part-time, “day manning” stations, or 24-hour stations—I needed to make sure in my own mind, for when I stand before the House and others, that the MCA’s early cost analysis on the choice of Swansea or Milford Haven was right. When the figures came back, I was told that that analysis was not right. I was told that if we were to come out of Swansea completely, it would be a very close fiscal decision between Swansea and Milford Haven.

We then completed the process, Mr Deputy Speaker—

[Geraint Davies]

You’ve been demoted, Mr Speaker.

[Mike Penning]

Sorry, Mr Speaker. We have known each other for many years, and I am sure you will not take offence. Oh, dear.

We looked at the main concerns, which included 24-hour stations and local knowledge. In the Secretary of State’s statement, we accepted those two points. We felt that leaving the station open as what I, as an ex-fireman, would call a “day manning” station was not right and we had to come up with a formula that would allow us to come down to the numbers that we needed to come down to while having the national resilience that we were looking for and a maritime operations centre or headquarters that could feed out in major incidents. So we made two decisions. The first was to come down to the key 24-hour stations and to have one MOC, not two, which actually will give us enough money to keep stations open 24 hours a day.

The second decision was obvious. It was obvious to me when we were doing the work that, if we were worried about topography, as I call it, being an ex-fireman, and local knowledge, which was the general concern, we ought to look at the pairs—or the twins or whatever we want to call them—which cover for each other regularly. That is how they have been structured. We did not have national resilience, which is why the coastguard co-ordination centres were paired off. They covered for each other. Some were paired off quite arbitrarily. For instance, Belfast was paired with the Clyde. But they did it and it worked. We decided that, if those were the criteria for pairing, we would take one of the pairs away. They are in the consultation now because initially the proposals did not include Swansea. However, having decided to move one of the pairs, logically we had to consult on Swansea and Milford Haven, as well as Liverpool and Holyhead—Liverpool was in the consultation with Belfast and the plan had been to close Holyhead—the 24-hour centre in northern Scotland and the Western Isles and the single MOC. That was the basis of the consultation now.