Transport Committee Report (Coastguard)

Debate between Louise Ellman and Albert Owen

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the publication of the Sixth Report from the Transport Select Committee on The Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group, HC 948.

I am delighted to present the Transport Committee’s report on the Floor of the House, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me this opportunity. It is an encouraging development for the House and I hope that it will continue to be utilised for other key Select Committee reports.

This report warrants being presented here today because there has been so much interest across the House and from many members of the public about the future of the coastguard service. It is fair to say that the overwhelming view of Members, from all parties and regardless of whether their constituency happens to include a coastguard centre, has been deep concern about the proposals.

The report looks at the three areas addressed by the Government: first, the plans for the drastic closure of coastguard co-ordination centres; secondly, the withdrawal of the Government’s funding for emergency towing vehicles; and, thirdly, the removal of Government funding for the specialist firefighting service at sea. We received a great deal of written evidence from serving and volunteer coastguards, all of which was critical of the Government’s proposals, and most of which was highly critical. Unfortunately, most coastguards were prohibited by the Government from giving oral evidence to the Committee; we criticise that decision in our report. However, we were able to visit the coastguard centres at Falmouth, Clyde and Stornoway, and I am sure that my colleagues on the Committee agree that those visits proved invaluable in learning about the operation of the centres at first hand and enabling us to speak to serving and volunteer coastguards about their concerns, although those were informal discussions rather than official evidence.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Committee and my hon. Friend as its Chair on an excellent report. I think the Government will take notice of it, because they said they would wait for the report and act on its conclusions. Does my hon. Friend agree that had coastguards across the United Kingdom had an opportunity for input into the future of the service, MPs’ debates would have had a different tone? More important, are not the proposals a way forward for the Government, not a way out, and must they not include input from all coastguards?

[Mrs Ellman]

We were extremely critical of how the proposals were put together, excluding any opportunity for input from serving coastguards.

Our report is unanimous. We recognise that modernisation of the coastguard is desirable. We see the coastguard as an essential emergency service, whose work load is increasing, and any proposals to restructure the service must not be made in haste.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He played an active part in drafting our proposals, and I certainly agree with what he says. Indeed, our Committee is asking the Government not just to withdraw their current proposals, but to introduce alternatives and, in doing so, to consider the alternative proposals that have been submitted by coastguard officers across the country.

I should like to refer now to the proposals on the withdrawal of funding for emergency towing vessels—the tugs that are there to prevent major pollution incidents. That decision for change was made against the findings of an independent risk assessment, and we consider it unwise and short-sighted; it is quite literally inviting disaster. Our evidence strongly suggests that no suitable commercial alternative exists to replace the current arrangements. We urge the Government to reverse their decision to terminate the provision of emergency towing vehicles by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, although we welcome efforts to find alternative sources of funding to help to fund such procedures.

The third part of the Government’s proposals concerns the withdrawal of Government financial support for the firefighting service at sea—the maritime incident response group, which is funded by the Government and firefighting authorities. We are extremely concerned that the Government have withdrawn their funding from that service and appear to expect the local fire and rescue authorities to fund it themselves. It is a national firefighting service, and we consider it unreasonable to expect the local fire services to fund it, particularly at this time of financial constraint. Our concern is that, if the burden was put entirely on the local fire and rescue authorities, that excellent service would cease to exist. The service is extremely important; not only is it to do with firefighting, but it is deals with chemical hazards. I ask the Government to remember how important that is and what the consequences of withdrawing the service could be.

Taken together, the proposed changes to the coastguard service, with the drastic closure of coastguard co-ordination centres and the possible loss of emergency towing vehicles and the maritime incident response group, represent a significant restructuring of the country’s marine search and rescue and accident and pollution prevention capabilities. It is deeply regrettable that the Department for Transport announced all three sets of proposals with no prior consultation whatsoever and did not consider their combined impact on safety. Although this cross-party Committee recognises the pressure on the Government to make financial savings and the need to modernise and use new technology, we simply cannot support proposals that reduce maritime safety in that way.

[Albert Owen]

Does my hon. Friend agree that any future proposal should be made in an oral statement to the House, so that Members on both sides have an opportunity to ask questions on that initial statement?

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. New proposals should enable the widest possible consultation, including the involvement of hon. Members.

I call on the Government to withdraw their proposals and to produce alternatives that address the concerns that we have identified. I present the report to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Coastguard Service

Debate between Louise Ellman and Albert Owen

Thursday 24th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady is upset by some of the truths I have just said. Candidates made statements to coastguards—not to me, but to coastguards—that the proposals were in their long-term interests and that our coastlines would be safer, and then had to retract them because of public pressure. That happens to be a fact, and I am sorry that it upsets her. I am a consensus politician, and I work with people from all parties, but that does not change the fact that the electorate in those areas are cynical about the somersaults done by some of the candidates. However, I shall move on.

[Mrs Ellman]

Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that the Transport Committee is about to conduct an investigation on this very issue? That follows concerns expressed from all parts of the House and a session that the Committee had with the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in which we put certain questions to him, but were not satisfied with the answers.

[Albert Owen]

Absolutely. That will be my next point, but it does not detract from my first.

My second point is that the proposals from the Government and the MCA should be scrapped. The all-party Transport Committee is inquiring in detail into the workings of the MCA, and that inquiry is a good basis for the beginning of a debate, not the end of a consultation process. Detailed arguments from maritime experts, coastguards and people from coastal communities can be fed into the inquiry, which will be thorough.

Rail Investment

Debate between Louise Ellman and Albert Owen

Thursday 17th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. That is an important issue and indeed it is extremely important that the Government spell out their case very clearly on the need for HS2, particularly given the considerable opposition to HS2 from a number of quarters. The Government must do that.

Finally, my Committee has recently returned from a visit to Brussels where we met the Transport Commissioner, European Commission officials and Members of the European Parliament, including members of the Transport and Tourism Committee. One of the subjects that we discussed was the UK’s failure to apply for funding from the European Union. We received information that suggested that the EU might be willing to part-fund the cost of feasibility studies into HS2, paying 50% of those costs. However, it appears that no application has been made for Trans-European Transport Networks, or TEN-T, funding, which could part-fund the costs of looking into HS2. Indeed, when members of my Committee questioned the Minister recently in our inquiry into European issues, it appeared that the UK was rather slow, or perhaps loth, to apply for European funding. I wonder if we could receive some assurance from the Minister today that the Government will look at that issue again, particularly the possibility of securing European funding for studies into the viability of HS2.

Deciding the priorities for rail is a very important task. Our Committee’s report was produced a year ago, but it is clear that the priorities and concerns that we highlighted are equally relevant today. I hope that this debate today will help to take the debate on rail priorities forward and help to secure increasing investment for the extremely important service that is our rail network.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Before I call Mr Paul Maynard, I wish to inform Members that I will ask Mrs Ellman to make some concluding remarks.