Swansea Coastguard

Debate between Martin Caton and Geraint Davies

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.