Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. He truly is a champion that coastal communities like mine can rely on to stand up for them. In terms of miles of coastline per square mile of constituency, he is surely in the top three most qualified Members to speak on this topic.

I begin by expressing my gratitude and admiration for the work of the volunteer coastguard in North Norfolk and across the country. These brave teams go out to situations many of us could not dream of handling and save lives on a regular basis. As the weather improves and tourist season approaches, there will no doubt be more and more call-outs in the coming weeks. Because of their hard work, those enjoying our coast are much safer. It is also worth making clear that, whatever the outcome of these new changes, we will still have a coastguard; there will be people willing to protect us, and this issue should not scare people away from visiting our coastline.

Ahead of this debate, I did something that I fear is too rare in politics; I went out yesterday to speak to the people to whom this issue matters the most. I had several back-to-back phone calls with coastguard rescue officers based in some of North Norfolk’s five coastguard rescue teams. Our coastguards have a fascinating range of backgrounds and experiences. They have a fantastic diversity of skills and careers that contributes to their excellent teamwork.

What was striking, and I think this has to be at the heart of our consideration, was that one chap said to me, “I’ll be honest with you, Steff, I didn’t even know that we got paid when I first applied”. I heard that again and again, and I have also heard it from right hon. and hon. Members during this debate. The motivation for being in the coastguard is so far from financial that many did not even know that they would be remunerated. Even so, having financial support to cover lost hours of work means that coastguards have the confidence to volunteer more and attend more call-outs. Remuneration supports lost working time, but also the cost of those missed meals with the family because the pager went off and the plans cancelled so that they can spring into action. It is far from huge recompense—about £30 for a call-out of three hours or less—but it helps. It makes it viable for more people, it enables people to give up more of their time to volunteer and it makes the service more resilient.

We desperately need people to attend call-outs. One coastguard told me that when he started volunteering, his team received around 30 call-outs. Last year, it was 150. Another team told me that they had had just shy of 200 call-outs and were well on track to beat that this year. The coastguard is a vital service to my area and at this peak season it handles multiple call-outs a day. A gentleman I spoke to told me he was called out three times on Saturday; after a full week at work, he then sacrificed much of a day off with his family to save lives on our coast.

It is also not just lifesaving rescuing that the coastguard carries out. The coastguards I spoke to told me that their role often includes keeping the public safe from unexploded bombs uncovered on our beaches. It is a wait of many hours for the bomb squad to arrive in my constituency from Colchester, during which time it is our coastguard who protect and secure the scene. It is an arduous task and not a glamorous or thrilling one—but would any Member prefer it if we just left bombs sitting on the beach and hoped for the best, or drew down on limited rural police resources instead?

I am not showing up just to complain at the Minister; I have a lot of time for him. Without having explored other avenues first, I too have spoken to the chief exec of the MCA, as have colleagues, and I do not feel reassured by what I heard. I asked the Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State, for answers when she came before the Transport Committee last week, and I was equally not reassured. It is worrying when those at the highest level behind such a decision simply cannot provide adequate answers or reasons that make someone like me, who lives in and represents a coastal community, truly believe that the future of our service is as safe as it needs to be.

I have some asks for the Minister and I hope he can oblige. From my discussions with coastguards, I understand that two questionnaires or surveys were put before them around the time of the court case on potential changes in remuneration. Can he place copies of them both in the Library of the House, along with the summarised results? The MCA has relied on legal opinions for its claim that the court decision means it has no choice but to take this approach. Will he publish those also? The Government say that there will be a transition period to assess the changes. Could they assess the changes before launching into that period? Otherwise, it feels rather like a fait accompli for those volunteers.

The plans seem half-baked at best and penny-pinching at worst. The coastguard is a vital emergency service that the Government seem to think is not worth investing in, and that is wrong. In my community, most people are more likely to call on a coastguard than a copper, but the Government would be seen as barmy if they suggested any pay for police by their mileage. I have seen some poor choices from the Government in my couple of years here, but this one has made me the most worried.

I truly think that the MCA and the Government have not realised what they are doing. They have heard some legal advice and listened to some Treasury bean counters, and decided that our service cannot be supported. As they have heard today, that is just not good enough. There is time left in the Prime Minister’s reign for one more U-turn; I urge the Government to make it this one.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Steff Aquarone]

Might I gently suggest that it would be easier for colleagues to understand the Government’s conclusions on this advice if we were able to see it? Would the Minister consider placing a copy in the House of Commons Library, along with the two surveys that I believe were undertaken?

[Keir Mather]

I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will have a conversation with my officials about what is appropriate to share with MPs, who I know are doing their level best to represent their constituents in this difficult matter.