Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01408, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on maritime safety and coastguards.
09:15
Scotland is a proud maritime nation that has 60 per cent of United Kingdom waters and about 60 per cent of the coastline of these islands, amounting to 18,000km. We have been very lucky to have so many men and women who are employed or who volunteer to keep our seas safe around the clock, to protect life and to keep our waters free from pollution. Of course, they deserve our full support and recognition for the valuable contribution that they make.
As, we now know to our cost, however, penny-pinching number crunchers in London offices have been busy slashing maritime safety under the guise of modernisation. Now our coastguard, our oil and gas sector, environmental organisations and many others, including members of this Parliament, are up in arms following the UK Government’s decision to put at risk our mariners and precious marine environment for the sake of saving less than £4 million a year, which is equivalent to about three hours of the revenues that are generated in Scotland’s waters from oil and gas.
Safety cover is being reduced and jobs lost across our maritime emergency services. For anyone who is concerned about keeping our seas safe, it is surely a worry that the UK Government’s approach has not been properly co-ordinated or strategically thought through, but has instead been based on saving money, not lives.
Confirmed cuts to coastguard co-ordination centres and the withdrawal of funding for emergency towing vessels come, of course, on top of other cuts that are already compromising maritime safety, including taking Nimrods out of service, and there is on-going uncertainty about search and rescue helicopters and fire-fighting capabilities at sea. All five areas of maritime rescue services are currently either facing cuts or severe uncertainty.
UK ministers should have delivered a fully co-ordinated strategy for maritime safety instead of dealing with each issue separately and randomly. In addition, Scottish interests have not been adequately taken into account. The prime example with which we are extremely concerned and disappointed is the UK shipping minister’s announcement this week confirming decisions to close the Clyde and Forth coastguard maritime rescue co-ordination centres. The Clyde station dealt with most call-outs in Scotland last year. UK ministers have also confirmed plans to downgrade the Aberdeen centre, which plays a vital role in relation to the offshore oil and gas sectors in the North Sea and west of Shetland.
Today’s air accidents investigation branch report on the tragic accident involving the Super Puma helicopter in the North Sea, with the loss of 16 men, serves to remind us all that our seas and associated industries can be dangerous environments. I am, indeed, pleased that Labour’s amendment raises that issue.
We do not have to look far for current examples of the work of the coastguard stations, along with their Royal National Lifeboat Institution and volunteer coastguard partners. On Tuesday this week—on the day that the UK Government announced that the network was to be cut—the Stornoway station dealt with the capsizing of a fishing boat off Barra. Thankfully, all those on board were rescued.
The need to ensure that we have the services available to deal with such incidents has led this Parliament to express concern over the UK Government’s policies. The closures have previously been raised at members’ business debates in the Scottish Parliament on 27 January and 23 June, and I welcome the universal support up to now for the coastguard service that emerged from those debates.
As Scottish ministers, we have made our feelings crystal clear in responding to successive UK Government consultations, and we will write in the strongest terms to the UK Government expressing our views on its latest announcements. We take some comfort from the fact that our previous representations, along with the co-ordinated campaigns by Western Isles Council and Shetland Islands Council among others, resulted in the retention of both the centres covering the remote areas around our islands. Confirmation of that sensible decision is, of course, welcomed. However, we obviously remain extremely concerned and bitterly disappointed about closures of other Scottish stations.
Throughout the process, we have strongly highlighted the case for all Scottish stations to remain open. The First Minister has met, along with Stuart McMillan MSP and Duncan McNeil MSP, staff from the Clyde centre to hear their concerns, and I have visited the Aberdeen centre. We urged the UK ministers also to consider visiting the affected stations prior to making a final decision. However, Scotland’s pleas largely fell on deaf ears, and we have still reached the position where the UK Government sees it fit to close two Scottish centres. Despite its claim to have recognised the importance of local knowledge, we now face huge areas of the west coast being covered by a combination of Stornoway, Belfast and Holyhead stations.
Under current arrangements the Clyde centre, which has responsibility for one of the longest and most complex areas of coastline in the UK, is set to go. It covers a variety of mainland coast, estuaries and islands, not to mention complex tidal conditions, within which a wide range of maritime activities occur. As I said, last year Clyde dealt with the highest number of incidents in Scotland—more than 1,300. It is difficult to see how the other centres could possibly build up and sustain the levels of local knowledge and expertise that currently exist. The removal of that local knowledge and the increased workload for other centres could well place lives at risk.
The Forth centre has also continued to show high levels of expertise and local knowledge in a busy waterway. The need for that will only increase as work on the Forth replacement crossing begins and with the deployment of offshore renewable energy infrastructure in the times ahead.
We also remain extremely disappointed about the plans for the Aberdeen centre, which reflects concerns that were raised directly with me by staff when I visited in September. The downgrading of the Aberdeen centre has significant implications for staff numbers and for the crucial relationship with the oil and gas industry in Scotland. The station will experience an overall reduction in its watch-keeping staff while it sees an expansion of the coastline it covers.
It is also planned that any major incident involving a North Sea oil platform would be managed by the maritime operations centre based in the south of England. It is absurd and potentially dangerous to downgrade the Aberdeen station, which sits cheek by jowl with Europe’s biggest offshore centre, and to transfer responsibility for dealing with major North Sea incidents to a location hundreds of miles away at the other end of the country. That will be an unjustified and mistaken departure from existing procedures, which have been tried and tested in Aberdeen. Those procedures, which ensure a co-ordinated local response to major incidents, must be retained, so we appeal to the UK Government to think again.
If we look at the reasoning behind the decision, it is clear that the UK Government is not taking Scottish interests into account.
I am sorry about the complete negativity of the cabinet secretary’s speech so far. Does he recognise that the UK minister said in his statement that
“no centres will close before the robustness of the system is demonstrated.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 22 November 2011; Vol 536, c 166.]
Does he acknowledge that that assurance in some way addresses his concern that, if the proposed closures lead to a downgrading of the system—which I entirely deny—it would not happen because its robustness will be fully tested before any centre closes?
I hope that the UK Government keeps an open mind on those very important issues. I recognise that Scotland is being used as a guinea pig, because my understanding is that the Scottish centres are to close before those in the rest of the UK.
The focus is, from the UK Government’s point of view, very much about links between the UK Government and agencies down south, in terms of the centres that it wants to keep open. Surely the focus should be on what can be done locally for an incident that takes place in Scottish waters. Scotland, with some 60 per cent of the UK seas, and some of the busiest in terms of offshore oil and gas development and planned renewable energy development, would be left with only a third of UK coastguard stations.
The UK Government has decided that there will be no maritime operations centre in the maritime nation of Scotland—the only one will be located in the south of England. If ever evidence was needed that the coastguard should be devolved to Scotland, this is it. Decisions on an issue that is as important as the safety of our seas should be made in Scotland, with Scottish interests to the fore.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that, in fact, the potential for Scottish coastguards to play a major role in maritime safety around the whole British coast is a strong argument for maintaining the integration of the service and ensuring that the best service is provided for seafarers, wherever they are?
Devolution of the coastguard would give the best of both worlds—it would give the best protection for our seas in Scotland, and we would have the ability to work with the rest of the UK. For instance, devolution would take account of the need for an appropriate level of cover for cross-border areas such as the Solway Firth. It would ensure that Scottish centres co-ordinated with their counterparts in the rest of the UK and that the RNLI and volunteer coastguard teams were fully supported within that structure.
Although we welcome any moves to strengthen the support for the front-line service, our view is that it should not come at the expense of the established co-ordination structure. That is especially true when other parts of the structure that help to provide our maritime safety are under attack. That takes me on to the threat to emergency towing vessels in Scottish waters. It is difficult to find anyone who supports the UK Government’s view that funding for them can simply be withdrawn. Last winter, we had some high profile call-outs for the Scottish ETVs—including, of course, the call-out by the Ministry of Defence to rescue the grounded submarine HMS Astute off Skye. The loss of the ETVs would take us back to the situation that existed prior to the sinking of the MV Braer. Lord Donaldson’s subsequent inquiry recommended the need for ETVs in areas where adequate towage cannot be provided in any other way.
If other aspects of safety and navigation have subsequently improved enough to negate the need for ETVs, the UK Government needs to clarify that, but it certainly has not done that so far. I am not reassured that the need has been negated.
Does Mr Lochhead believe that the current contract for the ETVs is as it should be?
Tavish Scott makes a good point. I have said all along that renegotiating the current contract is a good option to pursue. However, that is not where we are. The UK Government has cut the contract without consultation of the Parliament and without having a long-term alternative to put in place.
It might seem that the Braer incident was a long time ago, but Lord Donaldson’s recommendations should still be treated seriously. There is a strong concern that the measures relating to that aspect of maritime safety have, again, been led simply by a wish to cut costs and not by a wish to improve the safety of Scottish waters for those who use them, or to protect our environment.
I say to Tavish Scott that I am encouraged by the three-month reprieve for the two Scottish ETVs, which is a departure from the original proposal to cease funding when the original contract ended on 30 September. I welcome the Scotland Office’s constructive approach in reconvening the ETV working group after the UK Department for Transport washed its hands of the issue. The working group, of which Marine Scotland is a member, aims to bring about a long-term solution, and we will continue to work constructively with it.
I very much appreciate the Scotland Office’s efforts to keep the Scottish ministers up to date on progress on the issue. However, as the UK shipping minister, Mike Penning, has stated in correspondence with the Scottish Government, the issue is reserved. That is the main reason that was given for the lack of discussion on the issue with the Scottish Government prior to the announcement to end the contract. Therefore, it is the UK Government’s responsibility to identify and resource alternative provision.
The three-month reprieve appears to be an overambitious timescale. We press the UK Government to introduce a further extension to the contract to allow the work of the ETV group to be carried out in a more realistic timescale. I am sure that the Parliament will agree that there should not be a further break in provision and that we certainly should not be left without cover in the winter months when the current contract comes to an end in January.
It would be remiss of me not to mention two other areas of concern that relate to a downgrading of maritime rescue services and, in particular, of search and rescue capabilities in Scotland. Those are the withdrawal of the Nimrod aircraft and the on-going uncertainty over the future provision of search and rescue helicopters. Although the Nimrod service was primarily for military incidents, Nimrod aircraft attended many civilian emergencies and provided a valuable addition to maritime safety resources. The removal of the aircraft from service without any certainty about how the capability will be delivered in the future again demonstrates the UK Government’s lack of a strategic approach.
That lack of strategic thinking is further demonstrated by the removal of funding from the maritime incident response group. The issue is best summed up by the Westminster Transport Committee’s report on the matter, which notes the significant intervention of the response group and recommends that the UK Government continue to fund the resource in a more cost-effective manner. The Scottish Government is considering responses to our consultation on the future delivery of fire and rescue services in Scotland.
The Scottish Government is committed to the future of Scotland’s seas and coastlines and to protecting them from any further dismantling of services by the UK Government and Westminster cuts. I hope that we will continue to have support from members from across the Parliament in making the case for the Scottish coastguard stations and ETVs to carry on doing the valuable work that they do in protecting Scottish waters. I hope that the Parliament agrees that the UK Government’s financially driven and piecemeal approach is totally unacceptable and cannot deliver a proper strategy for marine safety in Scotland. I call on the Parliament to unite behind the cause, to condemn the UK Government’s action and to support the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with concern the potential impact of a number of UK Government cuts affecting maritime safety in Scotland’s seas, including the review of Coastguard Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres and the withdrawal of funding from the Scottish Emergency Towing Vessels, alongside other reductions in maritime safety provision, and agrees that this piecemeal approach driven by a cost-cutting agenda cannot deliver a proper strategy for maritime safety in Scotland.
09:30
This is a timely debate, for two reasons: first, because of the ministerial statement in the House of Commons on Tuesday on the outcome of the consultation on the future of the coastguard service, and secondly because of the publication this morning of the report by the air accidents investigation branch into the crash of the Bond Super Puma helicopter on its way back to Aberdeen from the Miller platform on 1 April 2009, which cost the lives of everyone on board. Both of those relate directly to the responsibilities of the UK Department for Transport for the safety of vessels, aircraft and offshore installations around the British coast.
The debate is also timely in that it comes so soon after our debate last week on oil and gas. In that debate, Labour argued that health, safety and environmental standards should have the highest priority in the next phase of offshore energy development. That message is particularly relevant today. The AAIB report is clear that warning signs of imminent technical failure were not recognised in time. Today, we call for urgent action in line with the report’s recommendations, while also recognising the efforts that the industry, trade unions and regulators have made over the past two years to improve the safety of people who travel to and from work offshore.
The coastguard proposals that were announced on Tuesday are part of a package of budget cuts that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has been instructed to make as part of the current UK spending review. The agency has been told to save £20 million of its £97 million programme budget by 2015. That is a big slice by any standards, with only £2 million to be achieved from efficiencies, and much of the impact of the service cuts will be felt in Scotland.
Some £10 million of savings are supposed to come from ending the contract for emergency towing vessels. Two of the four vessels under contract are based in Scottish waters, in the Western Isles and northern isles, and the cost of one of the others is shared with the Government of France, so the majority of the saving will be at the expense of services in Scotland. More than £7 million of savings are meant to come from the coastguard modernisation process, which concluded on Tuesday. Two of the nine maritime rescue co-ordination centres that are scheduled for closure are in Scotland, in the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde, and they are intended to be the first to close, not at some dim and distant point in the future, but within 18 months. The balance of the planned savings are to come from withdrawing support from the maritime incident response group. Three of the 15 fire brigades that will thereby cease to receive MCA funding for firefighting at sea are Scottish, namely Strathclyde Fire and Rescue, Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service and Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service.
Those are all serious steps to take. As has been said, the first two emergency towing vessels were introduced following Lord Donaldson’s report into the Braer tanker disaster in Shetland in 1994, and the number was increased to four following a further review in 2000. The contract cost of £10 million to £12 million a year pales into insignificance compared with the cost of a single incident that the tugs might otherwise have prevented; cleaning up the Braer oil spill, for instance, cost some £100 million at 1990s prices. Conservative and Liberal Democrat ministers would like someone else to help to pay for that contract, which is understandable, but as the House of Commons Transport Committee said in June:
“The Government is the guarantor of last resort for the protection of our marine and shoreline environment, and for the lives of those in peril on our seas.”
Ending the contract might be a reasonable way to save money if an equally effective alternative were to be put in place, but without such an alternative, it is simply reckless to go back to the situation as it was before the Braer oil spill.
Modernisation of the coastguard service, on the other hand, is a good idea. Indeed, it was Labour ministers who first asked what might be done to make the service more effective and efficient. The service still pays its staff less than their skills deserve and it lacks the sophisticated communication network that it needs. Putting that right would have required significant restructuring under any Government. The problem is that the review agenda has moved from effectiveness and efficiency to simple cash savings of millions of pounds a year. That means that some bad decisions have been made.
The first draft plan contained some good ideas and some bad ideas, as did the first revision of the plan earlier this year. Closing the Stornoway or Shetland centres was always a bad idea, and the suggestion that any coastguard station in the north of Scotland might operate only in daylight hours was, to be frank, ludicrous.
However, the idea of co-ordinating the whole coastguard network from two maritime operations centres at either end of the island of Great Britain was good. Having only one such centre would risk the whole operation being jeopardised by a single failure. A second centre in Aberdeen makes a lot of sense, given the key role of the station there in supporting the offshore oil and gas industry for the whole country.
I accept that that idea made a lot of sense under Labour’s original proposals, which would have been consulted on, as Labour proposed that the rest of the United Kingdom’s coastguard centres would be part-time centres. Does Lewis Macdonald accept that the position has changed, as the current proposals would make all the centres full-time centres?
The proposal to co-ordinate British maritime rescue from Scotland has certainly been dropped. Conservative ministers have decided instead to use two locations in the south of England—one will be the main MOC and the other will be the back-up.
What an opportunity has been missed to demonstrate a union dividend—the benefit to Scotland of addressing a need that all the UK’s nations share. According to a question-and-answer document that the Department for Transport issued on Tuesday, saving money was the motive for missing that opportunity. It said:
“Why ... Dover rather than Aberdeen? ... Dover was already planned to have a slightly higher level of manning ... because of its responsibilities for managing the Channel Traffic Management Separation Scheme and this makes it a cheaper option”.
That is absurd, especially as Aberdeen is responsible for liaison with the offshore oil and gas industry, which is entirely comparable with Dover’s responsibility for the English Channel, and it also has “a slightly higher level” of staffing as a consequence.
Tory ministers who claim marginal savings while concentrating what is left of public services on marginal Tory seats in the south of England do a disservice to Scottish seafarers and to the idea of a single coastal safety framework for the whole of Great Britain. It is as if they have learned nothing from previous Tory Governments’ mistakes in the 1980s and 1990s.
A rethink is a priority. Why Aberdeen and not Dover? It is because the network would be more secure from system failure from whatever cause and more capable of dealing with major incidents if it had hubs at either end of this island rather than two just a few miles apart, and because the coastguard is there to serve Scotland, too.
Closure of the Forth and Clyde stations is not inevitable and the case for saying that they must go has been made for no reason other than cutting costs and their being in the wrong part of Britain. There are concerns about those closures and about the closure of Liverpool coastguard centre, which is responsible for both shores of the Solway Firth. UK ministers say that they have done a risk assessment of their proposals as a whole. They also need to assess the impact of their proposals on individual coastal areas and to drop closure plans if the assessment finds that they are unsafe. We reject the proposal to close the Clyde and Forth stations.
The MCA is looking to save money by pulling out of the maritime incident response group, which was set up in 2006 to support fire brigades in training and equipping firefighters for fighting fires and dealing with chemical hazards at sea. It is bizarre that, in this case, the MCA commissioned an independent risk assessment last year, which found that there was room to make savings but that closing down the MIRG would be a false economy. However, that is precisely what might happen. Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service has pulled out, while Strathclyde Fire and Rescue and the Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service are maintaining capability at their own expense to the end of this financial year.
The Fire Brigades Union believes that the expertise and infrastructure that have been built up for offshore firefighting could be lost altogether unless a commitment is made to maintain an offshore capability as part of the proposed new Scottish fire and rescue service. A clear responsibility is on Scottish ministers, from whom I hope we will hear a positive response this morning. Will they legislate to give the new Scottish service powers and duties for firefighting at sea, as the FBU suggests, and give firefighters the resources to do the job, or will they allow the Westminster Government to get its way and the existing capability to wither away?
Likewise, I am interested to hear what the Scottish Government will do to ensure that emergency towing vessels continue to operate in Scottish waters, despite UK ministers’ recklessness. Will the Scottish Government join us in calling for a rethink on locating the maritime operations centre and its back-up centre in the south of England, and for urgent action to implement the AAIB’s recommendations on helicopter safety?
If Scottish ministers address the issues on which they can take action to secure and protect the safety of seafarers and Scotland’s coastline, they will make a positive contribution rather than simply condemn others’ failures. I would welcome a response from the minister on all those matters at the end of the debate.
I move amendment S4M-01408.3, to insert at end:
“and the rest of the UK coastline; regrets that the modernisation plan for the coastguards has prioritised cost over other considerations, including the decision to have both the national Maritime Operations Centre and the standby Maritime Operations Centre on the south coast of England rather than to have one of these in Scotland; calls for urgent action to improve helicopter safety at sea following the crash of the Super Puma helicopter on 1 April 2009; recognises the importance of coastguard co-ordination in responding to emergencies in the offshore energy industries, and calls on the UK Government to carry out an individual assessment of the impact of the closure of individual coastguard stations, such as Forth and Clyde, and to reconsider how best to ensure maritime safety for the whole UK coastline.”
09:39
I am pleased to take part in this debate, although I am left with little choice other than to say that I rather regret the tone of both the Government’s motion—
Hear, hear.
I have support for that. I also regret the tone of the Labour amendment.
The Government’s motion represents what we are slowly getting used to in this session of Parliament: a blind denial that any change or review is ever needed or worth while unless, of course, it is sponsored by the Scottish National Party. The Labour amendment’s attempt at a more constructive approach is welcome, but it is let down by its assertion—as in the Government motion—that the modernisation plan has
“prioritised cost over other considerations”.
I prefer the stance that was taken by Lewis Macdonald’s colleague in the House of Commons, who said—and I agree—that he has
“no doubt that these proposals are at least partly driven by financial constraints.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 22 November 2011; Vol 536, c 164.]
I simply do not accept that costs were the overriding factor in announcement of the plan, because I do not know of any review that has been undertaken by any Government of any country in the world that does not take the opportunity to consider more cost-effective ways of delivering the services that are under review. I argue that it would be a dereliction of duty not to do so. Although I do not doubt that the cost of delivery is a factor—as Lewis Macdonald’s Westminster colleague acknowledged—I reject any notion that it is the top priority.
Would the member offer any other explanation for the decision to locate the back-up maritime operation centre at Dover, rather than Aberdeen?
That was all perfectly clearly explained in the statement that was made by the minister in the House of Commons, to which I refer Lewis Macdonald.
We in the Conservatives totally recognise the continuing concerns over the closure of individual coastguard stations such as the Clyde and Forth stations. The closure of the Clyde station is of immense concern to my constituency, which is covered by it. As was recognised by Lewis Macdonald—and slightly belatedly by the cabinet secretary—the Liverpool station also covers that area and both are to close. As an aside, it might be of interest to note that the Scottish Government is apparently so blinkered by what happens only within Scotland’s boundaries that its response to the UK Government’s consultation on the planned closure of the Liverpool station said that that was not an issue that concerns the Scottish Government. Given that that station covers a large area of the waters off south-west Scotland, which has been referred to, I gently suggest that the matter should have concerned the Scottish Government. Apparently it did not.
We wrote subsequently to the UK Government, especially in relation to Liverpool, but our fundamental point is that had the Clyde coastguard service been retained, it would not have been necessary to comment on what was happening in Liverpool, because we would have retained that service, but that is not happening.
The point is summed up by the minister’s use of the word “subsequently”. Initial representations might have been helpful.
There are, of course, serious local concerns that that extensive area of Scotland’s coastline is about to become the only part of the UK’s coastline not to be covered by a station in its own region, with the potential loss of vital local knowledge. I do not think that anybody would argue about the importance of local knowledge. I want to see what level of resourcing and upskilling of personnel will take place at the Belfast station, which will now cover the area, before I can be convinced that this is the right move.
I am quite sure that similar concerns must exist around other stations that are to take on the work of those that are to close. Local knowledge is a precious resource, which is not easily transferable simply from one station to another.
Will Alex Fergusson at least accept that it makes no sense whatever for major oil and gas incidents to be handled and co-ordinated hundreds of miles away in the south of England, when we have the expertise and knowledge at the Aberdeen centre, which is where such incidents should always be handled?
I absolutely accept that there is a concern there, but it depends on the transfer of that local knowledge, which is so important. I will come to a reason why I think it can be done later on.
In among all the doom and gloom that appears to be being spread by the two major parties in this Parliament, the first thing that I want to do is acknowledge the UK Government’s willingness to act on the 1,800-plus submissions to the first consultation that were received. It was launched in December 2010 on proposals that were, effectively, those of the out-going Labour Administration. It is worth repeating that the majority of those submissions agreed that the service was in need of change and modernisation. As a result of the further consultation—I welcome the fact that the UK Government undertook it—part of that change and modernisation is to increase the number of regular officers in the coastguard rescue service by some 50 per cent and the number of locations from which those officers operate by 80 per cent, from 10 to 18, including new locations in the Moray Firth, Strathclyde and Oban.
I greatly welcome the fact that the increase will bolster support for the fantastic work of the 3,500-plus volunteers who make the rescue service possible in the first place. I am slightly saddened that neither Labour nor the Scottish National Party seem to have it in them to welcome the change, which—just for once—heralds the introduction of fewer chiefs and more Indians; usually, it is the other way round.
Will the member take an intervention?
With due respect, I say that have taken three interventions already and I have only six minutes, which are just about finished.
Furthermore, as the Liberal Democrats’ amendment rightly points out, the regular staff will benefit from enhanced terms and conditions. I think that that is good news, and Tavish Scott thinks that it is good news, but it seems that we are alone in taking that view.
In conclusion, there are, of course, concerns about the modernisation programme, and we share some of them. Change does not come without concern for its consequences, and these changes are no different in that regard. I remember visiting the coastguard station at Stornoway two summers ago, and being hugely impressed by the set-up there. I found it almost impossible to believe that the complexity of the seas and coastline could be effectively covered by the station, but I came away utterly convinced that, through the professionalism and dedication of the staff whom I met, those who sail those treacherous waters are in the safest of hands. I remain convinced that that same professionalism and dedication will successfully take on the challenges that are presented by the plan. I cannot wholeheartedly welcome it at this stage, but I have complete faith in the coastguard service to deliver it.
I move amendment S4M-01408.1, to leave out from “with concern” to end and insert:
“the UK Government’s announcement on coastguard modernisation; recognises that concerns remain over some local aspects of the announcement but that a significant number of the 1,800 responses to the December 2010 consultation acknowledged the need for change and modernisation; welcomes the UK Government’s decision to undertake a second consultation in light of those responses; further welcomes the commitment to increase the number of regular officers in the Coastguard Rescue Service by 50% and the number of Coastguard Rescue Service locations by 80%, including locations in the Moray Firth, Strathclyde and Oban, and believes that the outcome is a genuine attempt to provide a coastguard service that is fit for the 21st century.”
09:46
Ours is a maritime nation, rich in the heritage of the sea and of seafarers from the Vikings to the modern superstructures that float across the globe. But so, with the passage of international trade that is moved by shipping, go the ravages of accident, weather and incident that can put the lives of those at sea at risk. There was no coastguard when 58 men were lost in the 1881 Gloup fishing disaster, a tragedy that left 34 widows and 85 orphans. Shetland had coastguards when the Braer oil tanker went aground at Garths Ness on the south coast of the island on 5 January 1993.
Out of the Braer disaster—in which, thankfully, no loss of life occurred—came the seminal study of safety at sea in modern times. The late Lord Donaldson’s “Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas” is still compulsory reading for this generation of seafarers, as it should be for every policy maker and legislator who is interested in nautical matters. Since Donaldson, UK waters have witnessed the Napoli and HMS Astute incidents, which others have mentioned this morning, and there will no doubt be more.
Safety around our coasts needs an inclusive UK approach—gales, radar outages and wrecks do not obey constitutional referendums or overblown ministerial pronouncements. This Parliament should consider carefully what is being proposed for the country’s essential coastguard services and the role that they play in relation to the emergency services across Scotland in co-ordinating rescue, where that is needed.
The original UK Government proposal would have seen either Stornoway or Lerwick coastguard station close, with the other being downgraded to a 12-hour operation. After Tuesday’s House of Commons statement, both will continue on a 24-hour basis. That is the right call. I want to thank and congratulate the campaigns that were persuasively conducted across the islands. People from all walks of life, with islanders’ connections to the sea, along with many who have been part of the voluntary coastguard network for generations, won the argument. This is their win.
The changes are difficult and I regret the closure of the Forth and Clyde stations. I well understand why local members are angry about that—I would be, if I were them. However, the savings that are being ploughed back into the service achieve a significant and positive improvement to the terms and conditions of employment for the men and women of the coastguard service. Just two years ago, they were on strike. The then UK Government imposed a pay deal. Today, instead of taking strike action, staff will rightly gain improvements, which they have long deserved. It is a matter of regret that the minister and his Labour shadow could not bring themselves to mention, either in their speeches or in their motions, the terms and conditions of the staff for whom we work.
The member refers to staff terms and conditions. Why are the unions up in arms at the announcements that were made by the UK minister this week?
The unions are rightly up in arms about the proposed closures, not about the changes in terms and conditions; they sought those changes, and Mr Lochhead should welcome them. Many of those members of staff in my constituency have approached me because they have been calling for changes to their conditions for some time. I dare say that if Mr Lochhead had listened to their counterparts in Aberdeen, he would have heard the same. They have got what they wanted, which is a significant improvement in their terms and conditions. Instead of denigrating that, the cabinet secretary should welcome it.
Does Mr Scott acknowledge that I said in my opening speech that Labour ministers commissioned the review in the first place to address the terms and conditions of skilled coastguard staff? That was the right thing to do. The question now is what decisions we should make in implementing the review’s recommendations.
I accept that and stand corrected on Mr Macdonald’s point.
I am disappointed that the Scottish Government motion is factually inaccurate on the issue of ocean-going salvage tugs. If the contract had ended as the motion says, how come the Anglican Sovereign is in Orkney coastal waters at this very moment, and the Anglican Monarch is in the Minch right now? People want salvage capability for the future and they are working hard on that. The cabinet secretary was gracious enough to accept the Scottish Office’s role in that. However, it is unfortunate that the Scottish Government has brought nothing to the table. It wants to control everything but it never wants to work in partnership with local interests, industry and the UK Government to achieve a better outcome for the taxpayer than the terrible deal that we get at the moment.
Will the member give way?
I will finish my point first. I would think a lot more of Scottish ministers if they could bring themselves to support a sensible contract that helps mariners around our coasts instead of showing their desperate need to grandstand constantly.
Is it the case that the Liberal Democrat member is not content with defending the cuts to the Scottish budget that were made by his Government in London, but is now suggesting that the depleted Scottish budget should start paying for reserved issues as well as devolved issues?
If Mr Lochhead wanted to illustrate his approach to the relationship between his Government and any other Government, he just did so. We have just seen a classic example of Mr Lochhead’s attitude. It is no wonder that his officials are behaving in the way that they are in the negotiations.
Our coastline needs rescue services that work, that stand up to modern challenges, and that use modern technology to deliver a modern service. We need salvage tugs around the Northern Isles and on the west coast of Scotland where the shipping market will not deliver a commercial alternative. We need the men and women who work for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to be properly treated and given better terms and conditions. That is the future that I want for the next generation of shippers, fisherman, salmon farmers, the oil industry, and people who just like mucking around in boats, and that includes me.
I move amendment S4M-01408.2, to leave out from “with concern” to end and insert:
“that the coastguard modernisation proposals announced on 22 November 2011 are fundamentally different from the original proposals; welcomes the retention of the coastguard stations in Shetland and the Western Isles, one of which would have been closed under the previous plans, and that coastguard staff will now benefit from enhanced terms and conditions of employment; regrets the proposed closure of the Fife Ness and Clyde stations; recognises the importance of retaining the Emergency Towing Vessels in order to provide ocean-going salvage capability off the west coast and Northern Isles, and calls on the Scottish Government to play a constructive role in that provision.”
We move to the open debate. Members should speak for up to six minutes. We have a wee bit of time in hand, so if you wish to take interventions, I will compensate you.
09:53
I speak in this debate with a heavy heart. This week, campaigners for the Clyde maritime rescue co-ordination centre at Greenock heard the news that they and the Inverclyde community have been dreading: the Greenock base is to close.
Parliament has debated the coastguard modernisation proposals on two separate occasions. The first time was a members’ debate led by Alasdair Allan in January, and the second was my members’ debate in June. I am glad that every party and every MSP who spoke supported maintaining coastguard facilities across Scotland. We all realised the folly of the proposals, because the coastline and Scotland’s internal waters are of paramount importance to the Scottish economy. More than that, we all know that no one can put a price on the saving of a life. I welcomed that unanimous support from Parliament and I hope that, come 5pm today, we can still speak with one voice to let Mr Penning and his department know that this Parliament values safety over coastguard cuts.
I whole-heartedly support the 31 men and women who work in Greenock to deliver the full range of coastguard services. Their skill, expertise, understanding and local knowledge that cover 2,500 miles of Scottish coastline will be hard to replicate. It is vital to maintain the local knowledge of the men and women who serve at MRCC Clyde. Not until one considers the area and the population that MRCC Clyde serves does one realise how indispensable a first-hand understanding of the region and its coastline is to effective co-ordination.
Some key facts need to be highlighted about the Clyde base: it covers some 2,500 miles of coastline in the west of Scotland; the area that it covers includes the UK’s busiest ferry routes, which carry 6.4 million passengers every year; it is on the flight paths for two of Scotland’s major airports, not to mention those of many smaller ones; and it covers the UK’s nuclear submarine fleet and weapons, which are based on the Clyde. MRCC Clyde is the busiest coastguard station in Scotland and the third busiest in the UK.
Given that the nuclear submarine fleet is based on the Clyde, and given the growing number of cruise liners, which bring thousands of visitors to the west of Scotland every year, and the increase in the number of onshore and offshore renewables projects, added to the fact that approximately half the marinas in Scotland are located in the area that is covered by MRCC Clyde, we can only assume that the trend of rapid expansion in river traffic is set to continue.
To render MRCC Clyde inactive would leave Scotland and, indeed, the UK without a mainland maritime rescue co-ordination centre between Holyhead and Aberdeen, with responsibility for the vast distance in between being distributed between Belfast and Stornoway. I welcome the fact that the Belfast and Stornoway centres will remain, as there were legitimate arguments for that, but I cannot understand why the Clyde base is to close.
After listening to Mike Penning’s statement and his answers to questions on Tuesday, I was of the impression that he was totally out of touch with Scotland. Given that the Tories have only one member of Parliament for Scotland, he may think that he does not have much to lose in Scotland, and very little to lose in the north-west of England from the closure of the Liverpool centre. I would like to be wrong in making that assumption, and I hope to be persuaded that that is the case. I have listened to what has been said so far, and I will continue to listen.
My support for the saving of MRCC Clyde has been resolute. I sent in a submission to the consultation, I attended the public meetings in Greenock and, at the march and rally in Greenock, I shared a public platform with the leader of Inverclyde Council, the newly elected MP for Inverclyde and a member of the Clyde coastguard staff who is a Public and Commercial Services Union member. Along with Duncan McNeil MSP, I met the First Minister and Greenock MRCC workers. In addition, I wrote to the First Minister of Northern Ireland to seek his support for the Clyde centre.
The Northern Irish First Minister and our First Minister cannot both be wrong. They fully understand the importance of local knowledge and understanding in dealing with this vital public service. Saving MRCC Clyde and saving MRCC Belfast are not, in my opinion, mutually exclusive. The arguments to save both are absolutely sound. The additional burden that will be placed on the staff in Belfast will pose massive challenges, and I have every sympathy for them. They have not asked to be put in a near impossible position, but I believe that that is what they will find themselves in. I do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland, let alone the people of the west of Scotland, will receive the same quality of service that is currently provided.
The dangers of the proposed closures are clear: they threaten to leave us with too few co-ordination centres, too few staff and a lot less local knowledge. In straitened times, certain cutbacks can be explained, but there is no reason to compromise safety and people’s lives unnecessarily. This Scottish Government has prioritised front-line services, wherever possible, above all else, and I am astounded that the London Government will not support a similar course of action.
Ensuring the safety of our coastline and our inland waters is of paramount importance to save lives and to provide a strategic economic direction. Mr Penning’s decision underlines the fact that the UK Government does not consider our coastline to be of strategic importance, and it is now imperative that responsibility for the coastguard services is devolved to the Scottish Parliament with immediate effect. That way, we can work to provide the safety of Scotland’s people and its coastline that is required.
09:59
This morning’s debate comes on the back of the bitterly disappointing decision by the UK Government to go ahead with the closure of the Forth coastguard station at Fife Ness and the Clyde station at Greenock.
It has been a drawn-out process. The UK Government was forced to go back to the drawing board following the outcry over the initial proposal to leave just one full-time base in Scotland and to reduce the number of coastguard sites across the UK to five. For many people, the second consultation was disappointingly narrow in the areas that it was willing to address.
Will the member at least have the grace to accept that the original proposals were Labour’s proposals?
As Lewis Macdonald made clear in his opening contribution, we recognise the need to modernise—I will go on to highlight that in my speech—but there are real worries about the proposals that are coming forward.
The second proposal came under criticism for being flawed, and the Government was criticised for not being prepared to listen to the strong evidence about the needs of Scotland’s coastline.
The final decision to retain both Shetland and Stornoway is welcome, but the combination of the downgrading of the Aberdeen site with the closure of Fife Ness and Clyde leaves real concerns about whether the balance of risk has been safely reached. The decision to reduce the number of coastguard sites from 18 to eight across the UK continues to cause concern and is potentially damaging. Indeed, when the announcement was made this week, Charles Kennedy described the decision as having
“a considerable element of gamble”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 22 November 2011; Vol 536, c 166.]
The members here who represent the parties that are involved in the UK Government must recognise that there are concerns on their own benches about the decisions that have been taken.
Our coastguards play a vital role in safeguarding the communities and industry that use our coastline and seas. In recent days, Fife has had a terrible reminder of the dangers that our sea and coastline can present. The tragic death of three-year-old Eryk Cieraszewski, who was swept off Kirkcaldy promenade, deeply shocked the community. I, along with everyone across Fife, send our sincerest sympathies to his family at this incredibly difficult time.
Although in that awful case the response of the emergency services did not lead to the outcome that we all hoped for, in such circumstances the coastguard service plays a vital and pivotal role in co-ordinating responses, and we must be confident that changes to the service will not threaten its ability to deal with life-and-death situations.
I recognise that there is a need to modernise, improve and enhance the coastguard service. I agree that a coastguard service fit for the 21st century should operate as a single national network, but there is little doubt that the dramatic cuts initially proposed were overly driven by finance. Although I welcome the changes that have been made in response to the widespread public concern, there are still fears that finance is too dominant a driver for some of the proposed changes. We need to be confident that, while we recognise the financial challenges that all Governments face, safety and service are not put at risk.
The UK Government says that it is trying to address problems of co-ordination and communication, but the centralisation of services is not necessarily the answer. The closure of the two stations in Scotland will led to the loss of detailed local knowledge that staff have built up in dealing with a range of potentially life-threatening incidents.
There is still a great deal of uncertainty for staff with the announcement that stations will close by March 2015. What kind of service do they deliver until then? Fife Ness and Clyde have been timetabled for early closure. That must be questioned when there has still been no individual assessment of the impact of the closures of the stations. As Lewis Macdonald highlighted, the FBU, which is raising concerns about the future provision of the maritime incident response group, also states that the closure of the Forth and Clyde stations will have implications for the provision of water rescue and maritime safety—an area that the Government is looking to address through the legislation for a single fire service. I would welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments on that.
The closure of Fife Ness is of real concern to Fifers and Scotland. I support the strong case that was made for the retention of the Clyde, and I agree that the closure of the Clyde station leaves real challenges for the west coast. However, on the east coast the provision in Fife and the further coastline is being underestimated. Fife Ness covers 344 miles of rugged coastline, from Montrose to the north of England. In the past three years alone, the 14 staff there have dealt effectively and professionally with more than 1,400 incidents, and the number of reported incidents has increased year on year.
The stretch of coastline that is served by Fife Ness is varied and demanding. Last year, the lifeboat stations in its area were the busiest in Scotland. In the retention of Shetland and Stornoway, there is a recognition of the importance of local knowledge and expertise in ensuring safety and responding to emergency situations, and yet that does not receive the same attention when the importance of Fife Ness is under consideration. The closure of that station and the loss of the staff will mean the loss of expertise that cannot be replaced.
Fife has been described as
“a beggar’s mantle fringed wi gowd”.
It has a rich coastline with thriving fishing fleets and valuable trading links and ports. Our use of the coastline has changed in recent years. Although it is still an area for commerce, there is an increasing use of the shoreline for leisure and recreation, as well as congested shipping lanes with tankers travelling to and from Grangemouth.
The decision to close Fife Ness is shortsighted. The UK Government recognises that the offshore renewables sector is contributing to the increasing demands on the coastguard service. Fife has an energy park in Levenmouth, the potential for greater offshore development, Rosyth dockyard and the ferry port. As the cabinet secretary mentioned, it will also have the new Forth crossing in forthcoming years. It has a busy coastline with potential for growth and development. I strongly believe that we need a coastguard service that matches that potential and I am concerned that the proposals fall short of that ambition.
10:05
Scotland is a maritime and seafaring nation. Our smallest and biggest industries have been, and are, on the sea and are situated around the entire coast of Scotland. Shipbuilding, trading by sea, transportation, Ministry of Defence activities, fishing, fish farming, ferry transport, recreational sailing and renewable energy developments are all on the sea.
All that activity, which is vital to the economy, cannot and must not be put at risk as a result of Westminster Government cost cutting. It is not even a cost-cutting exercise—that would imply interest and concern, resulting in proper investigation and risk assessment before a decision could be made about savings.
Other members will speak about the outrage of the closure of coastguard stations in the south of Scotland that work from the Clyde and the Forth. I will highlight a few facts about the ETVs—emergency towing vessels, hitherto known as tugs.
I compare the Minch to the M8 with extra-heavy loads travelling regularly—as they do, sometimes with police escort. Like the Pentland Firth and other sea lanes, the Minch is known to be difficult water to navigate. It is important to understand the work that the tugs do. Between 2006 and 2010, the two tugs that cover the Northern Isles and the Minch carried out 562 taskings—that is, escorting commercial vessels through the Minch—answered 42 distress calls and were involved in seven commercial tows.
What about the ones that do not make it—the accidents in the Minch? In 2003, the Jambo, a Cyprus-registered vessel, sank after hitting rocks off the Summer Isles near Achiltibuie, spilling a cargo of zinc concentrate—3,300 tonnes of the chemical. Several sources that I looked at while doing some research for facts about the incident state that the zinc concentrate was removed from the sea bed, but it was not. It is still there, as is the wreck of the Jambo.
The crew was rescued by the Lochinver lifeboat, and all the emergency services were alerted. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the agent of the Secretary of State for Transport, set up an incident room in Ullapool. Up to 15 people—including marine biologists, engineers, scientists, environmentalists, lawyers, accountants, insurance agents, coastguards and a myriad of others—were in that room at any given time. Officials from London and Bristol came, but they used local knowledge—which has been emphasised in every speech—in every aspect of their work. Several telephone lines, banks of computers, televisions and filming equipment were installed. After three and a half months, they left.
The cost of that operation is another bit of research that must be done, but I guess that it must be a matter of public record. Whatever it is, it far outweighs the cost of preventative measures. I am not saying that the agencies could have prevented the wreck of the Jambo, but such an incident may happen again unless we pay attention to the traffic in the Minch.
When the Jambo incident happened, Councillor Foxley and the late Councillor Fulton of Highland Council made strong representations to the Scottish Executive to improve and increase the cover on the Minch and were hugely supported by the Liberal-Labour Government. However, times have changed.
The sea around Skye and the island of Raasay is used as a training ground for the Royal Navy. The submarine HMS Trafalgar sustained millions of pounds of damage when it ran aground off Skye in 2002. More recently, the submarine HMS Astute ran aground in October last year. The ETVs—the tugs—came to their rescue.
We really cannot leave our busy shipping sea lanes unattended. The value of the fishing industry, the MOD sites at Loch Ewe and Kyle of Lochalsh, the passage of nuclear submarines through the Minch to the bombing range at Durness and the commercial traffic all indicate the need for a comprehensive safety policy.
With regard to the previous contract for the tug service, which came to an end at the end of September, Mike Penning has stated in a letter that it is simply not appropriate for the taxpayer to fund this provision.
However, that is another debate. In any case, the Government has clearly recognised that we cannot do without the tugs—after all, it subsequently re-established the contract, albeit for three months. Now that we are six weeks away from the end of the current contract, what work has happened in the meantime? I can tell the chamber that the people running the tug service have not been consulted. What investigation is taking place? Indeed, what of the modernisation that Alex Fergusson talked about? I do not think that anyone has any issue with that—all services need to be reviewed—but the present Westminster Government seems to be picking off each of the services and looking at them in isolation when in fact we must look collectively at all the services: the coastguard, the tugs, the lifeboats and fisheries protection vessels. They all have to kick in, as indeed do the Royal Air Force and the air rescue service.
It is easy to look at parts of the whole and decide to strip something off. However, we cannot do that in this case. Now that the Westminster parliamentary recess is coming up, when will this work be carried out? Why was the service recontracted for three months if it is not needed? If it is needed, what evidence is the Government gathering to make its case?
I would be grateful if the member could come to a conclusion.
As for the reprieve for the coastguard centres in Shetland and the Western Isles and the claim that terms and conditions are secure, I point out that that only holds if the jobs continue to exist. Those centres have received no assurance that they will not face any staff reorganisation.
Of course I want control of the service around Scotland’s coasts to lie where it should lie—with the Scottish Parliament, whose members know and understand the waters and realise that on this issue local knowledge means something, and not with Westminster and the current threat that it is making to the service.
10:12
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. Stuart McMillan has highlighted many of the issues regarding the strategic importance of Clyde coastguard and given that Clyde plays an important role in the coast of south-west Scotland—as far, in fact, as Scotland’s most southerly point, the Mull of Galloway—I agree whole-heartedly with his comments.
Over the past six months, I have had a good deal of contact with local volunteer coastguard officers who cover the Solway coast and have real concerns about the UK Government’s vision of the future of the service. It is important to emphasise that they are volunteers and, as such, have no vested interest in employment with or career prospects in the MCA. However, they care about marine safety and have seen two sets of proposals that they believe are ill conceived at best and downright dangerous at worst—not my words, but theirs.
The Solway highlights an issue that has not been properly addressed by either set of proposed structures. Operational responsibility for the Solway is split between Clyde and Liverpool, with Clyde having responsibility as far south as the Mull of Galloway. lndeed, Clyde recently co-ordinated the response when Stena Navigator’s engines lost power off the Rhinns of Galloway. Given that the Scottish coast from there to the east—as well as the whole of the English side of the Solway—is the operational responsibility of Liverpool maritime rescue co-ordination centre, there is an in-built cross-border issue to deal with. Moreover, the proposed closure of the Clyde and Liverpool stations gives rise to additional unwelcome uncertainty over the Solway. In the first debate on this subject, which took place in January, my predecessor Alasdair Morgan made that very point in response to the first set of consultation proposals.
Although we are eight months on, it seems to me that the issue of operational cover for the Solway remains unresolved. As a result, I welcome Keith Brown’s actions in writing to Mike Penning to highlight the very specific issues regarding the Solway and await Mr Penning’s reply with interest. I also welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments that the Scottish Government will work to ensure an appropriate level of cover for the Solway.
Of course, Mr Penning has already argued that retaining half of each pair of centres should allay my concerns on the basis that local knowledge will be retained. That means the Solway being covered by Holyhead and Belfast rather than Clyde and Liverpool. He repeated that argument at length in the House of Commons on Tuesday. However, we should consider the extent to which that new arrangement will deliver as far as local knowledge is concerned.
The volunteers whom I spoke about earlier point to incidents in which local knowledge was preserved when one station was out of action by a member of staff being sent from that facility to man a desk at its paired station. Correspondence that the volunteers obtained for me states:
“Regional contingency planning sets out procedures for staff from an ‘unavailable’ station to proceed to the paired station in the event of a protracted outage.”
If the pairing system enshrines local knowledge in the way that Mr Penning has suggested, why would that most analogue of solutions be necessary? Given that that is the situation right now, how will the retention of one of each pair preserve local knowledge in any way?
I invite members to compare the operational guidance that I have just quoted with a statement in the consultation document on the revised proposals. That document says:
“we should also plan on retaining one of each of the current ‘pair’ of stations where staff are already familiar with, and frequently exercise, taking calls and managing incidents in an adjacent area.”
The latter gives the impression of a well-oiled machine and a seamless transfer of responsibilities among staff who know each other’s patch; the former is rather less persuasive. However, we are to believe that retaining one of each pair of stations—where the current contingency plan, we should bear in mind, is for an officer “to proceed” to the other station in times of crisis—will preserve local knowledge after the two stations that have direct operational responsibility for the Solway have both been closed. I remain to be convinced by that, and I am by no means alone in my scepticism.
Will the member take an intervention?
I want to get through quite a lot on the impact on the Solway.
The Irish Sea has a busy winter scallop fishery, which is, by its very nature, given the time of year and the prevailing weather, not without risk. Locally, Dumfries and Galloway Council wishes to market Stranraer as a destination for sailors and sea anglers, and to capitalise on its easy access to the Clyde and the west coast as a whole. There is a sizeable marina in Kirkcudbright and there are popular smaller anchorages, such as in Kippford. A popular trip is crossing the Solway to Maryport; the more adventurous may attempt going to the Isle of Man if the conditions are right. All of those things amount to varied use of a challenging and occasionally treacherous sea area. There are busy ferry routes from Ireland to Scotland and Wales, and from Liverpool to the Isle of Man, offshore wind farms, and the potential for tidal or wave power generation in the future. Therefore, there are ample reasons for maintaining the existing level of cover, but there is little reassurance that crucial local knowledge will be maintained.
One way in which cover might have been maintained and might still be maintained, of course, would be through responsibility for Scotland’s coastguard being fully devolved to the Scottish Government. I accept that operational cover issues in the Solway would still have to be addressed, but I believe that the Scottish Government has a better assessment of the value of the coastguard service. Devolving responsibility for the coastguard and marine safety to Scotland would permit us to develop a service that meets the needs of Scotland’s marine sector for the 21st century. Now that we have seen the UK Government’s vision, I know which option I prefer.
I hope that colleagues across the chamber will support the Scottish Government’s motion and make it clear to the UK Government that, as the motion states,
“this piecemeal approach driven by a cost-cutting agenda cannot deliver a proper strategy for maritime safety in Scotland.”
I can give a wee bit of time back to members who take interventions.
10:18
Where is Maclean’s Nose? That might sound like a silly question or a reference to Sorley, the great Gaelic poet from my constituency of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, but it is a very serious question. It is exactly the type of query on which lives may depend following Westminster’s decision to close two of Scotland’s five coastguard maritime rescue co-ordination centres. Clyde coastguards will know the answer, as Maclean’s Nose lies within the patch that they have covered for years. It is a promontory into the Sound of Mull opposite Tobermory, to be found on the southern edge of the Ardnamurchan peninsula, within my constituency, and about halfway between Kilchoan and Ardslignish. The precise location of Maclean’s Nose is just one of the thousands of extra pieces of local knowledge that coastguards who take over Clyde coastguard’s responsibilities will need to know immediately if mariners or coastal walkers who are in difficulty are to be assisted.
In its report on “The Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group”, which was published in June, the Westminster Transport Committee said:
“Our main concern about safety is the loss of local knowledge amongst coastguard officers that will inevitably occur under these proposals. Rationalising the number of MRCCs so drastically, in our view, will reduce the quality and rate of exchange of information, particularly at key points when information needs to be passed swiftly in order to save lives.”
In addition to the huge number of ferries, fishing vessels and bulk-cargo vessels that can be found off our west coast every day, there has been an increase in leisure traffic, as a result of the area’s justified reputation for stunning scenery and good sailing. There are also regular military manoeuvres. That gives an indication of how busy the coastguard is and how serious the implications of any shipping incident could be.
The announcement that Aberdeen, Shetland and Stornoway will remain as 24-hour co-ordination centres is good news and does credit to the hard-fought campaigns for the centres’ retention. However, the centres have been left with a heavy burden and the daunting responsibility for providing maritime safety cover for dozens of islands and thousands of miles of coastline that were previously the responsibility of the co-ordination centre at Greenock.
The Stornoway team’s role increased as recently as 2000, when the last round of Westminster cuts resulted in the closure of coastguard centres at Oban and at Belfast, across the Irish Sea. The extra section of rugged Argyll and Clyde coast includes countless small islands, sea lochs and headlands, many of which have similar or identical names to features that are in the team’s current patch. The challenge of picking up responsibility for a vastly increased area is made all the more difficult when we take into account that the Clyde coastguard at Greenock is Scotland’s busiest. There is a huge volume of leisure craft in the area and there were more than 1,400 incidents in 2010.
The scale of the task that faces the reduced coastguard presence will be even greater as a result of Westminster’s announcement of the scrapping of the RAF’s fleet of long-range Nimrod search and rescue aircraft. Moreover, the contract to operate the emergency tugs that are stationed around our coast has been awarded only on an interim basis, as members said. Over the years, the tugs have helped to avert many catastrophes on a scale that can hardly be imagined, by coming to the aid of shipping when power was lost in the treacherous waters of the Minch.
The area is well known to me. I lived and worked in the Western Isles for 10 years and I have had many an interesting trip, courtesy of local ferries, local fishing boats and, occasionally, a small yacht. I recall one occasion—in the late 1970s, I think—when, on a near-perfect day, with a flat-calm Minch, the ferry hit the rocks as it came into Tarbert on Harris, tearing an 8ft hole in the hull. We were fortunate to get into harbour safely. However, every vehicle on the car deck, including mine, had been shunted, front and rear, and I ended up with an expensive repair bill—it had to be met by yours truly because the law back then allowed ferry operators to do what they liked with passengers and their property.
I think that that accident was caused by a navigation error, but the incident shows how easy it is for something to go wrong, even in near-perfect conditions. If on just one occasion a tug is not able to reach one of the hundreds of bulk tankers or nuclear submarines that might be in difficulty in the Minch, the consequences will be unthinkable.
John Hermse, secretary of the Mallaig and North West Fishermen’s Association, told me this week:
“Our main concern is the loss of local knowledge. On the West Coast there must be ten or 12 different West Loch Tarberts and you have to know which is which. Another concern is that, with less resources, response times will be even more stretched and that can have a huge bearing on the success of any rescue mission.”
We should listen to men like John Hermse, support our local maritime rescue co-ordination centres and—[Interruption.] We should back calls for decisions on such vital matters to be devolved to the Scottish Government, whose sole concern is to look after Scottish interests.
I have come in within my time, Presiding Officer. I was hoping to get one or two interventions, but they did not materialise.
Perhaps someone was trying to phone one in. I remind all members to ensure that their phones are switched off.
10:24
The UK Government’s decision to cut coastguard stations will impact on many areas, but I will focus on the decision to close the Clyde coastguard station and the impact that that will have on the west coast of Scotland.
As an MSP for West Scotland, I am fortunate to be familiar with the spectacular scenery and unique coastline that attract so many visitors to the region every year. There are more ferry crossings in the region than in any other area of the UK and there are a large number of coastal leisure users and maritime tourists. There are also more marinas on the Clyde than in any other part of Scotland, and their number is increasing with proposals for new marinas as far upriver as the centre of Glasgow. The Clyde is home to some of Scotland’s busiest holiday resorts and features the world’s last sea-going paddle steamer, the Waverley, which carries 140,000 passengers every year. From speaking to many constituents and people who are involved in the save the Waverley campaign, I know how valued the important work of the Clyde coastguard is.
In spite of that, on Tuesday, the shipping minister, Mike Penning MP, confirmed that the coastguard centre on the Clyde is to close. The decision will have a devastating impact on the local community, where 31 jobs will be lost in an area of high unemployment, and it will put maritime safety on the west coast at serious risk. As members have said, it was recently reported that the station in Greenock deals with more than 30 per cent of Scotland’s incidents. In 2010, the Clyde station was the busiest coastguard station in Scotland and the third busiest in the whole of the UK. Staff there assisted 2,357 people and rescued 539 members of the public—more than 10 a week.
Currently, the coastguard station at Greenock co-ordinates rescues from as far north as Fort William and as far south as Stranraer. As members have noted, under the new plans, emergency calls from the west of Scotland will be directed to Belfast and Stornoway. That would be laughable if it were not so serious. Concerns have been raised that, with reduced manning levels, those coastguard stations will not be able to cope with the increased workload. I know, from speaking to at least one person who is currently employed at the Clyde coastguard station, that on more than one occasion the team in Belfast has contacted the Clyde station to ask for assistance due to insufficient staffing levels there. The statistics for 2010 also show that the Belfast station was the quietest coastguard station in the whole of the UK, which raises concerns and questions about how prepared it is to take on the workload of the Clyde coastguard station.
In his statement on the UK Government’s proposals, Mike Penning MP said:
“They will make much better use of the talents and skills of our Coastguards”.
In issuing that statement, the shipping minister failed to take into account the vital role of local knowledge, which many members have mentioned. The coastguards to whom I have spoken insist that such knowledge can make the difference between life and death. As members will know, the west coast has a unique topography. Many areas have limited infrastructure, which can often make communications difficult if not impossible. When that happens, there is no substitute for the local knowledge of the experienced staff at the Clyde coastguard station.
Members may have read in the press that the Clyde coastguard recently responded to two divers who got into distress while exploring a sunken wreck. Sadly, one diver died in the incident but, thanks to the knowledge of the responding team, the other was rescued. After the rescue, Calum Murray, from the Clyde coastguard station, said:
“The divers got into trouble in Whiting Bay, which is not well known. There is another more famous Whiting Bay near Arran. If it had been Belfast handling the call they would have called out the wrong coastguard, losing vital minutes. We could have been facing two fatalities.”
That is a prime example of the importance of the local knowledge that will be lost when the Clyde coastguard station closes, potentially making the difference between life and death.
There are numerous examples of the outstanding work that is carried out by the Clyde coastguard team. As has been mentioned, earlier this year a Stena Line ferry carrying more than 100 people experienced difficulties after leaving Stranraer and started drifting around 4 nautical miles west of Corsewall Point.
On the point about local knowledge, does the member accept that the local knowledge within the Scottish Parliament about Scotland and Scotland’s needs is probably superior to Westminster’s knowledge of Scotland’s needs? That being the case, does he not agree that decisions relating to coastguards would be far better informed and would be different if they were made by the Scottish Parliament rather than by Westminster?
I understand that some members taking part in the debate are keen to use the closure of coastguard stations in Scotland to call for more powers for Scottish ministers. I am certainly not against more powers being devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but it would have to be for the benefit of the people of Scotland. The coastguard is a prime example of a service in which we benefit from pooling resources. After all, we share the coastline with our neighbours south of the border and even the Scottish National Party’s greatest efforts will not change that. What we need is for the UK Government to exercise common sense by not cutting busy coastguard stations and stretching those remaining to the point where lives are put at risk.
The incident involving the ferry drifting off the Mull of Galloway is an important example of the Clyde coastguard station taking swift action. It received the call from the vessel at 12.50 am and sent two tugboats to the area to tow the vessel to Belfast. The vessel arrived in Belfast at 4.30 am, with everyone on board safe and well.
The member raises understandable and justifiable concerns about the closure of the Clyde centre. If he listened to my earlier speech, he will know that I share some of those concerns. However, how can he say categorically that the decision to close Clyde and strengthen Belfast would have led to a different outcome in the Stena Line ferry incident to which he refers, given that the incident took place an awful lot closer to Belfast than to the Clyde? It is not to do with proximity; it is everything to do with technology. How can he say that there would have been a different outcome?
As I said, I have raised serious concerns about Belfast’s ability to cope with the extra demand and the busy workload that will be taken on from the Clyde coastguard station. As we know, Clyde is the busiest coastguard station in Scotland and the third busiest in the UK.
I would be grateful if you would come to a conclusion now.
Make no mistake about it: the coalition Government’s decision is about saving money. The UK Government is putting saving money before safety. I sincerely hope that it does not take a tragedy off the west coast before the UK Government starts to listen to the very real concerns about future maritime safety in Scotland.
10:32
I spoke in the chamber in June in a members’ business debate on this issue. I spoke then about my experience of being rescued by the coastguard following the loss of our boat in storm conditions one dark night in September 1977. I owe my life to the coastguard service, which co-ordinated the search and rescue that ended successfully when I was airlifted off a wave-swept, tiny rock at 8 o’clock the following morning.
In particular, I owe my life to the local knowledge of the officers of the Oban coastguard station, which is now closed. Through that local knowledge, they were able to focus the search on the small area of sea where they knew I was most likely to be. They were able to do so because of their intimate understanding of the particular wind and tidal conditions that prevailed that night, because they had a close relationship with the other boats and individuals who participated in the search and because they were able to collaborate with and trust the knowledge of the crew of the fishing boat that found me.
I come from a family with the sea in their blood. My grandfather was a ferryman and fisherman. My great-uncle was a ferryman and my uncle was a puffer skipper. With members’ indulgence, I will just pay a quick, affectionate tribute to that fine man, John MacFadyen of Lismore, who was the personification of Para Handy and who taught me all I know about the sea and an awful lot about life.
I also have cousins who are currently fishermen and ferrymen. I worked as a fisherman as a schoolboy and a student and I have spent much of my recreational time kayaking and sailing on the beautiful but sometimes treacherous waters of the west coast. Like all who spend much time on the sea, I have a profound respect for it. It has at different times filled me with awe and with fear. I have lost good friends to the sea and witnessed and lived through the mourning of our community when our young men have been lost to the sea. The sea has no hard shoulder where you can pull over when things go wrong. There is no handbrake on a boat. When things go wrong, it is often the only hope of the mariner that we have a first-class search and rescue service.
Some of the most dangerous waters in the world are found between the Mull of Kintyre and the Point of Ardnamurchan. The Sound of Islay is littered with wrecks. The proliferation of lighthouses built by the Stevenson family—at Skerryvore, Dubh Artach and elsewhere—indicates the profound dangers of those waters. The Corryvreckan whirlpool is said to be the third largest in the world—believe me, it deserves its fearsome reputation. Strong and sometimes perverse tides dominate large stretches of the coastline, which is littered with rocks and hazards. It is only with skill, experience and local knowledge that those waters can be navigated safely. Imagine the difficulties of co-ordinating and carrying out a rescue in those waters, almost always in bad conditions, often at night. There are radio blackspots; there are huge gaps in mobile signal coverage; and there are magnetic anomalies. Our technology, clever though it is, sometimes just does not work—as we know, even in this chamber. Thankfully, our lives do not depend on it.
The late Baroness Michie, many years ago when she was the Lib Dem MP for Argyll and Bute, fought and lost a campaign to save the Oban coastguard station. She did so knowing, as I do, the importance of local knowledge. She fought the fight with integrity and a passion for what was right. She was rewarded by re-election, and perhaps more important, by the respect and warm support of her constituents, which crossed the party divides.
The coalition in Westminster knows nothing of the hazards of the sea. It cares nothing, it seems, for the value of human lives. At a time when recreational usage of our coastal areas is increasing, and when we are at the start of the offshore renewables industry—with tidal generators planned for the Sound of Islay, and offshore wind turbines planned off the coast of Tiree—it is truly perverse that we should be cutting our coastguard service. I urge Lib Dem and Tory members to reflect on all of this, to follow the example of Ray Michie and to support the Government motion without reservation.
10:39
Last week, when I spoke in the debate on Scotland’s oil and gas framework, I was a rare speaker from the central belt amid a sea of speakers from the north-east. I am getting much the same feeling today. I may not be the only one of today’s speakers who is based in the central belt, but I think that I am the only speaker so far without an obvious constituency interest in the coastguard.
Tavish Scott said that he understood that members are angry about changes affecting their areas. I, too, understand that anger—and it is a concern that is shared by many of us who do not represent the areas most directly affected. Unlike Mike MacKenzie and his family, I do not have the sea in my blood—although there has been the odd ferry trip to Brodick, Millport or Dunoon—but some of the people whom I represent work in the maritime industries, and many more of them will use our coastal areas, especially the Firth of Clyde, for the purposes of recreation. That is the area on which I will focus most of my remarks although, if I have time, I will speak about other areas also affected by the UK Government’s decision.
I welcome today’s debate and hope that it will offer cross-party support for the Scottish Parliament’s opposition to the changes that the UK Government proposes. The debate is timely, coming as it does so soon after Tuesday’s coastguard announcement.
It might be difficult to get consensus. Tavish Scott and Alex Fergusson seemed to feel that the Government and the main Opposition party were unduly negative in their approach. I find it hard to be positive because there is not much to be positive about. If those members can explain why closing two coastguard stations in Scottish waters and reducing the number of personnel are positive steps, perhaps SNP members will have something positive to contribute.
As I said in my speech, I entirely appreciate the concern that is being expressed by members, including Alex Fergusson, about the loss of coastguard stations in their area. However, Stornoway and Shetland are staying open on a 24-hour basis and the terms and conditions for staff are being enhanced rather than cut back. None of those positive steps is in the Government motion. If Mr Hepburn’s position is that he wants no change, that is fair enough, but if his position is that he wants an improvement on what we have got, he must acknowledge those positive steps.
I do not think that there is an improvement on what we have got. What we have got is a reduction in the provision of coastguard stations. Arguably, the proposals were more draconian before, but let us not use that as our starting point. Let us use the current situation as our starting point. If we do that, we can safely say that it is hard to be positive about the changes that are being introduced. Our concerns are based on the risk to life and limb and the dangers to the marine environment as a result of those changes.
It is not just the Scottish Government that is concerned. The Scottish Wildlife Trust has contacted us to set out its concern about the potential negative impact of the changes on Scotland’s marine environment. The concerns go wider than just the political sphere.
Once more, Scotland is being used as a test bed for changes. I see Tavish Scott mouthing away as if I am saying something wrong. Closures will happen in Scotland first. Why is that? Scotland has a significant proportion—18,000km—of the UK’s coastline. A significant part of Scotland’s economy is based on maritime industries. Why is Scotland being hit first with these negative changes?
Somewhat perversely, Tavish Scott has seen a Lib Dem cut as an opportunity to attack the Scottish Government. Before Jamie Hepburn gives up on the idea of cross-party support, I ask him to note what other former Lib Dem leaders have said. Charlie Kennedy said that the proposals
“flew in the face of all common sense”,—[Official Report, House of Commons, 22 November 2011; Vol 536, c 166.]
Jim Wallace said that it is too important an issue
“to let the local knowledge and expertise ... be lost”,
and Ming Campbell said that the proposals are “profoundly mistaken”. There is Lib Dem support for our position.
That is a fair point.
Would the member like to take a genuine intervention?
In a moment, Mr Fergusson.
The minister’s point builds on what Mike MacKenzie was saying about Baroness Michie’s position in respect of her former constituency. I hope to see cross-party support for the motion at decision time. Perhaps Alex Fergusson can tell me whether we will get it.
I would like to make two brief points. First, will the member accept—as the cabinet secretary did not seem to—that the UK minister has said clearly that no centres will close before the robustness of the system is demonstrated? Because of what the UK minister has said, I do not accept the member’s criticism that Scotland is being used as a guinea pig.
Secondly, I would have liked to have a motion that I could support this evening. I cannot vote in favour of the motion because of its tone. If the member is so keen to achieve consensus, perhaps he might have a word with the cabinet secretary about lodging a more consensual motion.
I did not use the term “guinea pig”—I said “test bed”—but I take the point on board. It would be far better if we could get consensus on protecting Scotland’s coastline, which is, fundamentally, the position that is being advanced by the Scottish Government. It is for other members to justify their position; it is not for me to have words with the cabinet secretary. I would have thought that Alex Fergusson was big and bold enough to have his own words with the cabinet secretary.
How much more time do I have? I have taken three interventions.
I can give you another minute.
You are very generous.
I want to talk about the Clyde area because it is the most pertinent to my constituency. The point has been well made, and I congratulate Stuart McMillan on his assiduous campaigning on the issue. I recognise that it has been done on a cross-party basis, as Duncan McNeil and others have also campaigned on the issue. When we consider that the Clyde station is the busiest in Scotland and the third busiest in the UK, given all the activity on the Firth of Clyde, its closure cannot possibly be justified, so I am very concerned about the decision. I am similarly concerned about the closure of the Forth station and the downgrading of the Aberdeen station. However, I do not have enough time to go into that.
I hope that the UK Government will see common sense and that, at decision time, the Parliament will unite in sending a loud and clear message to the UK Government that we do not want the closures to go ahead. If the UK Government refuses to listen, that will add weight to the argument that the Scottish Parliament should have responsibility for Scotland’s coastguard service.
10:45
On Tuesday, I heard about the UK Government’s final decision to close the Forth maritime rescue co-ordination centre, which is in my constituency, with a mixture of anger, frustration and worry. I felt anger because the decision seems to be based largely on financial grounds, with the centre being another victim of the coalition’s cuts dogma, whereby the need to reduce the deficit takes precedence, whatever the cost. I felt frustration because I believe that the consultation was little more than a sham in relation to Fife Ness and that it failed to take account of the interests of the workforce, the strong views of the local community and the importance of local knowledge. I felt worried because I fear that the UK Government’s decision jeopardises the wellbeing and safety of all those who work in dangerous maritime conditions on our temperamental Scottish seas, which other members have mentioned.
It is important to consider exactly what the changes entail and what impact they will have on communities. The Fife peninsula juts out into the North Sea on the east coast. My constituency encompasses the easternmost point of the Fife peninsula, Fife Ness, which is home to the Forth MRCC. One glance at a map of the east coast tells us nearly all that we need to know about the importance of having an MRCC in Fife. The Forth MRCC is responsible for protecting those who work and serve on the seas and coasts for a stretch of more than 300 miles along the east coast. To the south, the Firth of Forth is a bustling waterway. Further south lies the varied coastline of East Lothian and the Scottish Borders, with its many fishing villages and harbours. To the north lies nearly 100 miles of Angus and Aberdeenshire coast before the northern limit to the zone at Doonie Point.
We heard in Claire Baker’s speech how busy the MRCC is, so I will not repeat that, but it goes without saying that the area concerned covers the site of the Forth replacement crossing, for which construction work is due to commence in the current parliamentary session. It represents Scotland’s largest civil engineering project in a generation. There will soon be hundreds of builders, material deliveries and heavy machinery around the construction site. We need to ensure that the project is given the best possible safety provision in the form of a marine safety service that is fit for purpose.
In addition, the substantial volume of maritime traffic in the Firth of Forth and the adjacent waters is expected to increase enormously in the next few years in line with the expansion of offshore renewable energy developments. As for fishing, the east neuk is renowned for its fishing industry, which is vital to the local economy. In the past few years, Anstruther harbour has been upgraded to include a marina that caters for leisure sailing, which is rapidly growing in popularity. We should not forget that, as the Scottish Wildlife Trust has said, Scottish waters are home to internationally important numbers of breeding seabirds, many of which are in the Firth of Forth, and also grey seals, whales and dolphins. They all need to be considered.
The original UK Government consultation on modernising HM Coastguard was truly senseless. It proposed the closure of Shetland and Stornoway coastguard stations as well as the stations at Fife Ness and Clyde. I acknowledge the point that Tavish Scott made in that respect. Thankfully, the UK Government was made to see sense and to change the proposals, which would have left Scotland with only two coastguard stations. It elected to revise its proposals, but it still failed to recognise the vastness of Scotland’s coastline and, as the Scottish Government stated in its response to the consultation, the expectation of increasing levels of activity in the Fife Ness area for the foreseeable future.
When the second consultation ran from July to October, we knew that it was likely to be academic for Fife Ness, and so it has proved. In effect, the second consultation precluded any revision of the Government’s initial proposal to close Fife Ness. Only time will tell what the impact will be of the decision to close MRCC Forth, but it is crystal clear after Tuesday’s decision that Scotland cannot afford to allow Westminster to continue to make decisions that jeopardise Scottish interests, be they maritime or otherwise.
I will put the situation in perspective. Scotland has 60 per cent of the UK’s coastline, but the figures in the second consultation document indicate that only 69 of the 324 staff will be based in Scotland. I reckon that that is just over 20 per cent, which speaks for itself. The UK leadership has proved to be insensitive, confused in its approach to modernisation and ineffective in addressing the coastguard provisions that need to be in place to ensure truly safe maritime activity in the 21st century.
The decision to close Fife Ness is yet another blow to my constituency, North East Fife, which is still coming to terms with the closure of RAF Leuchars and the continued uncertainty about the timetable for the Army’s arrival. Once again, the coalition Government has proved itself to be a Government that does not listen—even to its own supporters, such as my namesake Ming Campbell. In July, he asked:
“Forth is a station offering value for money and increasingly busy because of the increase in leisure and commercial traffic—why on earth should it be a candidate for closure?”
Why on earth, indeed?
I deeply regret the decision that has been made and I hope that the Scottish Government will continue to press the case for reversing it. In any event, I hope that the Scottish Government will press for greater clarity on the timetable for closure and continue to press the case for devolving maritime safety.
I thank Roderick Campbell for finishing well on time.
10:52
The consensus in the debate is welcome, but it is a bit disconcerting, because it makes it hard to find something to argue about or to say something that has not been mentioned already.
We obviously regret very much the announcement at Westminster by the shipping minister, Mike Penning. It is sad for my constituency and I hope that he does not come to regret it.
The consensus in the debate gives me an opportunity to highlight, despite its disappointing outcome, some positives from the campaign, which I hope has not ended this week. We should never have had to fight the campaign, never mind lose it. The workers at Clyde coastguard centre are proud of their work, the knowledge and skills that they have acquired and the lives that they have saved. They have approached the adversity with great dignity. Although 31 jobs are under threat, that has never been at the centre of the workers’ campaign. They are committed to their work and to what they have achieved over the years.
Stuart Atkinson, who is the PCS members’ rep at the Navy buildings on Eldon Street in Greenock, has presented a compelling and forensic case for retaining the Clyde coastguard and has exposed many of the myths and the political posturing that are at the decision’s heart. I am sad that it took the threat of closure before many people realised the importance and range of the work that the coastguard service does. The workers have got on with that quietly for many years and have delivered consistently. They have not looked for medals and have done a wonderful job.
Another positive is that the campaign has brought together levels of government—the Scottish Government and local authorities—and has gone across party-political divisions and local authority boundaries and rivalries. A year ago in the Parliament, I was pleased to gain the First Minister’s support for the campaign. He made good on that. At my request, he met the campaigners at Bute House earlier this year, prior to the Scottish Government’s response to the UK Government being submitted.
A year ago, when the announcement was made and we had a debate in the Parliament, I feared that it was already a done deal. Despite the compelling case that has been made, that has come to pass. Local knowledge has been dismissed. We have arrived at a decision that will ensure that traffic on the west coast of Scotland is managed outside Scotland—traffic that includes significant cargo traffic, MOD traffic, including nuclear submarines, 30 cruise liners a year with a large number of passengers, and significant ferry traffic with more than 4 million passengers, in waters whose dangers were vividly described by Mike MacKenzie.
The decision undoubtedly increases the potential for human, environmental—and, for Mr Penning and his Government, political—disaster. We now move to a new stage of the campaign—that of vigilance. Closure cannot be rushed; it cannot be taken forward—or taken for granted—without robust testing of the proposed network. The commitment to that has to be more significant and honest than the commitment to an open and transparent consultation, which we do not believe that we have had. I hope that the Scottish Government will continue to work with the PCS members, the coastal communities and the wider emergency services to ensure that those networks are tested robustly and that the UK Government thinks again before it puts our coastal waters and the people who use them at further risk.
10:57
We have heard this morning about situations around the whole of Scotland’s coastline, including Mike MacKenzie’s gripping and compelling personal experiences. I share the frustration and deep disappointment that other members have about the decision to close the Forth and Clyde coastguard stations.
However, it is the future of the coastguard at Aberdeen that I wish to focus on, as there is perhaps no better example of the piecemeal and incompetent decision making that has been the hallmark of this process.
The original proposals that the UK Government first put on the table would have seen the coastguard’s operation in Aberdeen upgraded to a maritime operations centre and staff more than doubled. However, at the end of this process the decision has been made that Aberdeen’s watch-keeping staff should be reduced to the one-size-fits-all 23 members of staff that each maritime rescue co-ordination centre will have. Meanwhile, the single back-up maritime operations centre will be an unmanned station in Dover, which in an emergency will need staff to move from the main MOC located at Fareham, near Portsmouth.
I will not argue that the original proposals were in any way acceptable, given how much damage they would have done to coastguard provision in other parts of Scotland, but taking plans at Aberdeen from one extreme to another is extremely poor behaviour towards the staff there.
Placing both the primary and back-up maritime operations centre on the south coast of England is no way to build any kind of redundancy or resilience into the network, especially as it will take time to move staff to the back-up centre in an emergency, if that is even possible. The UK Government knows that full well, which is why the coastguard’s two data centres are to be dispersed—one at the MOC on the south coast and one in Aberdeen. If there is an argument for dispersing the data centres—as there clearly is, to build resilience into the network—that should also apply to the maritime operations centres.
The valuable expertise that has been built up in Aberdeen as a result of the close work with the offshore industry cannot be overestimated. That expertise is a key component of safety in the offshore oil and gas industry.
Cutting staffing levels in Aberdeen will only reduce the effectiveness of the coastguard in co-ordinating offshore search and rescue and dealing with the unique challenges that it faces in relation to the oil and gas industry. A one-size-fits-all approach to staffing numbers is not appropriate when one MRCC faces additional responsibilities and challenges. Staff at Aberdeen have hard-won specialist knowledge that simply cannot be replicated by remote assistance from another station or the MOC. Oil and Gas UK has put its concerns about this move on record, and it is easy to see the major disruption to current incident plans that the proposals will cause.
The fact that Aberdeen’s unique position in relation to the oil and gas industry means that more members of staff are required has been acknowledged by the UK Government, which has indicated that HQ officers will be posted there to liaise with the industry, in addition to the 23 watch-keeping staff. That is instead of building on the relationships that have already been established. However, it is the additional watch-keeping staff, who allow MRCC Aberdeen to cope with the safety demands of the oil and gas industry, that are to be cut. I have heard directly from those staff just how concerned they are about the impact that that will have.
Having the additional staff needed to maintain effective oil and gas incident co-ordination in Aberdeen would allow the site to operate as a far more effective and resilient stand-by MOC, without the inherent delays and drawbacks involved in using the site at Dover. That is the course of action that should have been taken in relation to Aberdeen, and the UK Government’s failure to do that is truly baffling.
The entire process has been poorly handled, and it does nothing to put first the safety of people who use and work in the waters off our shores. With these changes coming so soon after the loss of the fleet of fixed-wing, long-range search and rescue aircraft, and with the future of the air rescue co-ordination centre at Kinloss still unclear, the UK Government seems determined to take extraordinary risks with people’s lives in order to slash costs. That is why it is important to debate the issue in this Parliament and, at 5 pm tonight, to send a clear message to the Tories and Lib Dems in Westminster that their decision is unacceptable to Scotland. It has been interesting to watch Alex Fergusson and Tavish Scott defending their colleagues’ stance. It is not difficult to see that both of them would have been on the other side of the argument if Labour had had an opportunity to take some of its proposals forward. We need the devolution of this responsibility, so that we can design a safety system tailored to the needs of Scotland’s people, its industry and its coastline.
We now move to closing speeches. We have a little time in hand for interventions. I remind members who are in the building but not currently in the chamber that they are expected to be present for the closing speeches.
11:03
Although Dave Thompson has temporarily left the chamber, I assure him that the next time that I meet Angus Robertson down in the lobby of the Parliament—he is often here—I will not tell him about Dave Thompson’s suggestion that Mr Robertson and his SNP colleagues at Westminster are second best to all the SNP members here when it comes to representing Scotland. It is very important that I help Dave Thompson out with regard to what will be a tricky internal SNP argument.
Is that not a disingenuous representation of what Dave Thompson said? Was his point not that, fundamentally, 129 elected members of the Scottish Parliament are far better placed to make decisions for Scotland than 59 out of 650 Westminster MPs?
The member is absolutely right; my comment was disingenuous—indeed, it was deliberately so. I completely apologise for that. Further, because Mr Thompson is not here, I cannot make more fun of him, so there we are.
With regard to the broad theme that emerged during today’s debate, I understand absolutely those who, like Duncan McNeil, wish to present the argument that, if something terrible happens and, in the worst case scenario, there is a loss of life, that will be a direct consequence of the decisions that have been taken or will be taken. I made that argument myself earlier this year when Shetland was under pressure. However, I counter it with a point that a couple of coastguard station staff made to me when I was on a visit to another part of Scotland during the election campaign. They reminded me that whichever coastguard deals with incidents, it will do so with the utmost professionalism and dedication. They gently asked me not to run the other services down when making a wider argument. In retrospect, I thought that that was entirely fair.
I suspect that we all have to tread glass on the issue, and we recognise that the proposals are by no means perfect. That is why I have repeatedly acknowledged the arguments of a number of members about Clyde and Fife Ness. I particularly recognise the local knowledge argument.
Of course, the local knowledge argument was every bit as relevant when Oban and Kirkwall were closed last time round. Claire Baker rightly mentioned the 344 miles of rugged coastline—forgive me; that might have been Rod Campbell. The point is relevant and entirely fair, but the Parliament should look at some of the things that Mike Penning said on Tuesday. The argument is now being made that the investment in the local voluntary networks and the staff who support them will increase under the proposals, so a greater onus is being put on the local knowledge that I fundamentally believe in and that will support the response to the kind of incident that we all want to be tackled with the greatest professionalism.
Given the member’s emphasis on local knowledge, and in light of his amendment that
“recognises the importance of retaining the Emergency Towing Vessels”,
what local knowledge did Mike Penning or the Conservative-Liberal Government listen to before they made decisions?
As Ms Urquhart should well know, the local knowledge that they listened to was that of Alistair Carmichael, who has been the local member of Parliament for the Northern Isles for a long time. He has made the case for the services, which is why Shetland will continue to have a base. [Interruption.]
I hope that members are not running down an MP who knows his constituency. That is exactly what Jamie Hepburn was doing—talk about disingenuous. That speaks for itself.
Jean Urquhart was right to raise the issue of the tug. It is a really important issue and her arguments were correct. However, I believe strongly that it is not in any Scottish taxpayer’s interests to have a shockingly badly drawn up contract that costs a huge amount of money and serves only the interests of the salvage tug companies. If Ms Urquhart and others look closely at the contract, they will find out that the way in which it is drawn up does not mean that the salvage tugs will undertake the range of activities that could be achieved under a new and proper contract. I hope that Ms Urquhart and the Scottish Government will recognise that. An improved contract would gain much for the serving of the Minch, which Jean Urquhart rightly cares strongly about, the Western Isles, and the Northern Isles that Liam McArthur and I have the honour of representing.
I will also take up the point about Aberdeen. The minister and Lewis Macdonald made two or three eminently reasonable points about the importance of Aberdeen. First, my understanding is that, far from a diminution of the watches, the current watch structure will be maintained on a 24-hour basis. The minister and Mr Macdonald recognise that.
The minister and Mr Macdonald will know better than I do that the two oil and gas experts will be retained in Aberdeen. I appreciate that that is not as good as we might all wish, but surely it is positive that those two staff will still be there.
Will the member accept that, although he is absolutely right to say that the two specialists will remain in post, the decision not to upgrade Aberdeen to a maritime operations centre means that the chances are that the response to a major emergency in the North Sea will have to be co-ordinated from the only maritime operations centre in the country, on the south coast of England?
I have a little difficulty with that argument, because the recent BP exercise west of Shetland was co-ordinated from Shetland. If Maureen Watt had had her way, the Shetland station would have been closed—in effect, that is what she said—and all the staff would have been transferred from Shetland down to Aberdeen. That might have been great for her constituency, but it would not have been good for mine.
The serious point about that exercise is that it showed that some future oil and gas incident—which, by definition, we would wish to avoid—could be co-ordinated out of Shetland. It is important to recognise the ability of the Shetland and Aberdeen stations to work in harmony on such incidents, albeit that we would not wish that eventuality to arise.
Does the member agree that he might have taken an entirely different view of the matter if the Shetland station had not been saved?
I would be grateful if you would close soon, please, Mr Scott.
Unlike some others, I had every faith in my MP to get the job done. [Interruption.] SNP members whistle and boo, but Alistair Carmichael said that the Shetland station would stay open and it did. That is what is called doing your job as a constituency MP.
Maritime safety is an important issue. [Interruption.] SNP members can barrack as much as they like, but I will not accept Keith Brown’s inference that I do not care about the sea. I have lived in the islands all my life. I do care about the sea, and I want the best solution for our seafarers.
11:11
The coastguard service is one of the most vital services that has been provided for our coastal communities over the years. It is obvious that the synergies that exist in the service mean that it can be delivered extremely effectively across large areas and that it can, at times, be co-ordinated from areas that lie well beyond the area where an incident has occurred. I associate myself with Lewis Macdonald’s argument that there is a good case for a service that covers the British isles and that devolution of control to individual areas is not necessary.
I pay tribute to the work that the coastguard service has done over many years, which has been a major factor in the avoidance of loss of life in many high-profile incidents. It is part of the way of life in our communities and no one would argue that the service that it provides is not vital. Therefore, it is disappointing that, at points during the debate, we have forgotten that we have a responsibility to work together to ensure that we deliver true representation for the communities concerned at this key moment.
I would like the cabinet secretary to have come to the debate with rather more of an open mind than he did, but the fact that he opened his speech with a remark about the “penny-pinching number crunchers” at Westminster is indicative of the positions that were drawn up at the start of the debate. Many speakers have made the criticism that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in the Parliament might be defending the interests of their Government in the south. That has done nothing to ensure that we find common ground at the end of the process.
The truth is that the proposals that were on the table had been there for some time. The earliest proposals predate the present Government entirely.
Will Mr Johnstone confirm that the proposals that began the process were published on 16 December 2010 and that they were proposals from Conservative ministers?
I accept that publication date, but the proposals significantly predate it.
It is slightly disingenuous of the Labour Party, now that it is in opposition, to take the opportunist position of criticising the present proposals, even when they might be a significant improvement on the initial proposals, given that it pursued the same agenda when it was in government.
I would like to look in slightly greater detail at the nature of the Government’s proposals. The changes will result in the loss of the Clyde and Forth centres. During the debate, we have heard a number of members defend their local interest by defending their local station. It is indeed the case that some local expertise may be put at risk by the changes, but I argue that the rearrangement that is taking place—particularly the strengthening of the centre in Belfast—will produce a robust and resilient service that will cover large areas of the Clyde.
Does Alex Johnstone agree that closing the Clyde base, which is the busiest in Scotland and the third busiest in the UK, is not an acceptable proposal or the way ahead for the UK Government?
As I was saying, we have seen a number of members defend their local interest, but the reorganisation of the service will not leave those areas uncovered. We will have cover in those areas but it will be co-ordinated from a different centre. We must remember that that is a key part of the proposal.
I must point out, as at least some have done during the debate, that the UK minister has made it clear that no centres will close until the robustness of the new system has been demonstrated. It is vital that that key condition is implemented.
How will the member know that the proposed new system is robust? If lives are lost at sea in future, how will he reconcile that with his conscience?
The robustness of the new system is key to the proposal. In order to demonstrate that robustness, it will have to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of all members in this chamber. It is therefore vital that during this argument we do not allow wedges to be driven that will make us take predetermined positions that make it impossible to make progress in judging whether the robustness has been demonstrated.
Will the member take another intervention?
I have to make some progress before I come to a close.
We can see that point in, for example, the flexibility that has emerged on emergency towing vessels. The opportunity exists to make progress in that case during the three-month extension that has been granted.
Will the member give way?
The member is in his last minute.
It is something of a disappointment to me that we have heard the SNP Government use the opportunity to drive a wedge between Scotland and England. Of course, that is the SNP’s fundamental objective, and it was no surprise to hear the minister’s opening speech. It is perhaps slightly more of a disappointment to hear a similar tone in some of the Labour speeches, albeit not quite so forcefully put.
We must remember that the coastguard service provides good-quality provision across the whole of the United Kingdom, that it is stronger working together than it is broken up into its constituent parts, and that as a consequence of the reorganisation we will achieve a great deal that we set out to achieve, including improved conditions for staff in many cases.
The proposals are not ideal. They will require to be demonstrated to be successful, and there are aspects of them that may yet need to be subject to further review. However, the Government has taken the opportunity to deliver a service that will be robust, provide the service that we require and be the basis for a continuing, safe and reliable coastguard service in the long term in the United Kingdom.
11:19
I welcome the debate. Although there has not been a huge amount of consensus, it is important that the Parliament sends a strong message that no savings should be made at the cost of lives.
Duncan McNeil talked about the campaign for the Clyde coastguard and how it had brought to the fore the level of service that we expect and, indeed, perhaps do not often recognise, from the coastguard service. Like others, I pay tribute to the service that we receive and to the men and women who deliver it quietly day in, day out.
I want to be clear that although Labour rightly brought forward a review, the current proposals have come from the Tory and Lib Dem Government. I welcome some of the proposals. Indeed, I welcome the changes in the terms and conditions of coastguard officers. Those are well overdue. I also recognise that the proposals have changed since they were initially published on 16 December 2010. I welcome the retention of the Stornoway and Shetland coastguard stations. The councils and the local people ran a strong campaign in those places. Local people took to the streets to fight for their local services. I pay tribute to their efforts, which reversed the decisions, and welcome the change that took place.
Many members talked about the tugs—the emergency towing vessels—that are available in the North Sea and the Minch. I welcome the extension of the contract to December, but we need to have more detail about what will replace it. Richard Lochhead previously asked the Westminster Government to allow time for a solution to be put in place. That time has been given, and I would be interested to hear what talks he has had with the UK Government on what can be put in place to guard our seas.
Jamie Hepburn talked about the Scottish Wildlife Trust submission to the Parliament, which mentions the cost of the Exxon Valdez clean-up operation, which was more than $2 billion. Lewis Macdonald mentioned the clean-up operation for the Braer disaster, which was £100 million. The saving from the proposal to cut the tugs is £34 million over four and a half years. I recognise that the contract may not be ideal, but why get rid of the tugs altogether? We need them, but perhaps we also need a better contract. If we were to unite around that, it would also send a strong message to our colleagues at Westminster.
We also need clarity on the changes in Aberdeen. On that point, I am not so happy about the changes from the earlier proposals, which favoured two marine operations centres: one in Aberdeen that would serve the oil and gas industries—and, indeed, the offshore renewables industries as those develop—and another one in Portsmouth or Southampton.
The UK Government has decided against that and is going for one centre at Fareham with a back-up in Dover. However, we really need a marine operations centre in Scotland and Aberdeen is ideally placed for that because of the expertise that it holds on the oil and gas industry. If the plan for the centre there goes through, it will be the only one with expertise on oil and gas, because we will lose Liverpool and Yarmouth, which also have knowledge in that crucial area. It is important that a marine operations centre have that specialised expertise, and I ask for the proposals to be reconsidered.
Many speakers talked about the Clyde coastguard area. I share those concerns. I am an MSP for the Highlands and Islands region. The busy passenger ferry services that run from Argyll use the Clyde coastguard service, so the closure of the Clyde station would be a retrograde step. Colleagues such as Neil Bibby pointed out that it is the third-busiest station in the UK, so we can only assume that the reason for closing it is the costs that are associated with relocation.
Neil Bibby said that he would consider devolution of the coastguard functions only if it was in the Scottish interest. Does Rhoda Grant agree that the prospect of losing the jobs and expertise that she mentioned cannot represent a better service to the Scottish interest than would devolution of the functions to us?
I fear that the minister misquotes Neil Bibby, who was clear that any devolution had to be in the Scottish interest. He also pointed out that a service that covers the whole UK—the sea does not stop at the border—had to be run at the UK level.
I do not agree with the Scottish National Party Government’s call to devolve the functions. Like Neil Bibby, I say that we need the UK Government to provide an adequate and workable service rather than a devolved one. How can the SNP call for a centre in Aberdeen that would cover the whole of the UK while asking for the service to be devolved? That does not add up.
What we need are proposals from the UK Government that work for not only Scotland, but the whole of the UK. I am as worried about Scottish boats getting into trouble in English seas as I am about English boats getting into trouble in Scottish seas. Any initiative has to be UK-led.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I have taken a number of interventions and am now running out of time, so I will press on. I simply do not agree that the service should be devolved.
Many members have referred to the lives that could be lost with the closure of the Forth coastguard service. The Forth replacement crossing was mentioned in that regard but, as Claire Baker pointed out, we also need to take into account the effect of offshore renewables, the development of what we hope will be a busy ferry port that will bring more work into the Forth and the tankers at Grangemouth. Losing that service could have very bad consequences for the whole area, and we need to look carefully at the issue. Indeed, an impact assessment must be carried out on all centres, not just Scottish ones, before they are closed; after all, as we have heard, Liverpool MRCC covers the Dumfries and Galloway area. Given that the Clyde and Forth centres are due to be closed in March 2013, there is very little time to carry out such work and I urge the Scottish Government to prevail on Westminster colleagues to make this an urgent priority.
We need a marine operations centre in Aberdeen to cover oil and gas—and if there is to be only one such centre in the UK, the Parliament should fight for it to be in Aberdeen. The AAIB’s recommendation on helicopter safety must be implemented as soon as possible and we need to find out what is going to happen to ETVs. We cannot do without them and getting rid of them is simply a false economy.
My colleague Lewis Macdonald talked about the firefighting at sea capability of certain fire and rescue services in Scotland. Given the plans to introduce a Scottish fire service, I ask the Government to confirm whether that capability will be retained.
With the use of marine, wind, wave and tidal energy hugely increasing marine activity, we need more, not less, protection at sea. Lives depend on an early response to major incidents and, given that people are unlikely to survive for any period of time in our really cold waters, delay can spell disaster. We must always review, update and change; indeed, no one is arguing that service delivery cannot be improved. However, the proposals will make no such improvement and, unfortunately, might well cost lives.
11:27
I thank all members who have spoken in the debate. Whatever their political party, they have highlighted a number of key concerns; obviously some are more concerned about certain issues than others but, given their local connections, that is only natural. However, the fact that this is the third debate on this matter shows the strength of feeling in Parliament and the weight that it is giving the issue.
Maritime safety is a matter of great concern to me and my ministerial colleagues. Members will no doubt be aware that in October Richard Lochhead and I sent a joint letter to Mike Penning to draw his attention to our formal response to the coastguard consultation and to express our on-going concern over the future of emergency towing vessels. I take this opportunity to offer my continued thanks and admiration to all those involved in ensuring that users of our maritime environment are kept safe, whether they be volunteer coastguards, lifeboat and Royal National Lifeboat Institution teams or MCA employees. It is a tribute to MCA employees that they can continue to provide a professional, first-class response to incidents occurring around our shores at a time when their own future employment with the MCA is uncertain. Duncan McNeil, in particular, made that point, and I am sure that everyone in the chamber will agree that their attitude is very much to be admired.
On Rhoda Grant’s response to my intervention, I accept that the Labour Party’s position is that we need an integrated UK maritime safety network. However, now that that network has been put in such jeopardy, would she prefer to have those functions devolved to Scotland or to lose those jobs, services and local expertise? We would certainly prefer the functions to be devolved.
Does the minister share my perplexity? Surely the logical extension of the position—that the seas do not recognise borders—espoused by Rhoda Grant in response to his intervention is that there should not be a UK coastguard; rather, the UK coastguard should be merged with the French or Irish coastguard. That position is surely nonsense. Surely a Scottish coastguard could co-operate with the remainder of the UK coastguard.
I certainly understand the member’s point, but we have to face what is happening. A number of members have made the point that things will happen fairly soon. People’s safety and the security of people’s jobs are at stake, which is why we have to take positions, and our position is that the functions should be devolved.
The Scottish Government values the important role that all the MRCCs that are located in Scotland play, and it recognises the important work of MRCCs beyond our borders, where there is an obvious overlap that covers complex areas of our seas. That overlap is natural, and such work happens between other countries. For the most part, we restricted our comments in our response to the consultation to the Scottish MRCCs, but we are extremely aware of the need to continue an appropriate level of cross-border cover. As I said, such cover exists in many places around the world.
Does the minister agree with Maureen Watt that the most appropriate place for a standby maritime operations centre for the entire UK coastline is Aberdeen rather than Dover?
I was extremely impressed by the points that Maureen Watt made, which I will come on to in a few moments. I will cover that point if I can.
The Clyde station is in an existing pairing of UK stations, and it is difficult to see how the existing high level of local knowledge can be maintained under the new structure, particularly when we consider the complex combinations of traffic. For example, I think that it was Stuart McMillan who said that the west coast traffic includes ferries, commercial vessels and leisure and military traffic. I have often sailed recreationally in those waters, and I know that the military traffic is constant and that it has its own dangers. That is why we must have the cover and local expertise that have been mentioned. I stress that I am not in any way criticising the work and professionalism of the Belfast operation; rather, I am reflecting our concern that the revised structure that the MCA has proposed does not provide sufficient resilience.
I return to a point that Lewis Macdonald and Maureen Watt raised. There cannot be resilience by having the MOC function on the south coast of England, hundreds of miles away from the crucial area of the North Sea—Lewis Macdonald mentioned that—and especially oil and gas operations. If the back-up is a non-staffed function on the south coast of England, that is not resilience or the right way to serve those interests. That is why we are firmly of the view that the Scottish MRCCs should be retained. We have not said that there should be only one centre in the UK; rather, we have said that there should be one in Scotland, and it should be in Aberdeen.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I would like to make a bit more progress. If I have time at the end, I will come back to the member.
A number of members have mentioned the Forth station. The Clyde and Forth stations play vital roles and cover vast and complex areas of coastline, and it remains the Scottish Government’s view that they should be retained.
Unusually, two references were made to the constitution. Neither was made by Scottish National Party members. Tavish Scott made a somewhat limp reference to constitutional referenda. It is interesting to note the number of accusations that were made in the previous session about the SNP being obsessed by constitutional referenda, but such references are increasingly being made by the Lib Dems.
I completely agree with Lewis Macdonald that an MOC should be retained at Aberdeen, but he made the point that doing so would have been part of a union dividend. We must consider what that is if it is not a union dividend. The tax changes for the oil and industry and the loss of expertise from Aberdeen represent anything but a dividend to Scotland. We must consider whether such functions are best served by the involvement of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, or by the involvement of the UK Government.
There is almost a former Lib Dem leaders club commenting on the issue. Charlie Kennedy said that the
“suggestions flew in the face of all common sense”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 22 November 2011; Vol 536, c 166.]
Jim Wallace said that it is important to keep local knowledge and expertise—he did not just mean in the northern isles—and Ming Campbell thinks that the proposals that have been proposed this week are “profoundly mistaken”. As far as I am aware, we have not yet heard from the current Lib Dem leader, Willie Rennie, on whether he supports the closure of the facility on the Forth, which is in the area that he represents.
We can contrast the comments of those previous Lib Dem leaders with what Tavish Scott said. As I have said previously, he really sees the matter as an opportunity to attack the SNP Government rather than take to task proposals that have been made by the Government at Westminster that he supports.
It is difficult to see how, in the structure that the UK Government has announced, the areas that I mentioned can be adequately covered without significant loss of vital local knowledge, as members have said. I think that it was Alasdair Allan who, in a previous debate, made the point that even the mispronunciation of place names can cause confusion and potentially endanger vessels and lives.
The concerns that Lewis Macdonald expressed about the Aberdeen MRCC cannot be overstated. Although the MCA has assured us that it intends the current role in relation to oil and gas liaison to continue, it is difficult to see how that will be managed in the context of a significant reduction in staffing levels. As a number of members, including Rhoda Grant, said, although terms and conditions will be improved for the people in the service who keep their jobs, many people will lose their jobs as a result of the changes. That must be of concern to all members. We will continue to press the UK Government on that point and others, and we expect the MCA to provide early advice and support to staff at all affected stations, to ensure that people are aware of the options that are available to them in the new structure. We urge the MCA to avoid compulsory redundancies.
We welcome the three-month reprieve for the ETVs that was offered at the last minute and the attention that the Scotland Office is now giving the matter. Marine Scotland is formally part of the ETV working group, and officials from that agency and Transport Scotland have provided information and advice to the Scotland Office to help in the search for a solution that ensures that our seas continue to receive the required level of protection. Only last week, Richard Lochhead met David Mundell MP to discuss the matter with him and his officials. Richard Lochhead was able to press on Mr Mundell the importance of having adequate provision in place and of guaranteeing that there will be no break in cover prior to the implementation of a suitable long-term solution, which is crucial.
We are confident that that message was put across and that at that point the Scotland Office was in agreement with our view. It was also highlighted that the terms of the devolution settlement under the Scotland Act 1998 are clear. Funding for ETVs is a reserved matter and the Scottish Government cannot and will not provide funding to compensate for cuts that Westminster imposes. As members said during the debate, it is simply not sustainable for us to continue to pick up and provide funding for functions that were previously financed by Westminster. As I have said before, a much better and more sustainable approach would be to devolve the function and the budget.
In conclusion, I reiterate two key points.
The minister might intend to mention this matter in his conclusion. I remind him of the question that I asked during my speech about whether the Scottish fire service will take responsibility for firefighting at sea.
Minister, you have until 11.40 am.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Lewis Macdonald knows that fire and rescue services currently have the power to respond to incidents, should they feel that it is necessary to do so, and that they can charge for their services. The Scottish Government is considering the future delivery of fire and rescue services in Scotland. It is unfortunate that the UK Government did not discuss its proposals on firefighting at sea with us in advance of making its announcement. That is an important point, given what was said last year about the respect agenda. It is important that we continue to consider the matter and we will do so in the context of our review of fire and rescue services. However, the primary responsibility and the responsibility for the withdrawal of funding lie with the UK Government.
It is clear to us that devolution of MRCCs to Scotland should take place, alongside devolution of the funding, by which I mean the funding that is currently in place rather than the post-cut funding. That is the only way of ensuring that the current structure is preserved in a way that will allow the people who use our seas and coastline to receive the level of cover that they currently receive.
As Richard Lochhead said, we estimate that the proposals would realise savings of about £3.6 million—a sum that is recouped in taxes from North Sea oil and gas in three hours of production.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, I am in my final half minute.
We must consider what we will lose in jobs and in safety for the sake of savings of £3.6 million.
Given the wide-ranging list of downgrading measures in relation to maritime and marine safeguards, whether we are talking about MIRG funding, aircraft provision—we heard about the Nimrods—or uncertainty over ETVs, it is clear to us that there is a lack of a coherent, strategic approach to the issues. I assure members that the Scottish Government will continue to press the UK Government and to work alongside all affected stakeholders to resist the cuts and push for joined-up thinking, to keep our seas as safe as they can be.