Coastguard Centre Cuts
The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-7619, in the name of Alasdair Allan, on coastguard centre cuts. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the public consultation document launched by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency that envisages what are believed to be drastic reductions in the number of maritime operations centres in the United Kingdom; notes that the proposed reductions would leave only two 24-hour centres operating, based in Aberdeen and in Southampton/Portsmouth; further notes that these would be supported by seven sub-centres and only one would be in Scotland at either Shetland or Stornoway; notes that this would result in the five operations centres in Scotland being reduced to two; believes that this raises serious questions about the future operation of the coastguard given that centres will now be covering what it considers to be such huge areas and that this has clear implications for many members of staff, and believes that these proposals require to be rethought.
17:03
The United Kingdom Maritime and Coastguard Agency has proposed a series of cuts to the coastguard service that can only be marvelled at for its sheer lack of logic. It is clear that in Scotland the consequences of the plans would be felt particularly acutely. By that, I mean not only that the cuts would be felt by the people who would lose their jobs—although they certainly would be—but that they would be felt by everyone who cares about safety at sea.
The proposal is to cut the five current coastguard centres around Scotland to just a single full-time station, probably based in Aberdeen, with a further additional station, based in either Shetland or Stornoway, that would operate in daylight hours only. I believe that the great strength of the campaign that has been mounted against the cuts is that it has not taken the bait offered by the MCA in the proposals—the premise that one coastguard station should be pitted against another. In that spirit, I thank all members who have signed my motion or who intend to take part in this debate, particularly those, such as Tavish Scott from Shetland, who have interests in specific coastguard stations. The point of the campaign is not that Stornoway is a more necessary centre than Shetland or vice versa—both are needed.
Under the MCA proposals, in hours of darkness, a call from any vessel in distress anywhere around the UK coastline and far out in the north Atlantic would be directed either to Aberdeen or to the new station at Southampton or Portsmouth. All connections between coastguards and a specific area of the coast would be lost. That might make sense to an accountant somewhere, but consider the following real incident. Some time ago, an indistinct call came in to the Stornoway coastguards. Perhaps bizarrely, it said simply, “I’m on the Chicken.” Anyone with local knowledge will understand that the call was from a vessel that had gone aground on the Chicken rock, near Stornoway. I can tell anyone who is interested afterwards about the series of mistranslations by which the rock, which has claimed lives in the past, got its unusual name. However, the material point is that, with the best will in the world, I find it difficult to believe that a centre on the other side of Scotland or on the south coast of England would readily have been able to decipher that message.
Countless other such confused situations can be envisaged. Which Tarbert? Which Scalpay? Which Berneray? If we bring Orkney and Shetland into the equation, which Mainland? Come to think of it, there is a Chicken rock off the Isle of Man, too.
Local knowledge is required of coastguards for a reason. That is why the MCA’s own rules for staff specifically make local knowledge subject to continuous examination. I find it difficult to see how that aim can possibly be reconciled with centralisation of staff on the drastic scale that is proposed or, indeed, with the reduction in the overall number of staff who man coastguard centres in the UK from 491 to 248.
I can understand the need for economy, but I also understand what a false economy is. At its most dramatic, a false economy is trying to mop up the mammoth financial, environmental and potentially human costs of an oil tanker going aground. In case that sounds like a dramatic example, let me say that the MCA acknowledges that many of the risks of such a scenario occurring are increasing: weather patterns are more unpredictable, vessels are larger, the seas are busier and an increasing number of incidents are being reported.
In my own area, in 2008, 2,095 vessels transited the Minch. By 2010, the figure had risen to 2,442. During 2010, the emergency towing vessel that is based in Stornoway was tasked with escorting shipping through the Minch 115 times—not to mention the recent occasion when she had to shove a nuclear submarine off the end of the Isle of Skye. My mention of the towing vessel is topical, because in the last few minutes I have learned that today a Tornado with two of the cabinet secretary’s constituents on board crashed into the Minch. Mercifully, the cabinet secretary’s two constituents ejected and survived, but the point is that the emergency towing vessel is currently on the scene gathering wreckage from the incident.
However, at the same time as all that has happened, and at the same time as dramatic reductions to coastguard centres are proposed, we learn that the UK Government is also proposing that those self-same tugs be disposed of, which would mean that, in the future, the nearest suitable tugs for the Minch would be in the Clyde or the North Sea. I know that other parts of the country have similar concerns.
There is yet another factor in all of this: the role of the volunteer coastguard rescue service, which does everything from cliff rescue to searching for missing persons. The existence of a staffed coastguard centre acts as a major factor in attracting and maintaining the large pool of volunteers who are needed for such tasks. Areas that lose coastguard centres stand in danger, over time, of losing many of their volunteers, too.
In conclusion, I will not argue for the coastguard service based on the needs of the staff and families who would be most affected or on the impact that job losses might have in rural areas, because Whitehall is clearly not interested in listening to them, important though they are. Instead, I hope that I have made—and that other members will make—a case that is based on solid arguments of public safety and on what I believe is the compelling idea that the coastguard service should be comprised of staff who have local knowledge.
One question that I have been asked again and again, by many of those who would be most affected, is why the coastguard service is still run by the UK Government when so many other aspects of marine policy in Scotland are Scottish run. That is a good question. For the moment, however, even if it does not run the MCA, I welcome the strong support that the Scottish Government is giving to the campaign and the representations that I hope it will now make to the UK Government. I call on Parliament as a whole to implore the MCA and the UK Government to abandon these flawed and dangerous proposals.
17:10
As I am a member who represents the whole of the Highlands and Islands, I am acutely aware of the need for a full package of services to protect all uses of our seas and coastlines. The package of cuts that Alasdair Allan mentioned in his excellent speech includes tugs, the Nimrod aircraft and now the coastguards—the coastguards being the people who have local knowledge about how to approach and co-ordinate issues regarding the sea area. The potential dangers of those cuts are considerable. The package of maritime cuts in the north and west that is being brokered by the UK Government is completely unacceptable and may put lives at risk.
We have already heard about the results of the decision to remove the tugs. Many leading members of the military have complained about the virtual closure of RAF Kinloss. As is noted in a letter from leading members of the military in The Daily Telegraph today, the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft that co-ordinate air-sea rescue from up on top are based at RAF Kinloss. They are a part of the package that is being scrapped to save money, we are told. The decision could affect many facets of life in the north and west of Scotland—and beyond. Tourism, trade, the environment and the way of life are in real danger if the cuts in coastguard provision are carried out.
In the future, with the opening up of the north-west and north-east passages, with oilfields opening in the Atlantic and the offshore renewables revolution, the seas around the north and west coasts of Scotland will likely see a vast increase in shipping. There is therefore a strong case for expanding the existing coastguard bases in Stornoway and Lerwick, not cutting them.
The idea of part-time stations that work in daylight hours is interesting. At the winter solstice there are around six hours of daylight in Shetland and Lewis, but during the summer solstice that figure rises to over 18 hours in both places. It is incredible that there is no explanation in any of the papers that I could find of what is meant by daylight hours. It has just not been thought through.
There have been high-profile maritime disasters in the area. The Braer disaster off Shetland was a horrendous event that led to tugs such as the Anglian Prince, as was, and the Jambo, off Wester Ross, being stationed where they are. The effects of such disasters have been greatly mitigated by having on-the-spot coastguard control.
Ports across the north of Scotland are seeing an expansion of liner traffic, for example, and there is the possibility of more ship-to-ship transfers because of the opening up of the north-east and north-west passages round the Arctic. I suggest that the whole story of the economic potential and the life of the area has not been taken into account in the decision to close the coastguard stations.
I suggest that the Parliament thank Alasdair Allan for securing the debate and ensure that we make it clear, with a united voice, that everything about the economy and life of the north-west of Scotland will be severely affected by the move to close the coastguard stations.
17:14
I thank Alasdair Allan for giving us this opportunity to debate this serious issue this evening. He has ably covered the issues that affect the Scottish coastline. Obviously, I will focus on the Greenock coastguard station, which is better known in the area as the navy buildings because it houses the coastguard, navy personnel and MCA examiners—a wealth of experts who are able to assist in times of difficulty. It is rare in these times to find under the one roof such an establishment of advice on stability, technical matters and safety, combined with expert, detailed local knowledge—and it should not be given up easily. Some would say that that type of facility and capability should be the norm, particularly on the Clyde, which is one of the busiest gateways to Scotland and the UK. The Clyde coastguard manages Ministry of Defence traffic, including nuclear submarines, and deals with significant cargo traffic at Clydeport container terminal. It also manages more than 30 cruise liners that arrive in Scotland every year, carrying in excess of 1,500 passengers. We must also remember, of course, that the Clyde coastguard covers ferry routes south as far as Arran and north as far as Mull, with estimated annual passenger numbers of 4 million to 5 million. The potential for human, environmental and, indeed, political disaster is obvious.
As has been said, given the influence that we have over the consultation, there is something ironic about calling it a consultation; the proposal to close the base was made when the start of the consultation was announced. The First Minister confirmed that there has been an absence of consultation when he confirmed in this chamber that the Scottish Government had not been consulted on the issue. We do not know how far the consultation has gone.
If the proposals go ahead, the service that is currently provided by the Clyde coastguard would be provided by Belfast, Stornoway or Liverpool. We should not be excitable in these times, but during an exchange with the First Minister during a recent question time I described the decisions as daft and dangerous. I welcome the cross-party support that the First Minister confirmed exists on this issue—its existence has been confirmed again during this debate. I hope that the minister will update us this evening on the progress that he has made with regard to his representations to ministers to ensure that we have some sort of influence on this so-called consultation.
In addition, we should bring the hapless Mr Penning, the minister who is responsible for these daft and dangerous proposals, to the committees of this Parliament. The least he should do is attend a meeting of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee—or whatever committee is deemed appropriate. We should all come together to assist the efforts of the minister and the First Minister to ensure that there is some form of consultation on this matter, to give Mr Penning an opportunity to justify his daft and dangerous proposals, to enable us to question him on his proposals and, I hope, to inject some reality and common sense into the situation so that we can reverse the proposals in the interests of the coastal communities of Scotland.
17:18
I congratulate Alasdair Allan on securing this debate on the UK Government’s devastating plans to cut the number of coastguard stations in Scotland, which come on top of its plans to axe the tugs at Lerwick and Stornoway and its scrapping of air cover from the Nimrods at Kinloss. One could be forgiven for thinking that the lunatics are running the asylum in Westminster. The decisions starkly highlight why decisions that affect our lives in Scotland must be made in Scotland for the benefit of the Scottish people and not be driven by distant civil servants and politicians who have little understanding of our country.
The consultation contains little detail and no evidential back-up. It is obvious that the statistics that are being used to justify the case for closures have not been analysed properly and that the case is flawed. For example, the number of incidents has been quoted, but the type or length of incident has not been taken into account. No account has been taken of the differences between north and south. I understand that in the south there are greater summer peaks but that incidents in the north are more evenly spread throughout the year, and that incidents in the north are more evenly spread throughout the day and night and that there are more daylight incidents in the south.
There is also confusion over the length of our coastline, as Tavish Scott highlighted in The Shetland Times a few weeks ago. The shipping minister, Mike Penning, claims in the consultation document that the UK has a coastline of more than 10,500 miles. He is right. In fact, according to Tavish Scott, it is more than 26,000 miles long, so Mr Penning is only 15,500 miles out. To be fair, Ordnance Survey puts the figure at just 17,820 miles, but he is still well out. Interestingly, according to Scottish Natural Heritage, Scotland alone has at least 11,800 miles of coastline. That could account for his error. How can we have confidence in a man who does not get his basic facts right? Perhaps he just made the mistake of thinking that England is the UK and gave us an English figure.
Another important issue is local knowledge, which can be crucial to search planning. John Hermes, the secretary of the Mallaig and North West Fishermen’s Association, has stated:
“This is one area where local empirical knowledge is of prime importance ... closure of the coastguard stations can only lead to deterioration of service and, ultimately, to loss of life.”
No one denies that the configuration of the coastguard service needs to change, but it must be thought through. It should not be allowed to be driven by someone who is looking through an accountant’s eye. In the words of Captain George Sutherland, the former director of Shetland Islands Council’s marine operations:
“This is an example of an authority knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.”
We have a massive industry afloat off the shores of Scotland, with oil, fishing, renewables, aquaculture, ferries and merchant and leisure craft continually on the go. They need a resilient coastguard service, but the current ill-thought-out proposals do not provide it.
My final point is that we must not forget our dedicated coastguard staff, whose jobs are on the line. They do a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances and need to be valued. As one of them said to me this morning:
“They are taking humanity out of the Coastguard.”
We cannot and will not let that happen.
17:22
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s proposals to close coastguard stations are fundamentally flawed and should be withdrawn. The Braer oil tanker disaster, numerous maritime incidents around the coast of Shetland and today’s Tornado crash near Gairloch demonstrate the role that our coastguard stations play.
I am in no doubt that the proposals will make local, national and international seas more dangerous. As a constituency member I have met local staff—watch staff and volunteer team leaders, just the other week—and union representatives at home in Shetland. The most recent of those meetings was on Tuesday, which was Up Helly Aa day at home. Lerwick’s guizer jarl, John Hunter, took time out of his rather busy day to sign the petition against closure, which now numbers some 5,000 signatures.
Shetland is certainly united in supporting its coastguard station, and I reiterate my support for not only Shetland, but Stornoway. The case for both island stations to operate on a 24-hour basis is strong, and I very much support Alasdair Allan’s motion and his advocacy of the main arguments tonight.
Just last Thursday, a Cunningsburgh fisherman was reported overdue. The Lerwick station was alerted that evening when the boat did not return. Local officers know local fishermen and other mariners, and if they do not know where a fisherman is likely to have gone, they will generally know who will. The Lerwick station will always be better placed than Aberdeen to know where to start searching, as they did last Thursday night, and where to send the lifeboat and the rescue helicopter. That is what happened: that search proves the overwhelming case, as other members have mentioned this evening, for a 24-hour co-ordinating local service.
Last week’s search also made the case for the role played by local volunteer coastguards. Volunteers stress the importance of using their local knowledge to work with locally informed, full-time officers. That is at the heart of the current service on which so many people depend.
That search also makes the case that, in Shetland—and in other areas, as Alasdair Allan pointed out at an earlier meeting—the coastguard is equally as important an emergency service as the police, fire and ambulance services and, I would argue, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other essential services. The local knowledge of Shetland staff is vital. They play an essential role in co-ordinating Shetland emergency planning and ensuring that it is a reality. That is what happened when the Braer went aground. The situation was managed by an emergency planning operation in the islands.
That point is especially true, given the oil and gas developments that are happening to the west of Shetland and those that we have had in the North Sea for the whole of my life. Total, which is building a pipeline between Sullom Voe and the Laggan gas field, is so concerned that it has written to the Secretary of State for Transport, as has the Shetland fishing industry, which has expressed the same concerns.
The MCA has failed to answer basic concerns about communications. When lightning struck Orkney earlier last year, many of the communication links to and within Shetland were entirely cut. Some say that that has a number of advantages for those of us who then escape the mobile phone, but the important point was that the local station could link up with its volunteers to provide cover on the emergency frequency. Needless to say, on that occasion, there was a local emergency and that cover was needed. How could an Aberdeen co-ordinating centre cope if its links to Shetland were cut? There is nothing in the consultation document that deals with the resilience of the communications system.
Members have mentioned the length of coastline. To an extent, that is neither here nor there, but local stations know where the coastline runs to and they know all the inlets, voes and geos. As Alasdair Allan rightly said, different pronunciations of names can cause chaos if people do not understand where the places are. Scotland has well over half the UK’s coastline, and some of the most complex, so it needs full-time stations—of that there can be no doubt. The MCA has simply got the issue wrong. It should say so and withdraw these flawed proposals.
17:27
I, too, congratulate Alasdair Allan on securing this important debate, which is on a matter that the Scottish Conservatives accept is of the greatest significance to Scotland. The point at the centre of Mr Allan’s speech—that of local knowledge—was compellingly made. I pay tribute to those bold and hardy souls who provide coastguard services in the dangerous waters around Scotland. Countless lives have been saved over the years as a result of their bravery and professionalism and, for that, we are all indebted to them. I have no doubt that local members will give us their direct and first-hand experience of the risks that people in those services take and the lives that they save. If my colleague Jamie McGrigor is fortunate enough to be called to speak in the debate, he will do so.
Any organisation, no matter its function, must be prepared to adapt to circumstance if it is to remain effective. In the case of the coastguard, the Liberal Democrat-Conservative Government is exploring whether the current structure might support the premise that the service is not as well placed as it might be to respond to the challenges that are faced in modern times. The alleged lack of national co-ordination between the various coastguard centres in the UK can result in limited resilience and an uneven distribution of workload, potentially critically so during busier emergency periods.
The UK Government has said that it hopes that, by utilising the latest technologies, a more integrated and improved service can be delivered. Mike Penning MP, the UK minister who was in the Scottish Parliament recently, is overseeing the consultation exercise, which, as Alasdair Allan’s motion explains, foresees two nationally networked maritime operation centres—one on the south coast of England and the other in Aberdeen. With improved information systems, those centres, so the argument runs, will be capable of managing maritime incidents wherever and whenever they occur.
Although I am in principle in favour of a review of the coastguard service, I share the concerns that have been expressed about the overall reduction in operation centres in Scotland. Regrettably, I suspect that cost will be at least one motivating factor and I have sympathy with the UK Government regarding that, as ministers grapple with spending allocations. However, cost alone would not be an appropriate justification for restructuring the service, although nor are cost concerns an invalid catalyst for a review of any service. All Scottish local authorities participating in the Scottish National Party’s historic concordat have had to review their operations and make efficiencies or find new ways of doing things. In truth, that exercise should be on-going, whatever the budget settlement. So it is not unacceptable per se for a review of or consultation on any service to take place.
As members will know, the consultation, which is available on the MCA website, runs until 24 March. Therefore, no firm decisions have as yet been made. I will play my part in ensuring that the Department for Transport takes note of tonight’s debate. I will certainly be in touch with Mr Penning’s office regarding what has been said. In particular, I will draw to his attention Duncan McNeil’s suggestion regarding a possible appropriate opportunity for MSPs to question him directly on the proposals.
I am certain that my good friends and UK coalition colleagues the Liberal Democrats will also be to the fore on the matter. The Liberal Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, will, together with Danny Alexander and other Scottish Liberal MPs, use any influence they have to achieve a positive outcome.
In conclusion, the consultation seeks to evolve and modernise Scotland’s coastguard services. Nonetheless, Scottish Conservatives accept that there are legitimate concerns and understandable fears about the consequences of plans for Scottish operations. I therefore urge all parties to work together, as Alasdair Allan has suggested, to ensure that the best possible outcome for Scotland’s vital coastguard provision is achieved.
17:30
I congratulate Alasdair Allan on securing the debate on this important subject, which in some senses is a matter of life and death. I take the opportunity to thank members across the chamber for signing my motion S3M-7663 on the same subject.
The UK transport secretary Philip Hammond’s statement today that there was not
“a clear and definitive business case”
to make decisions without first consulting publicly on the matter is in one sense encouraging—the campaign can step up a gear during the consultation—but it also illustrates that the proposals are based not on a risk assessment or best value approach but on crude accountancy-driven butchery. The ideas are reckless in principle, and Alasdair Allan and others have illustrated well the unique local factors, such as those requiring local knowledge, that make them a bad set of ideas in practice as well.
Alasdair Allan also made a strong and important point on the need to avoid falling into the trap of divide and conquer on the issue. We should sustain support for all the coastguard stations.
I agree, too, that the various activities on Scotland’s shorelines and off our complex coastline, be they industrially, commercially or leisure based, will multiply in the years to come and become more varied. That points not just to a wrong analysis on the part of the UK Government but probably to a total lack of analysis in the first place.
In every respect, Labour is with the campaign, and we are greatly heartened by the unity on display in the Parliament tonight.
17:32
I welcome this members’ business debate, and I congratulate my SNP colleague Alasdair Allan on securing it. We have heard many strong and legitimate points from across the chamber. That can only help to send a strong and unified message from Scotland that we do not agree with the UK Government’s proposals.
Like many members, I have received a lot of correspondence from members of staff who are affected by the proposals. I also met local west of Scotland coastguard staff this week to discuss the proposals further. I was impressed by their stance and the manner in which they have conducted themselves throughout the campaign. They have been extremely careful not to play one location off against another, as they know that that will only be divisive—as Charlie Gordon said, they know that the old adage of divide and conquer will only play into the hands of those who want to change the service.
The staff are not against change itself. They realise that the only constant in life is change, and they know that areas of the service can be improved. As a Greenock resident, with the River Clyde playing a major role in the local economy, I am fully aware of how important the local coastguard service is. The Clyde station is the fifth largest in the UK in terms of the number of incidents that it dealt with last year, and it has also dealt with the highest number of incidents in Scotland. Despite that, the staff realise that how they deliver the service needs to change.
One point that a few colleagues have mentioned this evening is safety. Safety is paramount. That point was raised last night at the cross-party group on recreational boating and marine tourism. The bottom line—which is what the bean counters understand—is what price a life has. Recreational boating and sailing are increasing, particularly on the west coast. Commercial traffic is increasing, whether from the cruise liner sector or for cargo. That is not to mention the nuclear submarines and missiles on the west coast, although that is a point for another day. Given the increase in traffic on the west coast, we must consider what the proposals will deliver, not just for the west coast but for the whole of Scotland.
Whatever solution emerges from the consultation, safety must not be compromised. Alasdair Allan spoke about the understanding of local knowledge, which is vital and is one reason why I am disappointed by the plan to cut to two the number of full-time maritime operation centres in the UK. If a telecoms issue arose, how robust would the two-centre approach be? Not very, I imagine. How would someone in the Solent understand the colloquial terms that many communities in Scotland use? We have heard about some of that.
I will raise an interesting point that was made last night and which has been touched on in the debate. What modelling did the UK Government undertake in preparing the proposals? What modelling has been undertaken for potential disasters, such as another Braer? Safety should be paramount, but the proposals will not guarantee the safety of our seas and rivers in Scotland.
17:36
I congratulate Alasdair Allan on securing the debate, which gives the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to contribute to the consultation on proposals for modernising the coastguard—although I am not sure that a document that says that the status quo is not an option and which offers only one option for change can be called a consultation. I hope that neither the Maritime and Coastguard Agency nor the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport has a closed mind on the issue, because I agree with Tavish Scott that the proposals in the consultation document are fundamentally flawed.
The consultation highlights the problems and challenges. Our seas are becoming more congested, ships are becoming larger, our coastline is becoming busier, and weather conditions are becoming more extreme. That is agreed, but it is hard to see how the solution to those problems is to cut the number of coastguards and close coastguard stations.
It is often an easy and flippant headline-grabbing response for a politician to say that if proposals are implemented, they will put lives at risk, but there are strong grounds for believing that the proposed coastguard reorganisation would put lives at risk. The vast majority of incidents that coastguard stations deal with relate not to large merchant ships that are far out to sea, but to inshore leisure craft, many of which do not have, or on which people do not even know how to use, the sophisticated navigation and communications equipment on which the review seems to be predicated.
For all emergency services, the speed of response can be critical. That applies even more to the coastguard. Time and tide wait for no man. For someone who is trapped by an incoming tide on the west sands at St Andrews, a minute’s delay in launching the Broughty Ferry lifeboat might literally be the difference between life and death.
I particularly welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate because one station that is threatened with closure—it is called the Forth maritime rescue co-ordination centre—is situated at Fife Ness, which is on the easternmost tip of my North East Fife constituency. That centre serves the areas of other members, including my colleague Margaret Smith. The Forth centre covers some 344 miles of coastline from the Scottish Borders to Montrose, and which stretches inland up the Forth to Stirling and up the Tay to Perth. I recently visited the Fife Ness centre and spoke to the duty watch. As a result, I am more convinced than ever that the local knowledge and experience of coastguards are crucial in ensuring that the right response to an incident is actioned.
Often, a coastguard officer simply asks the person who is in trouble—if they do not know where they are—what they can see, and that allows the coastguard to identify where they are, or to identify, for example, which of the many Tarberts in the west of Scotland is involved, as has been said. Time that is lost by someone who does not know the area in working out where somebody is and in contacting the right person to deal with an incident might be fatal. The growing coast-based tourism industry—whether it involves sailing, windsurfing or even just walking our coastal paths—needs the back-up of a dedicated emergency service that can identify quickly where people have got into trouble and how to get help to them.
Last year, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution’s three busiest lifeboat stations in Scotland were Queensferry, Kinghorn and Broughty Ferry, which are in the area that the Forth coastguard station serves. One of the most unusual shouts was when the crews of the Kinghorn and Anstruther lifeboats were called out to the River Forth in September to rescue 14 people dressed as Vikings on a replica longboat. My leader assures me that he was not one of them. The 10 lifeboat stations within the Forth coastguard area were launched on 37 per cent of the total shouts made by Scottish lifeboats last year. Significantly, the Broughty Ferry lifeboat was called out 44 times in hours of darkness, which emphasises the need to retain 24-hour cover.
Another factor that the consultation has failed to take into account is the extension of the offshore wind industry, which will result in additional hazards for shipping, fishermen and leisure crews.
My main concern is the absence of any evidence that the review will improve safety at sea, which should surely be the prime driver for any change to the service. Unless the Maritime and Coastguard Agency can show that its proposals will improve safety and save lives, those proposals should be rejected.
I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Alasdair Allan.]
Motion agreed to.
17:41
I congratulate Alasdair Allan on securing this important debate. I have received hundreds of messages from constituents in the Highlands and Islands on the importance of the coastguard, and I am very aware of people’s concerns. Following the debate, I will write to the United Kingdom transport secretary to express the sentiments of my constituents on the issue. Two of the remaining coastguard centres are in the Highlands and Islands—one is in Shetland and the other is in Stornoway. Those bases have undoubtedly provided an excellent service in the past.
As my colleague Jackson Carlaw said, we are all indebted for the countless lives that have been saved as a result of the bravery and professionalism of our coastguards. It is important that we do not lose the effectiveness of a system that is of huge importance to our island nation, with its archipelagos.
I asked local lifeboat volunteers from Oban for their points of view and they told me that since they lost the Oban coastguard station some years ago, they have operated through Clyde coastguard, which is now scheduled for closure. What will be of the greatest importance to them and to coastal communities such as theirs is that there is not a cut in sector officers, because they provide the local knowledge in any search. Local knowledge saves time, which saves lives. That will be important in maintaining the confidence of maritime communities in any new arrangements, which will require a great deal of efficiency from any new service. Whatever is put in place has to be super-efficient. We all know that our coastal waters are extremely dangerous and that cold water takes no prisoners.
I stress the huge importance of the auxiliary volunteer coastguards, who keep their eyes open on our coasts all year round. Many of those are farmers and crofters who live near the sea. For many generations such volunteers have been the eyes and ears of the coast, reporting immediately any incidents that seem to be out of the ordinary. They provide the initial watch, which can then be responded to by the rescue services or the police. There must be a good centre that can collate incoming information from the volunteers and respond with the appropriate action. Lines of communication must always remain open and voluntary service must be encouraged.
Oban and Appin rescue team, for example, has 16 coastguard rescue officers—all volunteers—on standby to respond to any coastal emergency. The coastguard teams cover a distance of 70 road miles between Loch Sween in the south and Appin in the north, including many small islands. The Oban team relies heavily on its flank teams at Crinan, Appin and Inveraray for initial response. The teams have a good relationship with other emergency services, which means that they are often called to assist in searches for missing persons or at road-traffic accidents. They are called out regularly for medical evacuations at Oban hospital and at diving incidents, which are on the increase as subsurface adventure tourism grows more popular.
I cannot stress enough the importance of the volunteers. I hope that as many as possible are included in any consultation that seeks to modernise Scotland’s coastguard services. I agree with Jackson Carlaw that we should all work together to ensure the best possible outcome of the consultation for Scotland’s vital coastguard provision.
17:44
I also offer my congratulations to Alasdair Allan.
The MCA consultation raises significant points. It says that the current twin-centre system lacks resilience. If that is true, it is a concern. It talks about the introduction of new technology and about the long-range identification and tracking system and so on. Surely the question is whether the current proposals are the best way to address the changes.
In favour of the current arrangements, it has been argued—including by members in the debate—that local working relationships and knowledge can save vital minutes and therefore save lives. In explaining its areas of operation, the MCA says on its website:
“The Wales and West of England Region extends from Devon and Cornwall to cover the coast of Wales, North West England and the Moray Firth, with the Scotland and Northern Ireland Region covering the remainder of the UK coastline”—
in which it includes the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland, although it incorrectly spells Shetland as “Sheltand”. It has also confused the Moray Firth with the Solway Firth. Clearly, local knowledge does not exist at MCA headquarters.
I turn to how resilient the new system will be. A source at MCA said:
“on a couple of occasions Liverpool MRCC has been out of action due to ‘technical difficulties’ which has resulted in all local teams being out at strategic locations to monitor communications traffic for Liverpool—a difficult task which was aided by Holyhead, Clyde and Belfast”.
It is, of course, proposed that all three of those should go. Could the new system cope with that kind of crisis? Are we putting all our eggs into two baskets? We need an effective, efficient and safe system that commands confidence. If the MCA proposals are the answer—clearly, many people disagree—it has a selling job to do.
In Dumfries and Galloway, slightly different arrangements are in place. The Mull of Galloway to the east along the Solway is handled by Liverpool, which is twinned with Holyhead; the Mull of Galloway to the north is handled by Clyde at Greenock, which is twinned with Belfast. It is therefore difficult for me to use the local argument. Indeed, there may even be an argument in my situation for having more centres. The arrangements in my area have implications for the consultation that is meant to be going on. Sources at MCA tell me that meetings were going to be organised. If they are, they will be organised around the marine rescue co-ordinating centres. For most of Dumfries and Galloway that means that the meeting will be held in Liverpool; for people in Stranraer and Portpatrick, the meeting will be held in Greenock or Bangor. Members can imagine how many constituents will make their way to those meetings to put forward their views.
It is essential that the MCA hear the views of the people who are involved on the ground. It strikes me that in organising the consultation, the MCA—like so many organisations—thinks that everybody lives within about five miles of its head or regional office. That is clearly not the case in Scotland; it betrays the same kind of ignorance that the MCA betrays in talking of “Sheltand”, and of the Moray Firth instead of the Solway Firth.
The existing system works well, so the onus is surely on the MCA to prove that its suggestions are better. It needs to listen to users’ arguments and to adapt its proposals considerably, where necessary. I am sure that that will be necessary, as it will find if ever it gets round to listening to its users—the people who are out at sea whose lives may be at risk and whose lives will probably be put more at risk if the proposals see the light of day. The current consultation arrangements certainly do not allow people to get their views to the people at the MCA who are drawing up the plans. My plea is that the consultation must be, at the very least, genuine. It should give people the ability to participate in it in person, and not only by e-mail.
17:48
I, too, congratulate Alasdair Allan on securing the debate. The issue is of great concern to the whole of my region, with its many island communities and mainland coastal areas.
I am very pleased that the Western Isles has set up a task force, given its history of successful task forces. I am also pleased that the task force is working closely with the Shetland islands campaign. I hope that the two communities can work closely together. This is not about who gains a coastguard station; it is about retaining all our 24-hour coastguard stations. As Duncan McNeil said, the Clyde coastguard station covers parts of the Highlands and Islands. We need therefore to work on a cross-party and cross-community basis. It is important that the campaign attracts the broadest possible support; the issue is far too important for the campaign to become partisan and parochial.
Too often we have seen communities being pitted against one another to fight for lifeline services. We cannot afford to take that bait. When I heard about the proposals, I wrote immediately to the minister, Mike Penning MP. In his response, he confirmed that there would be
“two Maritime Operations Centres supported by six sub-centres, five of which would operate only during the day”.
I am not an expert, but common sense dictates that search and rescue becomes more difficult at night, and that that is when local knowledge of tides and hazards really comes into its own. In my view, therefore, search and rescue cannot be co-ordinated from just anywhere, especially at night.
We already have concerns about environmental damage arising from ships running aground; Rob Gibson mentioned the Braer. Are memories so short? Following the Braer disaster, new tugs were situated in Lewis and the Shetlands, but they, too, are now being removed. Today’s ditching of a Tornado emphasises the danger. Closure of the stations and removal of the tugs will leave that remote part of our coastline absolutely unprotected, will cost lives and will mean that environmental disasters impact on our communities for generations to come.
The lack of joined-up thinking goes further. The replacement Nimrod was to be based in Kinloss but has been scrapped. That decision was made with little regard paid to how we support the coastguard in rescues that are beyond the reach of search and rescue helicopters. The search and rescue service is also subject to change. All those decisions are being taken in their own little silos, but practice on the ground is that the services work together to protect our shipping and fishing industries. We should add to that the development of renewable energy in the seas around the Pentland Firth to the north and to the west. Those areas are ideal for the supply of energy, but tapping that energy is dangerous.
All the decisions to which I have referred need to be halted and co-ordinated. We must take an approach that is based on how we can best serve our communities, rather than simply on bureaucrats doing the arithmetic.
I understand that a public meeting will take place in Stornoway tonight. We are with those at the meeting in spirit, if not in person. I hope that this debate, that meeting and the massive petition that has been launched in Shetland will be listened to by those who make the decisions and that they will stop and think about the impact that they are having on our communities.
17:52
I, too, congratulate Alasdair Allan on bringing this debate to the chamber.
The MCA’s proposals are a threat to human lives and safety, especially in the treacherous waters of the Pentland Firth between Caithness and Orkney. As long ago as 1380, the historian John of Fordun described the Pentland Firth as a place
“where a fearfully dangerous whirlpool sucks in and belches back the waters every hour.”
Since then, the firth has only become more dangerous, as shipping movements have increased, oil tankers have become larger and, as other members have said, weather patterns have become more severe. Mike Penning states that fact in the foreword to the MCA’s proposals. I can attest to it personally, because my grandfather sank his ship—luckily, without loss of life—in that same firth in a storm.
Currently, there are five lifeboats around the Pentland Firth: at Wick, Thurso, Kirkwall, Stromness and Longhope. Surely the need to maintain so many lifeboats to serve a single area attests to the dangers of the firth. Putting coastguard support into one national centre, probably in Aberdeen, and taking out one of the two centres in Orkney and Shetland, would decimate the back-up service and be entirely unacceptable to my constituents and to me.
Going back in time, the successful response by the coastguard and volunteers to the Multitank Ascania incident proves my case. In the early morning of 19 March 1999, the chemical tanker Multitank Ascania caught fire with no less than 1,800 tonnes of flammable chemicals on board. The Pentland coastguard co-ordinated the response, which required the use of a tugboat, a lifeboat and a helicopter, and successfully evacuated the ship, anchored it away from shore and evacuated no fewer than 600 people from the threatened surrounding area. Without a co-ordinated effort by the local coastguard centre, the Multitank Ascania would surely have been an environmental disaster and, possibly, a disaster in human terms.
As other members have said, local coastguard operational centres provide invaluable knowledge of the coastline and of the rescue resources that are available in their regions. A central operational centre to meet the needs of all of Scotland could not possibly have the intimate details of Scotland’s vast coastline or the unique characteristics of the traffic that frequently uses individual regions.
If another tanker were to repeat the performance of the Multitank Ascania today, I have no doubt that one centre in Aberdeen would find it extremely difficult to co-ordinate a swift response capable of doing what had to be done back in 1999.
The point has been made already: we as a Parliament must speak with one voice on this issue. Everything that I have heard so far in the debate greatly encourages me in that regard, and I again thank Alasdair Allan for bringing it.
17:55
I thank Alasdair Allan for securing this timely debate on the UK Government’s proposals to leave Scotland with only one 24-hour coastguard centre.
I will concentrate my remarks on the coastguard centre at Fife Ness. I do so not to make a special case for it at the expense of the other coastguard centres in Scotland, but simply because it is the centre that I know best and because it covers part of my constituency. Indeed, it covers the east coast from the Borders to Montrose, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The proposals from the UK Government are short-sighted and dangerous. The decision to close the centres has been reached in advance of the consultation. What is the purpose of a consultation if the decision has already been taken? It is important for us, as individuals and as MSPs, to engage in the consultation and to put forward an overwhelming case that reflects what so many members have said today and which makes it very difficult for the UK Government to continue its course of action.
I will concentrate on the Firth of Forth. The argument for closing the Fife Ness centre is a more difficult one to make now, as over the past few years the firth has become busier, not less busy, and will continue to do so. In addition to the leisure activities that have already been mentioned, such as walking, boating and wind surfing, there are some serious, big commercial operations in the Forth.
The growth of the renewable energy sector’s base at the Fife energy park at Methil over the years means that large structures can be towed out to sea at any given time, which poses potential problems if those structures run up against boats and the like. I expect the Fife energy park and the wind turbine industry to expand rapidly, making the Firth of Forth and other places along the east coast far busier than they have been in the past.
Despite claims that ship-to-ship oil transfers have been ruled out, there is still the possibility they will take place in the Forth in the future—alongside all the other various other activities. They have not been ruled out. There are road and rail bridges across the Tay and the Forth, too, as well as commercial shipping and cruises.
Many members have highlighted the need for local knowledge, which is imperative. It is impossible to run such a service without having the local knowledge that coastguards bring. An understanding about local knowledge has simply not been present in the MCA’s deliberations to date.
The tone of the debate was set in Alasdair Allan’s opening speech. It is vital that we as a Parliament present a united front on the matter. The proposals, if enacted, will be dangerous for our commercial industries, as other members have said. There is also a real potential that lives will be lost if they go ahead.
17:59
Like everybody else, I thank Alasdair Allan for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject in the Parliament. It is perhaps ironic or perhaps opportune that, on the very day when there is a major incident on the west coast, here we are discussing the possibility of losing the safety features that exist in the area. I am glad to say that, according to the information that I have, the two occupants of the plane have been picked up, and they are on their way to, if not already in, Raigmore hospital. That is good news.
It seems that the Westminster Government has launched a full-out assault on maritime safety, placing the value of money over human lives and safety, as we heard. The UK Government’s most recent proposal, which is to slash the number of coastguard operations centres, follows a pattern of attacks on maritime safety, which concerns many people not just in the Parliament but up and down the west coast of Scotland.
The UK Government moved to remove the four MCA emergency tugs that were put in place in response to the Braer oil tanker disaster and the proposals in the Donaldson report. Many of us fought long and hard, with the support of the communities up and down the coast, to have those tugs put on station.
The UK Government’s irresponsible decision on maritime safety will put lives and industry in danger. The centralisation of coastguard services sacrifices vital local knowledge of the intricate coastlines of Scotland and its northern and western isles. There is no doubt about that. Without local expertise and knowledge, time will be lost. Local expertise is necessary for successful—I repeat “successful”—maritime rescues and responses to environmental disasters. Respondents in remote operating centres will not have the knowledge or the time to ensure safety along the Scottish coastline, as many members have said.
Slashing the number of coastguard operations centres is a short-sighted strategy, which would be completely undermined in the event of a maritime incident, especially an environmental disaster such as another oil tanker spill. The devastating consequences of a maritime disaster for Scotland’s tourism and fishing industries, not to mention the incalculable cost in human life and environmental health, would far outweigh any immediate monetary gains from coastguard centralisation.
How far will the UK Government go to reduce coastguard expenses? The future of RAF Lossiemouth is already uncertain and the recent attacks on coastguard personnel and tugs heighten concern over the future of additional coastguard services. Maritime safety must not be jeopardised for the sake of cutting costs. Our coastguards must be given the resources to perform their duties and ensure the safety of Scotland’s people, environment and industries.
In light of the current consideration of the Scotland Bill, perhaps it is worth considering whether some aspects of maritime safety should be transferred to Scotland. The safety of our waters and coastlines is invaluable and I am appalled by the Westminster Government’s willingness to put it in jeopardy.
18:03
I congratulate Alasdair Allan on securing this important debate and I congratulate members on their eloquent speeches. The fact that so many members spoke in the debate illustrates the strength of feeling in all parties on the proposals that we are considering. As many members said, the issue is of vital importance to all Scotland and not just to areas in which coastguard maritime rescue co-ordination centres are under threat of closure. Maritime safety in our waters must surely become compromised if the measures are implemented.
We all want to pay tribute to all our coastguard staff and volunteers the length and breadth of Scotland. Last year they responded to more than 3,500 calls and they often act in dangerous and harsh conditions to help people in peril. As we heard, two of my constituents, who are based at RAF Lossiemouth, were taken to hospital in Inverness today by the coastguard helicopter that is based in Stornoway and, as we speak, local coastguard teams are in action to look for debris in the water.
The UK Government’s announcement on the future of our valuable coastguard service came as a shock to the Scottish Government, given the absence of formal discussion on the matter beforehand. Of course, this is not the first time that maritime issues of concern to Scotland have been handled in such a cavalier fashion. A similar thing happened in October last year, when the withdrawal of UK Government funding for the emergency towing vessels was announced. Following the loss of the Tornado off the west coast of Scotland today, the local emergency towing vessel is in action with the coastguard teams to look for debris.
All that takes place against the backdrop of the loss of the Nimrods and their search and rescue capabilities. That, in turn, is linked to the closure of RAF Kinloss, where the air rescue co-ordination centre that currently tasks the coastguard helicopters is based. There is also continuing uncertainty about the future provision of the UK search and rescue helicopters.
As we are a maritime nation, all the uncertainty about maritime safety is of huge concern to all members, as John Farquhar Munro and others said. It is difficult to comprehend the justification for the scale of the proposed cutbacks.
In relation to the coastguard service, it is unacceptable that none of the devolved Administrations is even listed as a consultee, even though existing co-ordination centres in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all under threat of closure. I assure members that the First Minister intends to write to the Prime Minister to express frustration that matters with clear implications for Scotland are not being handled more sensitively. Members may be aware that I have already written to my counterpart in strong terms on those issues. The Scottish Government will also make a submission to the formal consultation in due course.
Opposition to the proposed closures is gaining momentum. The First Minister recently met Alasdair Allan and Tavish Scott to discuss their joint campaign to save the coastguard centres at Stornoway and Lerwick, but we should not forget the other centres at Fife Ness and Greenock, which are also under threat of closure, and the campaigns that they have initiated. Duncan McNeil highlighted Greenock, and Fife Ness was raised by members from Fife and elsewhere.
We are acutely aware that, as well as having implications for maritime safety, the closures would have an impact on jobs. Only Aberdeen appears to be safe from closure and, if the plans that have been set out are implemented, Scotland’s coastguard co-ordination centres will be reduced from five to two, only one of which will be open 24 hours. The MCA proposes a reduction in the total number of co-ordination centres in the UK from 18 to eight.
Scotland has 60 per cent of the coastline and 60 per cent of the total sea area of Great Britain, but the proposed reduction would leave us with only 25 per cent of the co-ordination centres. In anyone’s book, that spells danger. It is not a good ratio for Scotland. I repeat: only 25 per cent of the co-ordination centres would cover 60 per cent of the sea area.
We are all concerned about the risks that would arise from a greatly reduced co-ordination service. Under the proposals, watchkeeping officers might become overloaded with work. The fear must be that, if they had to respond to a major maritime incident, seemingly minor incidents in the area might not be handled as efficiently as they are at present and, as a consequence, lives might be put at risk. As many members said, the issue is the potential for lives to be put at risk at sea or on our coasts.
It is important that coastguards acquire and maintain local knowledge. That must surely be difficult if they are located hundreds of miles away from the scene of an incident. Some people argue that centralisation could result in the better use of more sophisticated equipment and in cost savings, but that should not happen at the expense of losing valuable expertise about remote and often inaccessible coastal areas with often unfamiliar names.
Indeed, it has been suggested that the subtle differences in the sound of Gaelic place names that are in common use in the north-west of Scotland and the Western Isles are likely to cause difficulties. Alasdair Allan, Tavish Scott, Alasdair Morgan and other members paid a lot of attention to the need for local knowledge, and some of the potential problems that they described would arise.
There must surely also be an issue for the voluntary coastguard rescue service. Although we are told that the service is not under threat of being cut back, it is proposed that the existing management arrangements be altered, and no regard appears to have been paid to the impact that the centralisation of the co-ordination centres may have on local volunteers’ morale.
Like all the members who spoke in the debate, the Scottish Government has real concerns about the UK Government’s ability to manage the valuable public service that the coastguard co-ordination centres provide. Financial savings appear to have been placed before maritime safety. The Scottish Government will seek views on how the coastguard service can best be managed in Scotland. That includes considering the merits of devolution—as suggested by John Farquhar Munro and others—which would align the service with the other blue-light functions that operate in Scotland.
As we know, Scotland stands poised to reap the rewards of clean, sustainable energy from our seas through the installation of numerous offshore wind, tidal and wave-power developments in the future. As other members have said, that is just one reason why we will undoubtedly see an increase in marine activity, which may bring with it associated risks for other mariners. It is therefore crucial that the valuable service that our coastguards provide is not compromised in any way.
We need a coastguard service in modern-day Scotland that is capable of delivering for Scotland, and we need to keep safe those who use our seas and coasts. The debate has shown that members stand united to achieve that aim. The Scottish Government, all political parties and the Scottish Parliament can work together to ensure that we secure the best outcome for Scotland in the weeks and months ahead.
Meeting closed at 18:10.