| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North) : Chapter 13 of the document deals with the United Nations conference on the environment and development. The document was written before the conference.
I remind the House of the twin themes of UNCED--environmental sustainability and social and global equity. UNCED was intended to be a turning point, and I shall quote from the document to show what a turning point it was supposed to be. Page 92 says that UNCED
Column 980
"should therefore mark the transition from a model of development almost exclusively aimed at promoting economic growth towards a model wherein environmental protection and rational management of natural resources will be taken on board as integral components of development patterns."That was the environmental sustainability theme at UNCED. On page 92, there is a reference to the Dublin declaration of June 1990, which emphasises the need to meet
"the specific needs of its partners"--
the European Community's partners--
"in the developing world and in Central and Eastern Europe." Chapter 12 on bilateral co-operation and the section on developing countries is quite specific. It states :
"The Community and Member States will continue to intensify their efforts it is necessary to increase official development aid and to mobilise new financial resources to finance sustainable and environmentally sound development programmes and projects." We all recall that the commitment of new moneys by industrial countries to fund agenda 21 was grossly inadequate --about £2.5 billion per annum compared to the United Nations estimated requirement of £70 billion pounds. That is a remarkable disparity. That is the equity theme of UNCED.
Reports since suggest that even that pitiful requirement may not be honoured. First, the earth increment, part of the replenishment of the World bank International Development Association, is said to be in danger of collapse with Britain noticeably cool. It is said that we shall be lucky to maintain existing levels of that International Development Association budget, apart from any increase.
Secondly, Britain offered at Rio to triple its contribution to the global environmental facility to £100 million. That is now said to be threatened by budget cuts. Thirdly, we are told that Treasury Ministers are threatening to cut £250 million from bilateral overseas aid.
To renege on even the undertakings made at what was to be the most important meeting in the history of the world would make a mockery of the Rio agenda, a mockery of agenda 21 and a mockery of the new sustainable development commission which is to be set up in coming months. One can only imagine what the response among poorer countries could be and how disastrously damaging that response would be to the whole concept of environmental sustainability.
If we accept the rhetoric of UNCED--that the future of our planet is at stake--the consequences do not bear thinking about. Already the catastrophic poverty in some of the poorer countries does not bear thinking about.
I ask the Government to come clean and to make a clear statement about where they are at. The Government--this is true of all of us--must decide whether we wish to take UNCED and agenda 21 seriously or not.
11.3 pm
Mr. Maclean : With permission, I will reply to a few of the points raised in an interesting debate. I should explain to the House, as I tried to explain in my opening speech, the nature of the fifth environmental action programme, especially for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He asked one fundamental question. If we did not have these documents, what difference would it make?
Column 981
The difference would be that the Commission, which has the sole right to propose initiatives and legislation in the Community, could produce any directives and regulations that it saw fit without any guidance from the member states. The fifth environmental action programme gives some guidance. This may not be a good analogy, but it is like a giant a la carte menu. In some ways, it is like agenda 21. One does not expect to have to work one's way through every item on the list, but at least if everything is displayed in the window, one knows the sort of restaurant one is about to go into and the sort of meals that one might get there. My hon. Friend may have views as to the cooking ability of those concerned, but that is a different matter.I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). It is a great pleasure to see him on the Opposition Front Bench. It is perhaps unfair to be slightly carping towards him on his first appearance as an environment spokesman, but he should consider what we have been doing in the past few months. Where has he been during that time? He slammed into us on recycling, failing to realise that we gave £12 million in supplementary credit approvals last year, and £15 million this year to 126 local authorities. The hon. Gentleman made a fuss about eco-auditing--environmental auditing. That is one of the initiatives that we are taking forward and one of the matters discussed at the Luxembourg Council last week and at the informal Ministers' Council. We consider it terribly important. We have even included it in the published programme. It is one of the things that we hope to achieve during our presidency. The hon. Gentleman may be fortunate enough not to see television very often and has perhaps not seen the advertising campaign, "Helping the Earth Begins at Home", which tells householders and individuals what they can do about global warming. That is one of our energy efficiency measures. It is easy to pick on certain Government Departments for not being energy-efficient in the first year of a five-year programme. I emphasise, however, that those Departments have signed up to energy efficiency improvements over five years, and I do not think that it is fair to judge them in the first year of their efforts to meet a five-year target.
The hon. Gentleman went on about HCFCs. Of course we recognise that HCFCs have some ozone-depleting potential--about one twentieth that of CFCs, which are the real villain of the piece. If we are to make any real progress in combating ozone depletion, we must get the use of CFCs reduced and if we are to do that, we must allow HCFCs to be used in the interim, until all the other all-singing, all-dancing alternatives are available. Every other country in the world takes the view that HCFCs have a role to play in the interim period. The hon. Gentleman mentioned environmental units in the Commission. We are keen on that idea ; we repeatedly raised the subject at the Council meeting last week. I particularly made the point, drawing attention to that excellent report. This is a matter for the Commission, however. We do not have the power unilaterally to tell the Commission what to do or to impose a regime in Europe whereby all the directorates-general have their own
Column 982
environmental units and reorganise and reform themselves. I repeat that we pursued the matter last week, and we shall raise it again and again because we see merit in it. Environmental policy has now been integrated into all other aspects of our policy in this country--we have interdepartmental discussions on it--and Europe could easily follow that example.The hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to habitats, and sought to extract a promise from me that we will introduce legislation to implement the habitats directive. That is not news, however--we have been working on it, and we shall introduce the legislation at the earliest possible opportunity. We have some years to do that, so time is on our side.
This country has 5,600 sites of special scientific interest, and 8 per cent. of the land mass of Great Britain is contained within SSSIs. It is easy to pick on a site where damage has been caused, and I should perhaps have listened to hon. Members with more respect if they had pointed out that SSSIs in other countries have also sustained damage. I was fascinated by an article in The Daily Telegraph two weeks ago, showing the substantial damage that had happened not to an SSSI but to a special protection area. Although we are the third or fourth country in Europe in announcing SPAs, we have been criticised. According to the article, in one country thousands of acres have been devastated, but we heard not a word from the Opposition about that.
In our White Paper, we publicly acknowledge those matters on which we have done well, and those on which we have not done so well and on which we must make progress. When considering the fifth environmental action programme, it does us no service to denigrate this country for some of the progress that we are making in respect of the environment and to paint a picture showing that our environment is the only environment which is going down hill or that we are destroying the environment. The reverse is the case. We are protecting our environment exceptionally well, although of course there is more that we can do. And we shall do more : we shall take further measures to protect our environment whether or not the Commission proposes those measures. We recognise that protecting all aspects of our environment is good for the people of this country and for our industry.
Mr. Chris Smith : It does the House no service if the Government dismiss, as the Minister has just dismissed, the real problem of the 1,200 sites of special scientific interest which were damaged during the course of the fourth action programme. The Minister must not simply dismiss that as not particularly relevant. It is very relevant. The Minister said that we have plenty of time to institute the habitats directive and to implement it in legislation, but we do not have that time, because, while the Government are waiting, more SSSIs will be destroyed or damaged.
Mr. Maclean : I reject the hon. Gentleman's pessimism. We are not complacent about some of the SSSIs that have suffered damage, but we must also recognise the extensive network of protection in this country exercised through English Nature, the large number of SSSIs, the substantial measure of protection, and the fact that we have the most designated Ramsar sites in Europe. We must also recognise the large number of special protection areas that we have designated. Of course, English Nature now wants
Column 983
to concentrate on ensuring that its protection of SSSIs is as effective as it can be. When I said that we have plenty of time to implement the habitats directive, I meant that we have sufficient time within the time scale in the directive to do that. We intend that it shall be implemented.Mr. Hardy : The Minister suggested that we were not critical of our neighbours. I have been chairman of the natural environment sub-committee of the Council of Europe for a long time and I have berated our neighbours on many occasions. After the war, and for a considerable part of the post- war period, Britain was far and away the lead country in conservation and environmental concerns. That is no longer the position and the Minister gave examples which proved that a few moments ago. The Minister should not suggest that we are critical only of Britain.
The Minister referred to Ramsar sites. On occasions, private Bills have been introduced in the House whereby important areas of the environment were due for serious damage or destruction and Conservative Members trooped through the Lobbies to support that destruction. They did so in respect of the very important Ramsar site affected by the Felixtowe Dock and Railway Bill which
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make another speech. Interventions should be brief.
Mr. Maclean : I was trying to suggest that it would not be the British way simply to criticise our neighbours or to exempt ourselves. However, it is not good for us to give the impression that we criticise and denigrate only ourselves as though we were still the dirty man of Europe. I reject the claim that we are no longer in the lead in respect of nature conservation. We are the most respected country in the world in that regard. No other country has such a scientific lead in nature conservation as we have. In negotiations on the convention on trade in endangered species or other issues, it is the British scientists who are listened to because we have the expertise.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to pesticides and gave the impression that our use of pesticides was increasing and that farmers were ignoring the strictures, but that is not so. Pesticide use in this country has decreased by 20 per cent. in the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman should not give the impression that it is doing the opposite.
On toxic waste, I do not want to comment on the specific case as it is sub judice--subject to legal procedures at the moment. However, I make the general point that last week at the Council of Ministers meeting in Luxembourg we obtained agreement. It was thanks to the brilliant chairing of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that we got agreement on the waste shipments directive. The Community is now in a position to sign the Basle convention, and we shall be able for the first time to bring in measures through the national self-sufficiency plans to put proper controls on the transfer
Column 984
or shipment of waste between developed countries. I look forward to the day when those shipments will be drastically reduced if not stopped.The final point that I make to the hon. Member for Wentworth is about derelict land. Again he lambasted me on this matter. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have gone out to consultation on a scheme which will deal with section 143 registers. That consultation period has not yet ended ; it will end at the end of this month. I am quite happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me expressing his concerns about how that might impact
Mr. Hardy : I am still waiting for a reply.
Mr. Maclean : We are near the end of a consultation exercise. I should very quickly end up in court if I prejudged the outcome of the consultation exercise. I shall bear carefully in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman and others have made about the impact that those registers might have in his constituency and in other parts of the country.
Mr. Simon Hughes : Will the Minister give way ?
Mr. Maclean : I shall not give way, because I want to conclude my speech.
As we endeavour to build on the commitments that we signed up to at Rio, and as we shape our policies on the environment into the next century, the European Community has a role to play alongside and together with the individual member states. The fifth environmental action programme will be a vital part of that process. I have indicated tonight the approach that we are taking in discussing the programme in Brussels and the main themes that we would wish to see the Community pursue as the programme begins to be implemented. As those discussions move forward, we shall take account of the views expressed in this debate.
There is much work to be done in the Community in assessing how its policies match the aspirations of its member states--for example, the renewed commitment to the principle of subsidiarity and the requirement to integrate the environment in all policy aspects. As President of the Environment Council, we shall continue our efforts to ensure that the fifth action programme is adopted in terms which meet those concerns and enable the Community to continue to pursue effective environmental policies. I commend the motion to the House. Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the European Community Document No. 6132/92, relating to the Fifth Environmental Action Programme ; endorses the Government's welcome of the general shape of the Programme ; supports the Programme's emphasis on the integration of environmental concerns into other areas of policy, subsidiarity and the need to set priorities and assess costs ; and endorses the Government's intention to ensure that these elements and the outcome of the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development are adequately reflected in the Resolution on the Programme which the Council is to adopt.
Column 985
PETITIONS
Pornography
11.17 pm
Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point) : I present a petition from more than 350,000 people. We see laid in front of us evidence of the massive public concern about the growth of pornography. The terms of the petition are that
urgent Government action is required to outlaw pornography. Because obscene and pornographic material, produced in Britain and abroad, is freely available on a scale as never before. The present Obscene Publications Act 1959 can control only the most extreme material. Because sex crime escalates children are increasingly at risk of being sexually abused and even murdered.
We the undersigned believe that the circulation of obscene and pornographic material is harmful to all members of society, especially to women and children.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House call upon Her Majesty's Government to strengthen British Law against pornography and press for similar reform in the European Community without delay.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. I beg leave to present the petition.
To lie upon the Table.
Link Road, Kirklees
11.19 pm
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock (Batley and Spen) : I have the honour this evening to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Batley and Spen. My constituents oppose the proposal to construct a link road between the M1 and M62 motorways in Kirklees in West Yorkshire. The proposed road would cut through Hartshead, Roberttown and Norristhorpe in my constituency. It would take away green fields and houses and cut a village and a community in half. It would be of no benefit whatever to my constituents if the proposal went ahead. The petition has 3,000 signatures on it. It says :
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will note our strong objections to these proposals and respect the wishes of the petitioners and prevent construction of any link road through Kirklees. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc. I beg leave to present the petition.
To lie upon the Table.
Column 986
Search and Rescue (Kent Coast)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Greg Knight.]
11.20 pm
Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : I am grateful for the chance to raise during this short debate a matter which causes considerable anxiety to me and to my constituents--the provision of civilian search and rescue services covering the North Foreland and Dover strait. I should make it plain that the airfield at Manston, known jointly as RAF Manston and Kent international airport, to which I shall refer, lies mainly in the constituency of my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). My hon. Friend the Minister will understand that my hon. Friend's position as a Minister of State bars him by parliamentary convention from raising the issue on the Adjournment. But he is in his place on the Bench tonight and I hope that I shall speak for us both and for his constituents too.
The anxieties that I shall voice are echoed by my hon. Friends the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)--who represents the coastal town of Whitstable with its fishing fleet--and for Faversham (Mr. Moate)--who has the major port of Sheerness in his care. I am also aware of the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), who is with us tonight. The Dover strait, the North Foreland and the Goodwin sands, together with the north Kent approaches to the Medway and the Thames estuary, constitute the busiest and one of the most hazardous sea lanes in the world. A mariner friend of mine has described the almost continuous cross-channel, small craft traffic as
"like children running backwards and forwards across a motorway." That mix of pleasure traffic, ferry traffic--about 200 crossings a day--and commercial shipping travelling to and from the great seaports of northern Europe is a series of accidents waiting to happen. Added to the cocktail of potential disaster are the many holidaymakers who, throughout the season, find themselves in trouble on sailboards, airbeds, rubber dinghies and the like. Much of the rescue has been met, and will continue to be met, by the extraordinarily courageous volunteer work of the crews of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the now modern lifeboats which it mans for both inshore and deep-sea purposes.
There is another need which can be met only by the search and rescue helicopter service. For example, the Royal Air Force search and rescue team from Manston airfield was first on the scene when the Herald of Free Enterprise capsized. Civilians are alive today who owe their lives to the speed of that response. The search and rescue service from Manston has flown Kent county's firefighters to ships burning in the channel to remove casualties and fly them direct to Thanet district hospital and to put in fire-fighting teams in time to prevent small fires from turning into disasters.
Kent county fire service has about 100 officers who are trained specifically to fight fires at sea. In recent years, those men have attended many incidents on board ships in the waters off the North Foreland and the Dover strait.
Column 987
According to the Kent fire brigade offshore operations team manual, those incidents began back in May 1965 when"The Pakistani Freighter Yousef Baksh was on fire and in danger of sinking. She was beached in Sandwich Bay. Reconnaissance was carried out by Kent Fire Brigade Officers using a helicopter from Manston who also provided transport for firefighters."
In the years that followed, major fire incidents attended with helicopter support include the Birkland, the Skyron, the Seafreight Freeway, the European Trader, the Herald of Free Enterprise, the Sally Star ferry and in June this year, the Bow Cedar. The fire service has also worked with the helicopter service to provide cliff rescues--an average of four a month during the summer--and now has equipment stores at Manston that include breathing apparatus, water and foam fire fighting equipment, rescue kit, and lighting and damage control supplies. There is also a fire service Manston liaison officer.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Hastings and Rye) : My hon. Friend will appreciate that the fishermen off Hastings and Rye and the sailors in those waters are looking forward to enjoying the same sort of service, with a speedy response at the same amount of search time and the back up service that they are used to. I hope that my hon. Friend will make those points.
Mr. David Shaw (Dover) rose --
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. We cannot have one intervention on another. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) must respond to the first intervention before allowing another.
Mr. Gale : I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye. I could not agree more with every point that she made, and I shall elaborate on some of those in a moment.
Mr. Shaw : I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Many of our constituents obtain work on, and enjoy the use of ferries between Dover and Calais. Is it not vital that the Minister assures us that there will be no compromising of safety standards, and that the efficiency of the rescue service will be maintained?
Mr. Gale : Both my hon. Friends are entirely correct, and have reinforced the points that I shall make tonight.
It has been the combination of airborne and water-borne rescue services that has, in the past, proved so successful and is so much appreciated by our constituents. Let me briefly review the history of helicopter search and rescue in east Kent. In the early days--in 1961--the RAF flew a single Whirlwind helicopter from Manston. In 1969, the RAF service was replaced by the civilian firm, Bristow, acting under contract for the coastguard service. The civilian service operated by Bristow, using mainly ex-RAF personnel, won the company the coastguard rescue shield in 1972.
Shortly afterwards, the RAF reinstated Wessex helicopters to meet a perceived military aviation need at Manston and it may not surprise hon. Members to hear that there was a public outcry at the loss of the award- winning civilian service. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South--then Thanet, East--has been good enough to remind me that he instigated an
Column 988
Adjournment debate, of which this one is almost the mirror image, to protest at the withdrawal of the Bristow contract.During that debate, my hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force had said in a letter that there was
"no direct service requirement to locate a helicopter at Manston". Concluding his speech, my hon. Friend said prophetically : "there is above all the fear that these RAF helicopters will again be withdrawn as they were in 1969 Therefore, in the interests of all the yachtsmen, swimmers, and shipping traffic of the Channel I urge the Minister to reconsider his decision and to leave the excellent helicopter service in the situation where it now is". Replying, the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade was unable to give an undertaking that there would not come a time when the RAF service would be withdrawn but said that in that unlikely event "it would provide us with sufficient notice to enable a satisfactory alternative service to be put into operation".--[ Official Report, 23 July 1974 ; Vol. 877, c. 1523-29.]
The decision was taken, the RAF replaced Bristow and in 1988 the Wessex helicopters were replaced with Sea Kings.
Over that period of 30 years, the helicopter search and rescue service has responded to over 3,000 calls, and since the advent of serious rescue flying over the sea, the Dover strait and the North Foreland have not been without swift helicopter cover. On this basis, and remembering the comments of the Under-Secretary in 1974 concerning the need for sufficient notice to be given to provide adequate alternative cover, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South and I first made representations to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces who has, with the Secretary of State for Defence, listened courteously to our opinions and carried out a thorough review of the military need in the area. It has, sadly, become clear that the military need is greater to the north, serving the air stations of East Anglia, and to the west, where there is a concentration of military and, particularly, naval, flying, than in the Dover strait area.
In the past year, there have been three military callouts from RAF Manston. Two of those were airlifts--which means the evacuation of personnel on compassionate grounds--and one was recalled. None involved searches. In the previous four years, the pattern was not dissimilar. In 1991, military callouts involved one medical rescue, one medical evacuation, one airlift, two searches and two not required or false alarms. In 1990, there were fewer military callouts and only one search, one search in 1989, two searches in 1988 and no military searches in 1987.
Given the enhanced range of the Sea King helicopter, its night flying capacity and load-carrying ability, coupled with the sophisticated survival equipment carried by military personnel, it is clear that the decision to relocate the military search and rescue flights to cover faster the areas of greatest military need was inevitable.
My hon. Friends will join me in paying tribute to the courage and determination shown by the RAF search and rescue service. Many of the pilots and crews are our personal friends. We have grown accustomed to them --perhaps even taken them for granted--and we are relieved to know that the sight of the familiar yellow and green helicopters will not be lost to the north Kent coast, either on patrol from Wattisham or for the many ceremonial purposes at which their company has been enormously
Column 989
appreciated and enjoyed. It is comforting to know that, from their new base, they will be only 40 minutes flying time away.While 40 minutes is not great duration for a military flier equipped to survive in a winter sea for some hours, and while it is well within the one -hour response time laid down in civilian regulatory requirements it is, as we know, far too long for the child swept out to sea on a Li-Lo or the winter sailboarder who, albeit experienced and well-equipped, has suffered injury. Forty minutes is also time for a fire to take hold, to burn fiercely and to take lives. In an extra 20 minutes flying time, some of those rescued from the Herald of Free Enterprise would not today be alive. The extra delay may, I fear, cost lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South and I visited my noble Friend Lord Caithness, who has responsibility for the coastguard service, some weeks ago to raise this issue and to express our firm belief that the RAF service must be replaced by a civilian helicopter service designed and equipped to meet a civilian need.
Consider the figures again. In 1987, there were 117 civilian callouts from Manston involving 45 searches, 25 medical rescues, three medical evacuations and seven flights providing top cover for other rescue services. In 1988, the civilian callout number rose to 144 with 38 searches, 20 rescues and 24 medical evacuations. In 1989 there was another increase, with 157 civilian calls, 35 searches and 23 medical rescues. In 1990, there were 175 callouts for civilian purposes, involving 52 searches, 16 medical evacuations and 26 rescues. In 1991, there were 141 callouts involving 42 searches, 28 medical rescues and 13 ordinary rescues. So far this year, there have been 127 callouts, 40 searches and 18 medical rescues.
The figures speak for themselves. While the military need has fallen and can be well met from the new deployment of resources, the civilian need shows no sign of decreasing. I believe--I have to say it--that the combination of lifeboat and RAF search and rescue services from Wattisham will, on occasion, be insufficient to meet our needs. I cannot believe that the Minister is prepared to risk the life of one child or one sailor for the sake of providing, once again, civilian helicopter cover from Manston. The facilities are there and have recently been modernised. The precedent is there : civilian helicopters have flown from Manston for the coastguard service in the past and are currently flying from Lee-on-Solent. Above all, the need is there.
Earlier this evening, on TV South, my noble Friend Lord Caithness said that of some 900 incidents attended this year, 127 had involved the use of a helicopter. I am sure that, on reflection, Lord Caithness would not wish to suggest that in some way those 127 incidents did not matter--of course they mattered--or that for those 127 incidents the helicopters, and not other services, was needed to save lives.
I do not want to have to rise in this House to ask any Minister to answer a private notice question following an avoidable death off the North Foreland or in the channel arising from the failure to provide civilian search and rescue services from Manston. However, I know with an awesome certainty that, unless my hon. Friend the Minister and his noble Friend offer a positive response, the likelihood of my having to do so will be very great. I urge
Column 990
my hon. Friend to take this case away and analyse it carefully. No decisions concerning civilian provision have yet been made. No political colours have been nailed to the mast and no reputations are on the line. My hon. Friend and my noble Friend will earn many people's gratitude if they provide at Manston the civilian services available from Lee-on-Solent. In all conscience, they can do no less.11.34 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) on having secured this debate on such an important subject. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in his place, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I appreciate the importance which they all attach to the debate, and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) are also concerned. The United Kingdom is very fortunate indeed to have a large and highly capable military helicopter fleet dedicated to search and rescue and which will, I am confident, continue to give good coverage around the whole of our coastline. Those helicopters are, however, provided by the Ministry of Defence to meet a military requirement and, although they are an invaluable asset, they are just one of a range of search and rescue resources available within the United Kingdom. My hon. Friends will doubtless know of the announcement made last week by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Copies of the open government document entitled "The Future Provision of Royal Air Force Search and Rescue Helicopters" are in the Library.
The Department of Transport is responsible for civil maritime and aeronautical search and rescue and, through Her Majesty's Coastguard, it meets the United Kingdom's obligations to provide an adequate level of SAR services for persons in distress within the United Kingdom's search and rescue region. We have at our disposal an armoury of SAR assets, which includes RAF, naval and coastguard helicopters, all-weather and fast inshore lifeboats of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and Coastguard response teams. SAR capability must be assessed taking all those available assets into account, not just helicopters. It is the job of the coastguard, as co-ordinator of search and rescue, to call on the best assets available to deal with any particular incident.
There is no international obligation to provide a civil helicopter rescue service. This country is the only one in Europe to have dedicated SAR helicopters positioned to meet national coverage criteria. These criteria were established in 1986 by the helicopter coverage group of the United Kingdom SAR committee, which recommended that helicopters should be deployed so that points 40 nautical miles from the coast can be reached within one hour by day, and those at 100 nautical miles from the coast can be reached within two hours by night or in bad weather. Those response times include an allowance for scrambling times of 15 minutes by day and 45 minutes at night. I am advised that, in practice, helicopters are regularly scrambled within three minutes, so there is a large allowance within that formal limit of one hour.
The recent review to which I referred and the announcement that flowed from it are a matter for the
Column 991
Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend, as PPS to the Minister responsible, is in an interesting position. With his customary assiduity, he will be well aware of the contents. As he said, the number of RAF helicopters was determined by the military requirement. The effects on the provision of civil SAR were taken into account by the Ministry of Defence in the new dispositions of those helicopters to satisfy the civil requirement. The Department of Transport was consulted and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping was satisfied that the rationalisation of helicopter deployment met the helicopter coverage group criteria for civil SAR--except for those very small additional areas marked on annex C of the open government document. It also maintained adequate response times around the whole coast. Changes to the basing structure meant that on some parts of the coast the response times would be reduced. At other places they would be increased, but they will still be within the agreed criteria. I know that my hon. Friends are seeking that assurance.It was decided that the criteria in south-east England could be met by a helicopter flight at Wattisham in Suffolk. That means that for certain areas around the Kent coast and in the English channel which are currently covered from RAF Manston there will be increased helicopter transit times. But we are satisfied that the Sea Kings at Wattisham will be available to respond to incidents in these areas within the response times recommended by the coverage group. I can also appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye. The response time in her constituency by the Manston helicopter now would be about 30 minutes. In future, helicopters from either Lee on Solent or Wattisham will take 15 to 25 minutes longer, depending on the precise location of the casualty. But I stress that this is still within the one-hour daytime criterion. I have to acknowledge that there is a small area in mid-channel, south of the Dover strait, which is outside the one-hour daytime criterion. But because, as I have said, helicopters are almost always airborne well within the 15-minute standby time, in this area too the rescue helicopter would be on station well within the hour.
The North Foreland and Dover strait--of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover--are extremely well served by lifeboats, with fast inshore boats stationed at Whitstable, Margate, Ramsgate and Walmer, and large all- weather boats at Margate, Ramsgate and Dover. Further to the west, in or adjacent to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, there are lifeboats at Dungeness, Rye, Hastings and Eastbourne. As most incidents occur within two to three miles of the coast--my hon. Friend referred to people who drift out to sea on small craft--they will continue to be effectively resolved, as always, using a mix of national SAR assets, including these lifeboats and the helicopters from Wattisham and Lee on Solent. In the Dover coastguard district there are also 10 auxiliary coastguard response teams which are trained and equipped to locate and rescue casualties on the shore or on cliffs. There are similar teams around the whole coastline.
It should be noted that, during 1991, the Manston aircraft was tasked by HM Coastguard on 127 occasions. My hon. Friend said that Lord Caithness used that very statistic. Only about 10 per cent. of those were actual rescues-- 13 in all. The balance included search operations, the lifting of injured people from ships, medical transfers
Column 992
between hospitals and so on. So although helicopters are an important asset, they are not the only SAR resource available. The total number of incidents in the Dover region over the same period was 876, of which the vast majority--more than 700--were dealt with without recourse to helicopters.In the rare event of an incident occurring in the middle of the Dover strait or near the median line, or of a major incident elsewhere in the Dover region, the most suitable assets will be used, whether national or requested from adjacent foreign search and rescue regions. This is in line with accepted SAR practice with other European authorities. The recent incident when a fire disabled the French ferry Quiberon served to demonstrate the effectiveness of cross-border liaison arrangements. Even though the vessel was in French waters, the Ministry of Defence brought a great number of aircraft to readiness. But occasions on which we would need to call upon the French authorities or the Belgians to provide a helicopter to deal with a casualty in our waters would be very rare. I am advised that none of the incidents dealt with by the Manston helicopter last year would have needed the Belgian helicopter had the Manston one not been available. On the basis of past records, it is not expected that the removal of the Manston helicopter will increase the load on any other resources, including Belgian or French resources, for example.
For the future, I am pleased to see the progress made by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution in developing its next generation of fast-afloat lifeboats and welcome its stated intention to give priority to the early allocation of these new fast boats in the areas affected by the change in helicopter deployment. The first of three of these boats for Kent should be on station within a few months of the departure of the Manston helicopter.
It has been suggested that an extra helicopter--effectively, a coastguard helicopter--should be put at Manston, like the one at Lee-on-Solent. Our judgment is that it would be difficult to justify that allocation with the limited search and rescue benefits that it would bring. We have considered but rejected alternative arrangements to enhance cover by diverting helicopters from existing bases and having them travel to and from Manston each day. The relocation of the coastguard helicopter from its present base at Solent to a point further east would denude the night cover from the west of the Solent, as the Royal Navy helicopter at Portland does not have full night or all weather capability. The present base is best to maintain coverage of the south coast and mid channel under the 1986 criteria, even after the removal of the Manston helicopter.
Although there will undoubtedly be a change in the make-up of search and rescue resources available to respond to incidents off the Kent coast and in the Dover strait, we have and will maintain a versatile and highly professional search and rescue capability both in those areas and around the entire coast of the United Kingdom. I well understand the concern that has been expressed extremely forcefully this evening. My hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury and for Hastings and Rye have emphasised that concern. I could never predict what might happen on individual occasions or in individual incidents, but I know that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Caithness, when considering the
| Next Section
| Home Page |