| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
PETITION
Retirement Pensions
10.14 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South-East): I beg to present a humble petition addressed to the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, from the residents of Coventry. The petition reads:
- The recent reports of plans for changes to retirement pensions has filled the people of Coventry and in particular its British pensioners and the Trades Unions Action Association of the Coventry Branch with deep concern because the threat to the universal basic retirement pensions will in the long term be to their detriment and cause great hardship to the least well off of the pensioners of Coventry and the Nation. Two thousand and six hundred and twenty four people of Coventry have expressed their concern by signing the petition because if these proposed changes are implemented, they would be neither economically nor socially justified.
- Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will approve no action that will be to the detriment of pensioners' entitlement and rights, instead commend the enhancement of pensions to at least one third of average earnings. And your pensioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
To lie upon the Table.
Coastguard Service
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Streeter.]
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall):
I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the coastguard service this evening, and I am particularly delighted with the choice of Minister to reply--the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). That allows me to pay tribute to the Minister's erudition, wit and courtesy--which we will sadly miss when the hon. Gentleman leaves the House--and to say how much I anticipate with joy the description of the coastline of the Minister's constituency that he will no doubt give when he replies.
The coastguard service is a serious subject, but it has not received much attention in the House in recent years. This is the first debate on the service in many years--in particular, the first since the publication of the Transport Select Committee's report on the future of the coastguard service that was published on 7 December 1994. I know that other hon. Members with coastal constituencies and those who are fellow officers of the all-party coastal group feel that this important issue should have been given Government time, but we welcome this opportunity. I am pleased that a number of my hon. Friends are present, as well as hon. Members of other parties.
The Select Committee's report concluded with this important analysis:
We are reaching the end of the period to which that conclusion relates, so this is a fitting moment to take stock.
I pay tribute to the dedication, professionalism and sheer guts of those who serve in the Coastguard Agency throughout the country. There are nearly 500 full-timers and 3,700 auxiliaries. They have been, and still are, demoralised by five years of non-stop reorganisation. In 210 BC, the Roman General Petronius said:
That is precisely the impact that these continual reorganising proposals have had on this dedicated team of men and women.
The current review is not the first in recent memory. The so-called Laver review, which was completed in 1978, recommended an increase in staff to more than 700. In 1987, cuts were imposed, resulting in the closure
of more rescue sub-centres. In the 1980s and early l990s, the number of centres was reduced from 28 to 21. Recently, the following centres have closed: Wick, Peterhead, Tees, Shoreham, Ramsey in the Isle of Man, Land's End and Hartland Point on my constituency border.
On 3 December 1991, the then Minister announcedthe latest comprehensive reorganisation, following a year-long review. There were elaborate plans to redesignate the auxiliary stations--some would be initial response teams, and some would be back-up teams. This caused confusion and consternation. The name games have played a major part in the confusion of recent years, including the curious suggestion that watch monitors be appointed--that seems more relevant to the classroom than to the serious occupation of watching the coast. This has contributed to the feeling that the service is unloved and misunderstood.
On 9 May 1994, the then Secretary of State announced that he had set the service a 20 per cent. economy target, to be achieved over a two-year period by 1 April 1996. The chief executive anticipated the closure of seven rescue centres, and the loss of one third of the full-time jobs. As part of the Transport Select Committee exercise to which I have referred, Ministers subsequently back-tracked. The abrupt U-turn meant that the full implications were not, and are still not, apparent--they have not come out into the open, which is one of the reasons for continuing concern.
Savings of some £1.4 million or £1.5 million by the end of next month are still being sought, but their manpower implications have not been fully explained to those most concerned. I know that my colleagues from Scotland, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Argyll and Bute(Mrs. Michie), will confirm that morale is low.
One officer has written the following to me:
Hon. Members may recall that the timing of this debate was announced only last Thursday. The fact that all this information has reached me so speedily suggests that many people share our concerns.
Another officer has written:
That is no way to conduct an effective, constructive negotiation or to improve confidence in the service.
As in any organisation, there is room for savings, and there may be waste in particular areas. If so, it should be identified and eradicated. For example, there seems to be widespread criticism of the vehicle policy of the service in relation to initial costs, replacement and running expenses. The rationale should surely be the improvement of the efficiency of the service, not a dogmatic and arbitrary cost-cutting exercise to a predetermined monetary target.
Between 1986 and 1994, the total number of incidents dealt with by the coastguard service almost doubled, from 5,300 to 10,470; the number of persons assisted increased from 8,960 to 17,400; and, thankfully, the number of fatalities decreased from 286 to 272. That in itself is
a tribute to the quality of the service. With much less manpower and a reduced budget in real terms, it is already achieving a great deal more.
The gales of the past few days around the west country coasts, and especially in my constituency, are a salutary reminder of what we owe to those who dedicate their lives to safety at sea. The current collapse in morale, following months of secret cost-cutting schemes, is surely too high a price to pay if it results in reduced standards and obstacles to high quality recruitment.
We are already hearing reports of distress signals being missed. I have a dossier referring to reports from regular coastguards of information that they have passed on to their superiors about missed mayday calls and missed urgent transmissions on the new 2182 medium frequency. There are renewed fears of inadequate manual watch--the cover in known danger spots around west country cliffs and secluded coves. Our coastal seafarers are expressing their concern; just when their numbers are increasing, inshore surveillance is being reduced.
In recent weeks--particularly since the announcement of this debate--I have received expressions of frustration, anxiety and dismay from members of the service. They are dismayed, because the future is still so shrouded in official mist. The coastguards simply cannot understand why the bureaucrats, safe behind their desks, are being so slow and so secretive.
10.16 pm
"The evidence we have received suggests that the operational personnel and equipment of the Coastguard are thinly stretched at present. The agency is dealing with many more incidents than in 1986, with fewer staff, and may recently have relied too much on the use of overtime and auxiliary coastguards to maintain service levels. We therefore welcome the fact that the Government has rejected the option of requiring the agency to produce efficiency savings of 20 per cent. Given the financial pressures under which the agency is presently operating, we are concerned that its present target of achieving a 6.4 per cent. saving in the next 18 months might adversely affect the provision of coastguard services. In view of the haste with which the agency was obliged to agree to the target, it may not in fact be possible for its management to find sufficient economies in non-operational elements of the budget to achieve such savings without compromising the effectiveness of the service."
"I was to learn in later life that we tend to meet any new situation by re-organising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation".
"After almost 30 years as a regular officer and 5 years as an auxiliary, I more than most can see just how the service if falling apart . . . recent decisions in the Coastguard service leave staff astounded, disenchanted and with morale at an all-time low".
"Rumours were flying around that discussion had taken place, or even agreements reached, about a range of issues . . . it appears that these rumours may have emanated from some senior managers".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |