| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.53 am
Mr. Alan Campbell (Tynemouth): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, not least because Tyne-Tees coastguard station--due for closure--is in my constituency. I am grateful for the work of the Select Committee, and I welcome the broad conclusions in its report.
I wish to refer to two matters that have been covered in detail this morning: first, the importance of local knowledge in local stations; and, secondly, whether "Focus For Change" and the consultation exercise has given the agency a more stable future. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee which produced a report last year on the new agency in which we expressed similar reservations about the loss of local knowledge.
I welcome the new investment in the integrated coastguard communication system--I am not a luddite in terms of new technology. I welcome also the assurances, and reassurances, that coastal rescue resources will remain in place. I wish to put on record my appreciation of the work of the coastguard, the helicopter crews and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which celebrates its 175th anniversary this month.
The longer the discussion on the future of the agencies concerned went on, the more concern emerged about the loss of local knowledge. Watch officers are tested on their local knowledge, and a previous Chief Coastguard has warned us not to underestimate the importance of local knowledge. We are told, apparently, that thinking that a watch officer can retain detailed local knowledge is somehow misleading; that 1 square nautical mile of sea is much like any other. We are reassured that, in any case, local rescue resources will retain local knowledge. It is dangerous to assume that watch officers are simply there
to answer telephones. That ignores their vital role in co-ordinating rescues, which are much more likely to take place along the coast--in some instances, coast that they know very well--than in open sea. Last year, Tyne-Tees dealt with 442 incidents inshore, and only 18 offshore. Alarm calls are often made by infrequent visitors to the coast, and are often made in the heat of an emergency.
It is important for local coastguards to be able to recognise local place names, to be familiar with the local vessels using that stretch of the coast and to be able to tell the difference between a description of Beacon Point in Newbiggin and Beacon Point in Seaham. The report states that local knowledge is
It is important to address the concerns in the report about how the Maritime and Coastguard Agency managed to get into this position in the first place. I have the highest regard for my hon. Friend the Minister, but I mustremind her that we inherited the review, and the recommendations--they are not binding on the Government. Throughout the process, there has been criticism about how the review and the consultation have been handled.
The Public and Commercial Services Union complained that the agency denied having a plan for station closures. When my local fishermen contacted me in the summer of 1997, they had heard rumours that Tyne-Tees was going to close. I contacted the agency, and I was reassured about the future of the station. Imagine how I felt in November 1997 when the announcement was made that the station was, after all, to close.
There is a strong suspicion that the agency has been dragged into the consultation process which followed the announcement, and that the consultation was really about how and when the closures would take place--not about whether or not they would take place. Despite two reports from major Committees, I am still not sure how stations were actually chosen for closure. We are led to believe that it had something to do with incidents--putting aside the fact that an oil tanker adrift of the Northumberland coast counts as one incident, as does a lone fisherman cut off by the tide.
The year chosen by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency was 1996, which just happened to be a year when incidents appeared to be falling. Last year, Tyne-Tees had its busiest year since 1995, and there is no sign--although I would hope that this is the case--that incidents are tailing off. That has resulted in the loss of an important station at Tyne-Tees, which serves nine river estuaries--where most incidents take place.
There are 6,000 annual movements into the Tyne, and the numbers are rising. There are 12,000 annual movements into the Tees--most of which are tankers entering the biggest industrial chemical complex in Europe; yet we are to lose the station. Is it any wonder
that local people are left wondering whether this has been a meaningful consultation exercise at all? Is it any surprise that the Committee says that it is
If my hon. Friend the Minister is looking to save money, she should consider the number of incidents caused by recreational craft not looked after properly by their owners. Why do I have to have MOT, tax and insurance as a car owner, when I doubt whether those would be required if I owned a boat? If local boat owners want to make a contribution to the local coastguard service, we should encourage that.
Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test):
Last summer, representatives from the coastguard station at Lee-on-the-Solent came to see me and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) to express a series of concerns about the review then under way. They put the case for the continuation of their centre and the Portland centre as separate entities. They were concerned that the proposal to conjoin the centres would lead, in the not-too-distant future, to one super-centre, and that the principle of effective coastguard operation on the south coast would be undermined.
I was deeply concerned, but I did not want to engage in special pleading, as I recognised that a national review was under way. I was delighted that the Select Committee decided to undertake an inquiry and, like many other hon. Members, I eagerly awaited its report. No one has dissented from the view that the Committee took a long, hard and careful look at the overall picture and concluded that there was not a case for closure, because the projected savings did not outweigh the problems that might be caused.
I felt vindicated, as what would have been special pleading on my part was shown to be part of a wider picture. That wider picture is encapsulated by the proposal to conjoin the Solent and Portland centres, which would effectively mean that along the south coast of England--by far the busiest recreational and commercial stretch of the United Kingdom coast--we would have, between Lyme Regis in the west and Eastbourne in the east, only one centre to respond. There would technically be two centres, but in effect only one.
The two centres were first and third in terms of the number of incidents in both 1996 and 1997, accounting for about 20 per cent. of all incidents recorded by all the coastguard stations in the United Kingdom. The argument that the stations can be conjoined because they are not busy is not borne out by the figures. Studies on the importance of ports and the future of leisure in the south-east of England show that the waters will inevitably become busier still.
I was pleased that, after consultation, the conjoining was put off until after 2003, but that is merely a pause. The Committee has done a good job for the House and for all who are concerned that their lives should not be put in peril when they go to sea. The review and the closures will not necessarily have that outcome, and my hon. Friend the Minister has emphasised the benefits from investment in new technology, but I cannot believe that technology alone could overcome the consequences of the watch officers having to look after new stretches of coast.
Mr. Joe Benton (Bootle):
I congratulate the Select Committee on its report, if for no other reason than that it totally vindicates the stance that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and I have taken. She rightly said that we have expressed the fears of the maritime interests on Merseyside. What consultations have been held with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and the shipowners of Merseyside?
A snippet of information that my hon. Friend the Minister may like to consider is that the latest indications are that the heavy commercial traffic through the port of Liverpool and Merseyside will increase in this year alone by about 40 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, we are not asking for a climbdown, but we want the Government to put to rest the accusations coming from maritime expertise in Merseyside that they have made an arrogant decision that flies in the face of all the best advice.
"a fundamental tool in Watch Officers' armouries".
Concern at the loss of local knowledge has been expressed not only by the Committee, but by the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, various fire and civil defence authorities and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations--including my own fishermen in North Shields. The Committee used the word "catastrophic" to describe the possible effect of the loss of local knowledge. That is a strong term for a report to use, and I hope that the Minister takes note of it.
"unhappy with all aspects of the consultation exercise"?
We are told that stations do not need to close to pay for the new technology, but why can we not retain local stations and local knowledge at the same time? Why, for once, cannot new technology enhance a local service, and not simply replace it?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |