Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on the management of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and proposed changes to payments made to coastguard rescue officers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for tabling this urgent question on what is an incredibly important matter. I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the remuneration of coastguard rescue officers, and I want to begin by recognising the extraordinary contribution made by CROs across the United Kingdom. For generations, His Majesty’s Coastguard’s coastal response has depended on people from local communities who choose to serve, often alongside full-time employment and family life. The reason we are here today is that the model had to change.

For years, when people signed up as volunteers, they had their expenses covered and an offer of hourly pay—which they did not need to claim—in recognition of the incredible service they undertook and the impact it had on their personal life. A Court of Appeal judgment has clarified that this payment overwhelmingly shifted what many considered to be a volunteer relationship into a work-wage bargain, and that this in turn conferred worker status. Everything we have done since has been to respect that judgment, understand what we do next, and allow CROs to continue fulfilling their vital public service and retain operational capacity.

There is no perfect solution, but ultimately, the volunteer model was judged at the time to be the better outcome for the service. That was the judgment reached by the MCA, which—as experts in search and rescue—took into account a variety of factors including profiles of incident types, geographies and organisational implications, as well as a survey of CRO sentiment and legal analysis, with which it made a recommendation. That recommendation allowed CROs to retain volunteer status, with the aim of protecting flexibility and the ability of people to serve alongside their primary employment. Careful consideration was given to options, including legal position, the operational implications and the wider organisational impact.

I have heard the concerns of the CRO community about this change. That is why the next stage of the process—the engagement sessions that were due to take place this week—have been postponed while I carry on working with CROs, trade unions and colleagues across the House. I will reflect on what has been raised in these discussions and consider how our coastguard volunteers can be recognised in the long term. Volunteering has been at the heart of His Majesty’s Coastguard’s response for over 200 years. It enables individuals to serve their communities alongside their primary employment, maintaining choice and flexibility. I remain grateful to all members of the Coastguard Rescue Service for their unwavering commitment to their communities and people in distress around the UK coastline.

[Mr Carmichael]

Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Speaker for allowing me the opportunity to ask this urgent question today, and I thank the Minister for his answer. As he knows, last week, we had more than 30 Members in Westminster Hall for a debate on these changes. I am pleased to hear that as a result of his intervention, the check-in meetings were postponed, and that the matters are now under full consideration. Is the Department considering the possibility of legislative change to deal with this problem? The House goes into recess at the end of next week, so can the Minister give the House an undertaking that those check-in meetings and this process of change will not be resumed during the recess, and without a statement first being made to this House?

Since last week’s debate, I have been contacted by a number of full-time officers who have described to me a toxic management culture within the agency. I have been told of at least three whistleblowing complaints that were made to the Department in March. Despite the passage of time, the whistleblowers remain unclear about the progress of their complaints. Can the Minister give me some reassurance that those whistleblowing complaints will be properly and speedily investigated, and that a proper and independent investigation will now be initiated into the management culture within the Maritime and Coastguard Agency?

Finally, information obtained under a Freedom of Information Act release indicates that responses to the MCA’s own survey show that almost 40% of CROs would either reduce the number of call-outs to which they respond or leave the service completely. That contradicts what Members of this House were told by the MCA. Can the Minister please explain why this information was not disclosed voluntarily by the agency? Will he now fully disclose the outcome of that survey?

[Keir Mather]

May I begin by thanking the right hon. Member not only for his championing of CROs, but for doing so in such a fair-minded, open and constructive way? I will respond substantively to some of the points he has made. On parliamentary scrutiny of prospective changes or working through options for the future of CROs, I make the commitment to him that Members of Parliament will be updated fully on any changes and on the next steps. During the Westminster Hall debate on this issue, he made the important point that MPs need to be allowed access to CROs to have meaningful conversations about what they think the future of the service should look like.

The right hon. Member asks whether survey data was used to inform the judgment that was made. I can confirm to him that survey data was one constituent part of a package of advice in regard to an operational recommendation by experts at the MCA about what the future model should look like. That was used alongside impact assessments and modelling. He raised this in his contribution to the Westminster Hall debate, but if he has further information about how CROs believe this change will impact them, and about the reality for his rural constituency and the island communities that he represents so fulsomely, I strongly encourage him to share that with me. I reiterate that I want Members of Parliament to be able to play a full role in representing CROs throughout this process.

Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered HMRC guidance and remuneration of coastguard volunteers.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Shelbrooke. I welcome the Minister to his place.

This debate is timely, because I am angry and offended by what the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is doing to our coastguard rescue officers. I believe that the changes being introduced, following the recent Court of Appeal judgment, risk hollowing out a crucial emergency service that is relied on by people in my constituency and other coastal and island communities around the country. I believe that the changes should be paused so that a proper and meaningful consultation can be held, and then brought back in a shape that respects the contribution and service given by coastguard rescue officers and secures the future of that service.

I want the Minister to understand just why this matters as much as it does, so let me take the House back to 8 December 1963, some 20 months before I was born. At 3 am on that date, the trawler Margaret Wicks, of Fleetwood, ran aground off the coast of the Mull of Oa, on the island of Islay. The report of that grounding from the time recorded:

“The Margaret Wicks went ashore on the Mull of Oa, a wild isolated part of Islay where there are few roads”—

one, in fact—

“at 3 a.m. on 8th December. Within…hours, the Mull of Oa company, who live in a small isolated community about three miles away, were on the scene. Shortly afterwards the Port Ellen company arrived, having carried their life-saving gear for two miles across very rough, boggy terrain from the road where they had left their lorry.

The trawler was hard ashore, close in under a steeply sloping cliff 250 feet high; and the Volunteer-in-Charge, Mr. John Lockhead, took his men down the cliff to a point about 20 feet above the bows of the stranded vessel, from which they carried out the rescue. A whip and breeches buoy was used, and within half an hour the first survivor was landed. The other 14 were brought ashore uninjured within the next hour. The Islay life-boat and H.M.S. Hampshire were both lying off shore, unable to help because of the rocks which surrounded the wreck.”

One of the men who was part of the Mull of Oa company was my father. He and his friends and neighbours were awarded the Minister of Transport’s shield for best wreck service of the year for 1963-64, jointly with the Lerwick station in Shetland—for obvious reasons, I am relieved that it was called a draw. The rescue of the Margaret Wicks is part of my family’s story.

My father will celebrate his 95th birthday next month. I spoke to him about the rescue last night; he recalled it with total clarity and in great detail. He told the story not boastfully, but with a pride rooted in an understanding that this is part of what it means to be an islander or to live in a coastal community. Our communities produce fishermen and other seafarers, so coastguards and lifeboat volunteers go to those who are in difficulty and distress on our shores because, if it were necessary, we would want the same to be done for those about whom we care.

Of course, the modern coastguard service is very different from the one that my father was part of in 1963. Now, the crew of the Margaret Wicks would most probably be lifted by helicopter rather than by a breeches buoy, but the same sense of pride and duty motivates coastguard volunteers today as it did my father and his neighbours six decades ago.

I heard that same sense of pride and duty when I met CROs in my office in Orkney on Saturday—incidentally, we were in my office because I was not allowed to meet them in the coastguard station. I heard about the four days that they spent searching the coastline for a young monk who had gone missing from the monastery on Papa Stronsay. I heard from CROs in Shetland about the role that they played a few years ago when a winter storm brough catastrophic failure to the local electricity network, leaving parts of our community with no power for over a week.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Carmichael]

I know of no CRO who gives their time and skills for the money, but the way in which they have received financial recognition in recent years has enabled them to make their contribution. That is especially true for the self-employed: many paid by the hour in their day jobs will lose out financially. They knew that system when they signed up, but now it is being changed and they are expected to carry on as they did previously. That is not reasonable and does not respect the contribution that the CROs make.

[Amanda Martin]

rose—

[Mr Carmichael]

I have spoken to you about taking interventions today, Mr Shelbrooke. So many people are in the Chamber that I am afraid I have agreed to take just one—from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who is running the drop-in session. I hope that somebody has been counting and listing the people in the Chamber, to highlight the importance that we all attach to this issue.

It is critical that the Minister should understand what that sense of pride and duty means. I am afraid that the senior management of the MCA apparently have no understanding of it at all; their handling of the issue has been heavy-handed to the point of being disgraceful. Instead of engaging and consulting, they have produced a scheme that fundamentally rewrites the contract between the agency and the CROs. As a result, we risk seeing CROs walking away from the rescue service, to the point of losing the critical mass of people needed to provide the service.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Carmichael]

This is the intervention.

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing this really important debate. Does he share my concern that, from the Isle of Wight to Orkney and Shetland, the management of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency are showing a lack of heart and a callous approach when it comes to their problem resulting from the model that they have developed for how to protect our coastline? It seems that they are driven by their problem with HMRC payments, when they should be putting the coastguard rescue officers first—brave men and women working on the frontline to keep our country safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Possibly the least surprising thing that the House will hear today is that I agree with every word of that.

In my view, what is being proposed is so fundamentally disrespectful of CROs. Despite that sense of pride and duty and the importance of the service that CROs provide to coastal and island communities, we risk losing many who currently give service. Senior management in the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—here, I single out the chief executive for particular criticism—are so removed from the service that CROs provide to communities that they are prepared to see it destroyed. Either they do not understand the people they are paid to manage or they do but are indifferent to the consequences of their actions. Either way, it is apparent to me that there is a crisis of leadership within the agency. That is what makes the issue a problem for the Minister.

The people who do understand the CROs are those whose job it is to recruit, train and manage them. Go back 10 or 12 years: the MCA made a strategic shift of resource away from coastguard stations to put extra into the training of CROs. Money was spent on better equipment and training for the volunteers. That took time, but it worked. I give the agency credit for what it did then. I have watched Dave Sweeney, my local coastguard operations manager in Shetland and Orkney, as he has built and shaped a network of teams across the northern isles. That has not been quick or easy, but it has worked.

It is the coastguard operations managers and their other full-time colleagues who have been charged by the senior management of the MCA with communicating and driving the changes now being proposed. Since this debate was announced, I have been contacted by a number of them who have told me how the issue has been handled within the agency. That has been truly shocking and displays an organisation with serious cultural and management issues to address.

The representations have come to me in confidence and I shall share them, suitably anonymised, with the Minister after this debate. Suffice it to say that they lay bare a truly shocking approach to management that is based on a culture of bullying and a lack of respect for the people on the frontline. One in particular describes the manner in which the issue has been handled within the agency:

“Every full time coastal officer in the UK has this week been called to a meeting led by the Assistant Chief Coastguards from Southampton.

These meetings were non-negotiable, all FTOs”—

full-time officers—

“must attend.

These meetings have taken place in secret, in hotel meeting rooms or MCA business suites.

On entering the meeting room, FTOs are informed that under no circumstances should any information be leaked from the meeting until July or we risk losing our careers.

FTOs are informed that they may not record or take pictures of PowerPoint slides nor take any notes on the shared information as this will all be sent out in due course.

Delegates at the meeting are demanded that they must and I mean ‘MUST’ toe the agency line that we are in support of the withdrawal of remuneration even if we do not believe in it or have moral issues with it.

FTOs are told that we must deliver the message to all Coastguard Teams in the UK and must not deviate from the message.

We were told that if we did not agree with the policy then we must get over it or risk losing our jobs…One Assistant Chief Coastguard stated ‘you can get on the bus or join the party, or you can get off and leave the service’ thus insinuating that our full-time jobs are at risk if we do not do as we are told…We raised a concern that we will need to work extra, we were told to ‘just suck it up’ by one Assistant Chief Coastguard.

We asked if extra hours and evenings incurred overtime and were told absolutely not. We are working over our 37 hours for free all because the UK Government have made a decision and we need to deal with the consequences.

Another Assistant Chief Coastguard shouted at delegates because we all asked too many questions”.

That is the position in which these changes are being driven. For as long as I have known it, the MCA has been a body with challenges, but the situation that has been described to me is on another level altogether. To undertake changes of this nature and scale in this way is unacceptable for any public body. To risk leaving coastal and island communities with no resilience in moments of crisis is not just unacceptable but unconscionable. That is why I make this earnest plea to the Minister to intervene. Pause what is being done, bring in someone from outside the service to examine in short order the way in which these changes have been made and communicated, look at the culture within the service, and work out how to recognise the work that CROs do in a way that is compliant with the law and respects their efforts. It cannot be beyond the wit of man.

The chief executive has failed to engage with volunteers since the remuneration announcements, and appears to be having leadership struggles at the top with other senior officers. This is an issue that matters beyond measure to communities such as ours. I hope the Minister will hear our simple ask. I hope he understands from the sheer number of people here today the importance that we attach to it and acts accordingly.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), not only on securing the debate and making a first-class case, but on managing to contain his deep irritation at the way this matter has been handled.

[Mr Carmichael]

You know me too well!

[Andrew George]

I do know my right hon. Friend too well. I also warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) on an excellent first contribution to a Westminster Hall debate.

The coastguard service is clearly critical to a constituency like mine, with more than 150 miles of coastline across west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. There is a lot of heritage. The National Coastwatch Institution was established in 1994, following the tragic deaths of two local fishermen whose boat sank off the coast of the Lizard peninsula, within sight of the recently closed coastguard station at Bass Point. Although the National Coastwatch Institution provides a vital volunteer service, it does not in any way replace the coastguard.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I am beyond grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing this debate to the Chamber; I am sure you agree, Sir Alec, that it has been a useful one informed by honest exchanges. I want to be clear with hon. Members and with the CROs who I know will be watching the debate about how we got to this moment and what happens next.

For those observing the debate who might be wondering exactly who we have been talking about, let me briefly explain who coastguard rescue officers are. Put simply, they are the people who are there when we need them most. They are the modern face of a volunteering tradition that goes back to the early 20th century. CROs could rescue us or our loved ones if we are trapped in rising water. They rescue people trapped on cliffs, stuck in mud or struggling in our seas. They also manage helicopter landing sites and assist the police in searching for missing people. They persevere through some of the most traumatic experiences imaginable, recovering people who it has not been possible to save in order to afford them proper dignity and respect. In short, they are some of the most selfless people in our country, and I personally thank them all for their service.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the Minister for his recognition; I am sure that his words will have been heard and appreciated. Some 17% of CROs are now members of the GMB. The threshold for voluntary recognition by the agency would be 10%. As a Labour Minister, does he agree with me, a Liberal Democrat, that this would be a good moment for the MCA to recognise the GMB as a union for CROs?

[Keir Mather]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution and for the points he made earlier, which I will address. I am pleased to say that I have met the GMB and spoken to it about the increase in its membership resulting from this decision, and I am happy to work with it on an ongoing basis. The right hon. Member’s suggestion speaks to a recognition of worker status. I will identify later what I believe are some drawbacks of that approach, but he is welcome to intervene again at that point to address anything else.

I want to address some of the specific points that have been made. First, let me pick up on what the right hon. Member said about not being allowed to meet in his coastguard centre, which I find very concerning. That was echoed in a couple of comments by hon. Members across the Chamber, and I would be grateful if they could share those instances with me so that I can form a fuller picture of those experiences when they occur.

The right hon. Member spoke specifically about the impact on his rural and island constituency—a point that was made eloquently by many Members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies. A CRO in this country volunteers an average of three and a half hours a month, but many will volunteer 35 hours a month, especially in rural or island constituencies where they have to respond to the frequent call-outs that the right hon. Member described. I am very cognisant of that disparity, but also of the differences in experience that underpin how CROs are approaching this matter.

The right hon. Member raised serious points about consultation and engagement from the MCA. We take complaints incredibly seriously and have well-established processes and policies in place to review and investigate concerns. He mentioned sharing some anonymous testimony with me, and I would be grateful if he did so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) mentioned death in service and injury benefit. The CRS injury benefit compensation scheme is for volunteers. It provides and, importantly, will continue to provide compensation for loss of earnings where a volunteer member of the CRS is injured or develops an illness or disease as a result of an authorised duty. That includes provision for compensation for dependants in the event of death. I am glad that my hon. Friend has allowed me to put that point on the record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) asked a specific question about HMRC disturbance allowances. I am happy to take that away and write to her on the specifics. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) is right to point to the fact that, although CROs work on a volunteer operating model, these are people responding to emergency situations who wear the badge of a Government agency and do phenomenal work, and they should be perceived as such. In that sense, she is right to say that it does not do justice to the scale of their contribution.

A number of points were made about how the retained firefighter model could map on to CRO status. The work of retained firefighters has a number of characteristics that might cause severe complications for CROs were the model to be mapped across, which hon. Members should be cognisant of. Retained fire service people are employees; it is important to bear in mind that they have contractual limitations, such as to live a certain distance from the station. They also have to respond within five to seven minutes, depending on the station, to an emergency. That would create very a different system around mutuality of obligation for the CRS. Those are important considerations to bear in mind.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked specifically what engagements have taken place, so I will list them for him. I know that there has been a debate about whether the engagement goes far enough, and about the character of the consultation, but for the benefit of the record, there have been two town halls, a virtual meeting, a recorded video and five updates on CRS online, alongside a pattern of regular engagement on other issues such as equipment assurance, training, exercising and post-incident follow-up.

Another important issue that was raised is the modelling of the potential impacts. An impact assessment combined incident demand, CRS survey data, demographic and employment information, and financial analysis to identify where potential reductions in CRO availability are most likely to occur.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Apologies for de-knighting you earlier, Sir Alec. I thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate and recognise in particular the contribution from the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird). We welcome her to the community of Westminster Hall.

I did not remember to count early enough, but I think that we had at least 32 Members of Parliament in this Chamber at the start. In addition, I had indications from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) that they would have been here also.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Carmichael, you have been a Member of this House an exceptionally long time. You know that you are not allowed to wear clothing with slogans on it. Please fasten your jacket.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am bereft, Sir Alec. I do hope that nobody goes back and looks at the footage of me when I was inadvertently leaving my jacket open in that manner.

As I was saying, a number of other Members wanted to be here. I listened to the Minister. He is telling me—telling us all, in fact—that the problem is the law, and I am thinking to myself, “My goodness, if only there were something that the Government could do about the law.”

I do not honestly know what the answer is—I am not without sympathy for the position in which the Minister finds himself—but I do know what it is not. It is not to take away the terms and conditions that people have served under up until now and to treat them with the utter disregard that the chief executive and the senior management of the MCA are displaying. I again suggest to the Minister that we need to pause this, work it again, properly, talk to the CROs in a respectful and engaging manner, and then come back with something that focuses not on the process argument that we have heard and that we understand, but on the outcomes, because the outcomes for our communities, if we do not get this right, will be catastrophic and I do not want that to be happening on my watch.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered HMRC guidance and remuneration of coastguard volunteers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Rural communities also need access to good public transport, which is why we are exploring the ways in which we can better support rural bus services. As I mentioned earlier, there are five pilots looking at the possibilities of franchising in rural areas, which I know will be of interest to people, including Mayor Helen Godwin.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

12. What recent discussions she has had with the aviation industry on the potential merits of the UK rejoining the European geostationary navigation overlay service.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

My Department continues to engage with a range of aviation stakeholders, including the Civil Aviation Authority, to better understand the impacts of the loss of access to the European geostationary navigation overlay service. This includes the practicalities, costs and benefits for industry and the taxpayer if we were to rejoin.

[Mr Carmichael]

I think I can speed things up there, because I can tell the Minister exactly what the impact has been. Since we lost access to EGNOS, the number of cancellations to island communities has trebled, which in turn has put up the cost of tickets, and occasionally air ambulance flights are unable to get in. That has been the cost of coming out of EGNOS, and it is about time we found our way back into it. Will the Minister meet me, and perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), to find a way of progressing this without any further delay?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend remains a great champion for this project. The Government are delivering on devolution. We are providing the Lancashire combined county authority with £641 million in this spending review. The decision about whether to progress this scheme as a local priority is one for the authority. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue engaging with it with the same enthusiasm with which she engages with our Department.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

T8. Airlines are already adding fuel surcharges to ticket prices as a consequence of current events. That may not be surprising, but does the Secretary of State agree with me that, if they are going to do that, they should at the same time publish a trigger point, so that customers will know when those fuel surcharges will be removed from ticket prices?

[Heidi Alexander]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question, but I reassure the House that, in our many conversations with airlines and airports in recent weeks, we have not been told of any immediate disruptions to jet fuel supply. However, we will continue to monitor the situation closely, and work with airlines and jet fuel suppliers to understand what mitigations may be required should any disruptions arise.

North Sea Vessel Collision

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I have said, the Met Office is modelling the wind situation at the moment. We need to get the fire out on the Solong. Once that is done, we can make a further assessment of what is required and in which direction any pollution—if there is any—is moving, and we will deploy our assets to tackle that when we know that for sure.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is just over 32 years now since the MV Braer was grounded off Shetland, but for us the memories are still very fresh. We know exactly how those communities on the east coast of England who are braced for what may be coming will feel. We might not know what happened, but we can be pretty certain that at some time, somewhere, something of this sort was going to happen, such is the nature of shipping and how it is regulated and owned across the world.

In Shetland we have been warning for years of the dangers of tankers anchored right by our shoreline and of others entering areas that are marked on the chart as to be avoided, but it is next to impossible to get any agency to take ownership of that. I know that the Minister is concerned about this, so can we use this moment to take a serious look at how we protect our coastal and island communities?

[Mike Kane]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his expertise in this area. He has raised with me the issue of tankers moored off Shetland and Orkney. I understand that the 1972 collision regulations state that there has to be proper sight and sound lookout and all other methods, so something has gone wrong. As difficult as it is to say, accidents always provide an opportunity to see how we can do things better. I hope that when the marine accident investigation branch comes back with both its initial and its substantive findings, which will come to my desk, we can learn the lessons of this accident.

Coastguard Helicopter Services

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of coastguard search and rescue helicopter services.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I am delighted to see the Minister in his place for a reprise of an issue I have raised a number of times over the years. The execution of the duties of the search and rescue helicopter base in Sumburgh, which is in Shetland in my constituency, has over the years been relatively unproblematic. The service, and those who provide it, are held in enormously high regard—and for good reason. There have been, over the years, a number of heroic incidents where the quality of the service, and the bravery of those who provide it, have been there for all to see. It has been quite exceptional, and that is the standard that local people have come to expect and will almost certainly continue to expect; but that does mean that, if there is ever any concern about the provision of these sorts of services, the response from the community will be much more trenchant.

I will start by raising an issue that has its roots back in 2023. It was a matter I raised in this House—in fact in this Chamber—on 22 November 2023. At that time, following the reletting of the contract for a second 10-year period to Bristow Helicopters, a memo was sent out to all Bristow staff indicating, amongst other things, that the response time for helicopters stationed at Sumburgh and at Stornoway—in the Northern and Western Isles—was to be increased from 15 minutes to 60 minutes. That is obviously concerning: for any coastal or island community, the search and rescue helicopter is another blue light service. It is a blue light service that any of us who rely on the sea for a living, or even just for transportation, may have to rely on at any time.

That memo only came into the public domain because a member of Bristow staff copied two pages of it and gave it to BBC Radio Shetland. It went into the public domain from there. As soon as it was in the public domain, there was a mass stampede for the hills by anybody who might be accountable for it. The Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency denied all knowledge of it, saying, “No, this was nothing to do with us.” It was all left firmly at the door of Bristow, which, it has to be said, was less than forthcoming at that point.

That led me, after some discussion and joint working with the then hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, to the Chamber on 22 November 2023. I say parenthetically that the current hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) has since contacted me to say that he cannot be here with us, but I know that he is engaged with this issue. I have spoken and corresponded with him about it on a number of occasions, and I know he shares my concerns about the handling of this.

I will not rehearse the arguments that were made in November 2023, but it will benefit the House and the Minister, when he responds, if I remind the House of what then Minister Guy Opperman said when responding to my half-hour debate. He said,

“I want to address the key point raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in respect of the situation going from 15 to 60 minutes. That was supposed to be the situation going forward, but I can confirm that the Department for Transport has been informed by His Majesty’s Coastguard that it has begun an analysis of the SAR incident data compiled after the UKSAR2G procurement commenced. That work has begun and is ongoing, and obviously the results will be conveyed in the future to all Members who are particularly concerned by it—the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), who have raised this particular point in correspondence.

The analysis is in recognition of the fact that the UKSAR2G procurement was undertaken at a time of considerable societal and economic upheaval during the pandemic”.

So—surprise, surprise—the number of callouts had fallen during the pandemic and it was on that basis that the decision to raise the response time from 15 minutes to 60 minutes was made.

Let me say at this stage, before I go any further, that even if that data was reliable, I do not think that in itself is a legitimate basis on which to increase the call-out time. This issue is not all about the number of times the service is used; it is also about the circumstances and the conditions in which it is used. So, if this is some sort of calculation that says, “If we are only using it 10 times instead of 100, we don’t need to be out there quite as quickly,” I would say in response that for those 10 times that the service is needed to be out there, my goodness—the need is as great as it possibly can be.

In November 2023, the then Minister went on to say:

“There is no doubt, if one looks at the statistics—and I have the statistics—that on occasions, over the last few years, the numbers have clearly been potentially lower than they may be going forward.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 126WH.]

He continued:

“I want to assure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that the UKSAR2G contract terms allow for a review of any area of the service against changes in demand, technical developments or innovations, which will be done periodically. The point is that that would have been done in any event. Should the analysis in this instance indicate that amendments to the new service are required in light of changes to the demand profile, then the Department for Transport can pursue those via the appropriate contractual mechanisms and approval processes.

The review will be undertaken at the end of this year going into next year”—

that was in 2023, going into 2024—

“at which time we will be happy to share the outcome with hon. Members. It will take many months, so it will not happen in the short term. I make the simple point that there will be no change to this service, in any event, for many years to come;”—

in fact, until the end of November 2026—

“as the title of the right hon. Gentleman’s debate on the Order Paper suggests, we are talking about the future provision. I can advise that all four current helicopter bases in Scotland will remain open, with additional fixed-wing capabilities and a seasonal base in north-west Scotland to provide additional enhancements on an ongoing basis.” —[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 127WH.]

Essentially, therefore, we have come here today to hear from the current Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)—the outcome of that review. There were a number of occasions when we had video calls and telephone calls, with Bristow assuring us by saying, “Really, we understand now that maybe we did look at incomplete or inappropriate data. This is not going to be a problem.” I was greatly assured by that, but I am slightly less assured by the fact that we are now in January 2025 and we still do not know what the outcome of that review is.

If the Minister can tell us today that the review has been completed and that a 15-minute response time will continue to be provided, I will have nothing more to say on this matter for the moment. However, if we have to undertake a campaign in our community to save a service that is as important to us as this one, I would like to hear that now, rather than having to wait until November 2026 to hear it.

However, the issues around the response time are not the totality of my concerns about the SAR service; indeed, I fear that they are a symptom, rather than the disease. By that, I refer to the fact that this only came into the public domain because of a leak. It is something which clearly, as a provider of service under contract for the Government, should have had an element of public consultation before any decision of that sort was made.

The Minister will be aware that earlier this year pilots working for Bristow, which provides the service under the SAR contract, went on strike. They did so in the most responsible way possible, in a way designed to minimise the risk to life. The cover, though, it must be said, was still patchy and we were fortunate that the situation came to a head in the summer months rather than in the winter. Those pilots’ feeling that it was necessary to go on strike should be a major concern for the Department and for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. A few years ago it would have been unthinkable; earlier this year it felt inevitable.

The Minister knows that in recent years, Bristow was bought by a large American operator headquartered in Texas. What I have heard from those working for the company since then suggests that the purchase was the catalyst for a significant change of culture for the company and, more specifically, of concern for us as taxpayers, of the operation of the SAR contract. I have spoken with pilots and other staff at bases around the country, who tell me of a culture within the company that is now very different from the one that I first encountered and engaged with as a newly elected MP around 20 years ago. I hear of a management culture driven constantly by cost and efficiency, and some working within the company are concerned that it is at the expense of the highest possible standards of safety.

In years gone by, when I visited the base at Sumburgh I was generally able, with some notice, to go on to the base and meet and speak to more or less anybody that was on shift there. My most recent visit to the base was handled rather differently; senior management travelled from the south to “manage” my visit and the contact that I had with the crew at the base was very carefully managed. I was not oblivious to that; quite apart from anything else, I was fairly confident that, with Shetland being Shetland, I would hear any concerns there were by some other means, and so it has turned out.

The concerns were not just from Shetland. As a consequence of comments that I made that were reported at the time, I have heard concerns from bases, pilots and crews right around the coastline at other stations too. In Shetland and the Western Isles, I am told that the relocation of staff to the Isles is no longer to be expected or even encouraged. Consequently, crews are drawn in from elsewhere and the continuity of service is diminished. That must inevitably affect the way the service works—the familiarity of a crew with one another, when working in some of the most taxing conditions imaginable, is an important factor in how the service is delivered when it is most needed.

Shetland and the Western Isles are now regarded as spokes, rather than as hubs or standalone operations. Staff are expected to leave and work elsewhere in the country, providing different services. I am pleased to see that a more substantial amount will be provided for rescue services, going forward. I am sure that will be appreciated by the communities affected, but it must not come at the expense of the core service, which is search and rescue at sea.

Regarding core services, I sound a note of caution about the extended use of the SAR helicopter to supplement the air ambulance service on the islands. That use is not new, and in the moments of necessity it makes absolute sense for the SAR helicopter to get people to hospital on the Scottish mainland. However, I am increasingly concerned that the use is increasing in a significant way. In 2020, the number of call-outs—for the search and rescue helicopter to be provided effectively to the air ambulance service—was 25. But by the end of November 2024, it was 53. The concern must surely be that one day there will come a point where an ambulance flight is needed but the helicopter is deployed on a SAR mission, and the expectation of the ambulance provision and its availability will simply not be met.

If this is to be something that is done—and I make no argument with it—surely it has to be done in a structured and strategic way. It cannot be allowed to develop in an ad hoc way.

I have spoken to one pilot who told me of his concern that crews are being put on station before, in his view—and he is a very experienced pilot—they are properly ready to be there. I have heard tell of winch operators undertaking live winch operations to decks after only five training operations. Previously, the number would have been at least twice that, with further training being done on the job under the supervision of more experienced crew.

The service also faces challenges that are not entirely within its control. For example, the availability of spare parts for the AgustaWestland AW189 is a potential source of difficulty. The move to the AW189 as it was explained to me made some sense, and I could see the inevitability of it, although reliance on a single aircraft model still raises concern about the resilience of the service should that single model be taken out of commission, as we all know happens from time to time.

These are all things that cause me concern but, candidly, I am not really qualified to judge their seriousness. What seriously concerns me and I do feel qualified to judge, however, is the fact that pilots and crew come to me to tell me what is happening. I know for a fact that, in years gone by, any concerns of that sort would have been addressed comfortably within the company—the culture of the company allowed that to happen. It should concern us all to hear concerns of that sort, on top of crews taking industrial action, as they did earlier this year, on top of the hardball tactics deployed by the company in response to the strikes, and on top of the way in which changes to the response time for the SAR service in Sumburgh and Stornoway were made known. The blue-chip blue light service that we have enjoyed hitherto is under threat.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is giving a comprehensive analysis of his concerns regarding this most vital of services to many parts of Scotland, including as far south-east as my constituency, and the people who make their living on the sea there.

As the right hon. Gentleman says, this debate is about the future service. Would he like to see the Department and the MCA specify in the contract that a successful bidder will make certain cultural undertakings, if he thinks that is preferable to be prescribed? Does he agree that if the cost of providing a 15-minute response time seems expensive, the cost of failing to rescue lives will seem very much more expensive?

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman’s final point is absolutely on the money. He is spot on. We are back to the old contest between price and value. The value of the service is understood by my constituents, and I suspect probably by his and other Member’s constituents; the price is for others to determine.

On specifying culture in a contract, I am now 23 years away from legal practice, and I was never much of a contract lawyer when I was in legal practice, so I would hesitate to get too involved in that. I question whether that is something that can be specified in a contract, but it is absolutely something that the MCA, as the contracting party, should, by proper management of the contract, be able to instil. If the MCA, at the point where the contract is let, made it clear that its expectations as the party letting the contract include the proper cultural management of the service, we would be in a much stronger position than we are in today.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

On the point about the necessity to retain flexibility in the service, my North Antrim constituency has, of course, the glorious north Antrim coast, which is not only beautiful but dangerous at times. We have had the necessity and benefit, from time to time, of the assistance of the rescue helicopter from Prestwick, and no later than 15 December when, sadly, my constituent Nigel Gordon lost his life at Torr head. Does the right hon. Member agree that it is imperative that there is maximum flexibility going forward, for the benefit of not just those in the immediate vicinity of a base but those who can draw on the services in emergencies?

[Mr Carmichael]

That is absolutely correct. I am very familiar with the north Antrim coast: I was born and brought up on a farm 12 miles north of it, in the south-east corner of Islay, that looked across to Rathlin and then to the Antrim coast. I know exactly the stretch of water and the circumstances that the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of. To go back to the way in which we view contracts of this sort, my concern is always that things can become pretty process driven. The issue of whether it is a 15 or 60-minute response time could become a box to be ticked, rather than something that we have to understand has a very direct bearing on the outcome—the quality of the service provided for our constituents and others.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes. I have got about another three paragraphs; I will get to them eventually.

[Jamie Stone]

Further to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), if there is an accident at a cliff and somebody falls, we want to get help to them as quickly as possible, while the chopper is making its way there. I know of instances when the rope gear has been removed altogether; there might be a lifesaving opportunity to get somebody down to that person before the chopper gets there. It seems to me that this attitude of measuring it by money, instead of an overall approach about preventing a death, is really what we should be thinking about.

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes, indeed. As I said to my hon. Friend earlier, my father, who is now 93, worked for many years as what was then called a coastguard auxiliary—we would now call them a volunteer—and would go over the cliffs in breeches buoys to bring people off boats that had gone aground. Having come to the point where we have got this helicopter service, which is infinitely better than what we knew in years gone by, it is important to understand that the quality of the service—the quality of the output—really has to be the focus, not the process.

My hon. Friend prompts me to highlight the fact that many of those who work in tandem with the search and rescue helicopter are volunteers. These people are volunteer coastguards and volunteers on the lifeboat. On occasion, their commitment and bravery is absolutely outstanding. It really behoves Governments of any stripe to ensure that the quality of the commitment they make is matched by the quality of the service provided by the state.

Essentially, we need to get back to the provision of a service that is rooted in the communities that it is there to serve and that is driven by the highest standards of service. Where we, as parliamentarians, have concerns that that is changing, we have not only the right but the duty to speak up, because we do not want to leave this until we realise that it is too late and the damage has already been done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I am unable to answer that. I say only that I make sure that the constituency of Strangford is named every time I am here. That is the important point, because it is the people who put me here.

It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). In all honesty, there probably is not a debate where I do not find myself alongside the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is on fishing issues, coastguard issues, farming or whatever it may be. These are all things that he and I, along with others, have a deep interest in, and we come to Westminster Hall to put forward the case on behalf of our constituents.

[Mr Carmichael]

I do not know whether this is really necessary, but given that I mentioned the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), I should put on the record, in case there were any doubt about it, that when we last debated this issue in November 2023, the hon. Member for Strangford was in the Chamber too.

[Jim Shannon]

It is the subject matter that motivates us, of course—that is why we are here.

I am really pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his role. He and I have been friends for many years, and I am very pleased to see him in that position. I know he will give the job the necessary energy and commitment. It is also good to see the shadow Minister in his place. I wish him well in his new role.

The core responsibility of His Majesty’s Coastguard and the helicopter service is to search, rescue and save. Those services are of major importance to society and take steps every single day to protect us; it is great to be here to discuss how we can preserve and protect them for the future. I know the Minister will reassure us and give us confidence that what we have, we can hold, and that they will continue to save lives. All Members who have intervened have mentioned saving lives—that is the thrust of what we are trying to achieve.

In my Strangford constituency, lifeboats and the coastguard, including lifeboats from Portaferry and Donaghadee, are called out almost every other week, and they do a massive good job in saving lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

It is a pleasure and an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, as we have become great friends over our time in Parliament. I welcome the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), to the House and the Front Bench—even if it is only in a temporary capacity. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on bringing this debate to the House again—I think I was on the Opposition Benches on the last occasion.

As the right hon. Member eloquently said, His Majesty’s Coastguard and our dedicated search and rescue services have continued to provide a superb response to save lives at sea and around our coast. It is great to hear that reflected by all Members in the Chamber today. Recently, we have seen all our emergency services working together to respond to the recent storms that have affected millions of people. Whether rescuing people from flooding or helping them find shelter from the snow and ice, our search and rescue teams have continued to respond both day and night in often the most atrocious weather. I formally thank all the members of our search and rescue teams for their continuing commitment and dedication to helping any person in need of rescue or assistance.

I am delighted to announce that, following the review commissioned by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency into the proposed changes to the readiness states of the search and rescue helicopters based in Sumburgh and Stornoway, agreement for their readiness states to be maintained at 15 minutes by day and 45 minutes by night has been reached. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) will be delighted.

[Mr Carmichael]

I can only thank the Minister; that is exceptionally welcome news, and is exactly what we would have expected of him. I expected no less.

[Mike Kane]

The chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will write to the relevant right hon. and hon. Members this month to advise them of the maintenance of the readiness states of those bases. I appreciate that it has taken some time for the final approvals to be granted; that is due to the complexities of the service provision.

In a previous debate, in November 2023, the intent and scope of the review was advised to the House. That included new data modelling to look at changes in operational requirements since the original contract was let. It also acknowledged that service demand may have been impacted by the recent pandemic, and reflected the demand on the coastguard services associated with the increased accessibility of the coastline and remote areas, which include the beautiful Shetland Islands and Outer Hebrides. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) is not in his place, but he raised the case of his constituent, Nigel Gordon. As the Minister, I extend my sympathies to Nigel’s family.

Notification of the intent to maintain the current readiness states was sent to the aircraft operators, Bristow Helicopters Ltd, in December 2024 and will be enacted under the conditions agreed in the second-generation search and rescue aviation contract. The MCA and Bristow Helicopters continue to work closely together to implement the new service, which will make the most of technological advances, ensure that we retain a world-class search and rescue service, and align the readiness states of all UK search and rescue helicopter bases. The revised readiness states will be implemented as part of the transition timeline, which is expected to take place in October 2026 in Sumburgh and in January 2027 in Stornoway.

I am sure that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will appreciate the ongoing work of the MCA and my Department to implement these changes, which include significant additional investment achieved by my Department to support our vital maritime and coastal services during these challenging financial times. The changes demonstrate the continuing commitment of His Majesty’s Coastguard and my Department to continue to provide this vital lifesaving service, which builds on more than 40 years of experience in providing a search and rescue helicopter service in the Scottish islands.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has reminded the House of the work of this vital service to support our seafarers and the wider UK economy. We have seen some notable rescues over the years, which included the tragic loss of one of the aircrew during the successful rescue of the crew of the Green Lily in 1997. The ultimate sacrifice of Billy Deacon, the winchman of the Sumburgh-based coastguard search and rescue helicopter, will always be remembered across the service. The Billy Deacon search and rescue memorial trophy was established to commemorate his sacrifice. The award, which was presented this year on the 27th anniversary of his loss, recognises the unique bravery of our winch paramedics and winch operators.

I am immensely proud of the work of all our search and rescue teams and, as has been mentioned, both our full-time officers and volunteers continue to support the service. I ask the House to pay tribute to all the crews of search and rescue teams and their vital work, and to remember those who have been lost while trying to save others.

The second-generation search and rescue aviation contract is a £1.6 billion investment by my Department to ensure the continued provision of a world-leading fleet of advanced search and rescue aircraft. No bases have been closed, and all current helicopter bases will continue to provide a 24-hour search and rescue service. Additionally, two seasonal bases will be constructed—one in Scotland and one in northern England, which will operate for 12 hours a day from April to September.

The additional seasonal bases enhance the UK-wide service, providing additional cover in the busier summer months. Their introduction will not impact the tasking of current bases: the search and rescue aircraft will continue to be tasked with aeronautical rescue by the joint rescue co-ordination centre, as they are today, to meet the requirements to prioritise saving life. We have invested in enhanced, innovative technologies to improve our search and rescue response to help to reduce the time taken to search for missing persons. The technologies will be rolled out during the transition of the current bases to meet new service provisions under the contract.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the issue of helicopter support for the movement of patients. Search and rescue helicopters may be asked to support our ambulance services to assist in moving critically ill patients to higher levels of care. These requests will be considered where capacity exists and no other means of transport are available and only if the request meets the legal requirement to be appropriate, compliant and achievable within the air operations certification. In accepting these requests, there must be no impact on the provision of primary search and rescue operations. However, the support is not guaranteed and should not be relied on by the health service; the movement of patients remains the responsibility of ambulance services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank everybody who has contributed, by speech or intervention, to the debate and I particularly thank the Minister—that is exceptionally good news, which will be very welcome. This was one of those cases that I, personally, never doubted that we would win eventually, but we could never give up, or rest easy, until hearing that it had been accepted.

To the Minister’s point about the search element of search and rescue, finding the bodies of those who have been lost at sea is enormously important for their families. I recall that, before I was elected to this place, I was instructed, in Lerwick sheriff court in Shetland, in a fatal accident inquiry in which the body had not been found. In such circumstances, it is almost impossible for the families to get proper closure. That is why there is a genuine community understanding of the importance of search and rescue. If that extra 45 minutes’ response time makes a difference, I do not care what the cost is; I think it is worth every penny.

In closing, let me say to the Minister, since I know that we are coming into the CSR round, that the other service matter for which I have been on my feet many times over the years is the continuation of the contract for the emergency towing vessel. It seems that every time there is a comprehensive spending review we have to see off an attempt from Treasury to take that contract away. The Minister might tell Treasury that if it tries again, it will find the same resistance in the future as it has found in the past, and if he wants to have a look at it when he is next in Orkney then I would be more than happy to facilitate that. Even if that meant taking a little time out of his holidays, I am sure I can find a way of making it worth it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of coastguard search and rescue helicopter services.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for raising that important issue. I will take it away and write to him.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

7. What discussions she has had with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on maritime safety breaches which occur outside UK territorial waters but within the exclusive economic zone.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

The Secretary of State has met the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and this matter was discussed. The MCA will continue to monitor this important issue, as well as follow up on the actions already taken since the Westminster Hall debate on maritime safety last April.

[Mr Carmichael]

If we continue to see this as a matter of legality, nothing will ever change, and certainly not in any decent timeframe. We have to focus on what we can do practically to end the sort of attacks that trawlers from Shetland, such as the Alison Kay and Defiant, have been subject to in recent years. Will the Minister look at the experience of authorities in Ireland, who have managed to tackle the reckless conduct of trawlers like the Pesorsa Dos and keep their fishermen safe?

[Mike Kane]

I will undertake to look at the authorities in Ireland. I had a recent visit to the Orkney Islands in the right hon. Member’s constituency. I would wish to catch up with him about that and I am happy to meet him to discuss this matter further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Browne]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member that they are amazing companies with huge operations in the UK and enviable safety records. Not one of the 171 Boeing 737 MAX 9s operating globally operates in the UK or from the UK, so there was no need to ground them. The Department for Transport liaises closely with American authorities. The CAA follows very closely the work of the US Federal Aviation Administration to ensure that safety standards remain as high as possible.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with helicopter search and rescue operators on the adequacy of response times.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)]

The right hon. Member will be aware that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is conducting an analysis of recent incident data to examine whether the demand for the search and rescue helicopter service has changed since the launch of the UK’s second generation search and rescue aviation procurement. It is expected to be published by the end of 2024. I have had no recent discussions on this point, as the review is ongoing.

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank the Minister for his answer—he seems to be aware of the situation—but a new threat to search and rescue response times is emerging, namely the poor and deteriorating industrial relations between Bristow’s management and its staff. As we speak, members of the British Airline Pilots’ Association who work in SAR cohort 2 are on strike, having been driven to it by a management who are playing negotiating hardball on salary and on terms and conditions. Will the Minister call in the management and make it clear to them that, as the customer, the Government expect them to treat their search and rescue staff with the respect and consideration that their skill and bravery deserve?

[Anthony Browne]

I know how important search and rescue services are in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and he has been a great champion for them. Good industrial relations are clearly vital to ensuring that they operate effectively, and I am sure that the MCA will keep that in mind during its review. I should add that just this morning, I agreed to meet the management of Bristow.

Exclusive Economic Zone: Maritime Safety

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered maritime safety breaches within the Exclusive Economic Zone.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford, and I welcome the Minister to his place. He knows that I hold him in high regard as a very effective and diligent Minister, so I hope he will not take it amiss if I say that I was a little disappointed to hear that I was not getting a reply from the Attorney General or one of her staff. In fact, when I think about it, that change highlights one of the problems we are dealing with: this is an issue in which many Government Departments have an interest but for which nobody has overall responsibility. One thing that I hope we take away from this debate is a determination that somebody takes charge of the issue.

Essentially, I want to bring the House’s attention to a matter that arises from an ongoing conflict between fishing boats that operate static gear and those that operate mobile gear. There can only be better ways of resolving those conflicts and tensions than the ones that I am about to describe for the House.

There are two particular, well-documented incidents that I want to place on the record for the benefit of the House and for the Minister’s consideration. The first took place on 11 June 2020, and involved the Shetland-registered whitefish boat the Alison Kay. Skippered by James Anderson, it was fishing 30 nautical miles to the west of Shetland. Mr Anderson describes the roots of what was about to happen thus:

“The incident occurred on the 11th of June and when the vessel in question shot his gear”—

that is the Pesorsa Dos, which is a Spanish-owned but German-registered vessel—

“in the area he knew we were fishing. He chose to put his gear at risk. What he decided to do was to shoot nets”—

those are gillnets of quite industrial magnitude—

“in an area known to be used by trawlers and then subsequently tell the trawlers they can’t fish here now because his gear is now there! This is simply unacceptable terms for us and we have no intention of moving away when we have every right to continue fishing.”

This is an area of sea that has been fished for decades, if not centuries, by Shetland fishermen, so we can understand Mr Anderson’s strength of feeling. The skipper of the Pesorsa Dos then proceeded to tow a rope tied to a float across the bow, which was a clear attempt to foul the Alison Kay’s propeller or steering gear. It was an act of the most incredible recklessness for which there can be no excuse. It could have led to injury or death, or the loss of either or both of the boats. Of course, it was avoided because the skipper of the Alison Kay took evasive action.

The Pesorsa Dos is a Spanish-owned gillnetter that is flagged in Germany through SeaMar, a company based in Schleswig-Holstein. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency was made aware of the incident but declined to investigate because it said that it happened outside the 12-mile limit, and the 12-mile limit is the extent of its jurisdiction. That takes us into that area of sea between the 12-mile limit and the extent of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Notwithstanding the MCA’s describing the incident as extremely “concerning” and saying that the

“consequences could have been extremely serious”,

it was declared that the responsibility lay with the German investigating authorities, as that was where the Pesorsa Dos was registered—Germany was the flag state.

We pursued this matter in correspondence with the German authorities but, bluntly, they were not interested, even though Germany is the flag state. Why would it be? This incident involved a conflict between a Spanish vessel and a Scottish vessel in waters hundreds of miles away from the closest point of German waters. I do not believe this sort of behaviour was ever anticipated when the United Nations convention on the law of the sea—the governing statute—was entered into, but this is the reality with which fishermen in Shetland and other parts of the United Kingdom are now having to deal.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the Minister knows, I represent the constituency of Strangford, which has a large fishing fleet. The right hon. Gentleman has secured a vital debate and clearly outlined the two incidents. Does he agree that the sovereign rights that exist for our fishing fleet mean that the standards we set in that zone apply to every fishing vessel, not just British ones, and that we must enforce on any vessel the appropriate safety measures rigorously and authoritatively, with extended powers if warranted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? In other words, all vessels are subject to the same laws.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that that is something with which I have no difficulty agreeing. The vessels are all subject to the same laws; the difficulty comes when we try to enforce them. In fact, the Irish Government have taken a rather more novel and, shall we say, direct approach from which we could probably learn some lessons.

The then Fisheries Minister, now the Attorney General, convened a Zoom call for me which had, while not exactly a cast of thousands, at least a dozen people on it. One by one, each of those people explained that although they understood the seriousness of the situation it was, in fact, always somebody else’s problem. At the end of the call, it was agreed that there would be further consideration and action would be taken, but I am afraid to say that, years later, we have heard effectively nothing since. It seems to just go from Department to Department, and is always too difficult for somebody to deal with.

For my constituents and for the fishermen working in Shetland’s waters, it continues to be a problem. On 16 October last year, the Defiant, a Lerwick-registered whitefish boat, skippered on that day by Magnus Polson, was working 18 miles east of Unst—again, within the area of water between 12 and 200 miles—when it experienced a similar incident, involving the Antonio Maria, a Spanish-owned but French-registered longliner. Mr Polson established where the long lines were and that he could operate safely without coming into conflict with the static gear, but 15 minutes later the skipper of the Antonio Maria altered his course on to a direct collision course with the Defiant. The longliner came dangerously close to the port side of the Defiant, whose crew saw two crewmen appear on the Antonio Maria and one throw a rope into water—designed, we presume, to foul the propeller. Mr Polson explained that

“due to close proximity and the endangered safety of our boat, I had no choice but to begin hauling back our gear to make room.”

A few weeks ago in Lerwick, I met the other skipper of the Defiant, Robbie Jamieson, who showed me the screen grab of the course that he had plotted in the wheelhouse of the Defiant. He also showed me where the long lines had been laid by the Antonio Maria. It was clear that the course along which the Defiant was going to tow its gear was not actually going to come into conflict with the long lines that had been set by the Antonio Maria, and would have moved somewhere to the south of them. When I raised this with the Fisheries Minister, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Sir Mark Spencer), on 19 October, he described it as outrageous behaviour, and said he would certainly raise it with his ministerial colleagues. Again, we have heard precious little since. Everybody knows that it is mad, reckless and dangerous behaviour, but somehow nobody ever seems to have an answer for how to stop it.

The Maritime Coastguard Agency has forwarded its report to the French authorities for investigation. The incident happened in October, and we are now well into April and have had no response. The Shetland Fishermen’s Association has asked for the opportunity to have sight of what was sent by the MCA to the French authorities, but it has been told that it cannot have that. I wonder whether the Minister might raise that again with the MCA, because I do not see what the MCA would have to lose by publishing the report. Frankly, it would go a long way towards restoring some trust and confidence between the fishing fleet and the MCA.

Essentially, the difficulty lies in the terms of UNCLOS and the decision to vest authority for investigation and prosecution with the flag state. I do not believe this was something envisaged at the time UNCLOS was agreed, but it is now the reality with which my constituents have to live and deal. This will keep happening unless and until it is stopped. As I see it, it can stop only in one of two ways: there either has to be meaningful action to deal with it, or we wait until there is a fatality when a boat goes down and a life is lost. When that happens, all the people who come up with the good, worthy and complicated reasons as to why it is somebody else’s responsibility will be left looking pretty shame-faced and embarrassed. I do not want any one of them to turn around and say, “I wish somebody had told us about this.” They have been well warned by me today and on many previous occasions.

What can we do? There are a few quick and easy wins. The executive officer of the Shetland Fishermen’s Association said shortly after the Antonio Maria incident that there was a need for a streamlined process of reporting, with an individual designated within the MCA to receive reports. This sort of thing happens, nobody wants to know about it and fishermen get pushed from pillar to post. There needs to be a hotline—a dedicated number—that skippers can phone to report an incident. The sooner that some sort of action can be taken, the likelier it is that that action will then be effective.

I would like to see our Government pursuing the matter with a bit more vigour than they have done. We go through the motions—we tick the boxes, write the report and send it off to the German and French authorities—but then what happens? I call on the Minister to raise the issue at a diplomatic or ministerial level with his opposite numbers when such incidents happen, so that prosecuting authorities in the other flag states understand that it is something we see as being important.

We could also see much better co-operation between the MCA, which is an agency responsible to the Department for Transport here, and Scotland’s Marine Directorate, which is responsible for fisheries management issues and fishery protection in Scotland. They are the people who have boats in the water and who will be able to attend such incidents and gather the necessary evidence.

To come to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), fishing boats operate in the exclusive economic zone under licence, as all boats do. Surely it could be a condition of the licence that if a boat is going to fish in our waters, it does so in a way that is safe and responsible. We may not be able to prosecute for safety breaches, but we could take action to remove the boats’ licences. That is something that would concentrate the mind.

It is worth comparing the treatment of the Pesorsa Dos in 2020 in Scottish waters, or British waters, with the treatment that it received in Irish waters. The Skipper’s website from January 2023 describes what happened to the Pesorsa Dos after it was detained by the Irish Naval Service for breaches of EU fishing regulations in Irish waters. The skipper, Juan Pablo Docal Rubido, was brought before a special sitting of Bandon District Court following the detention of the vessel for alleged fishing offences.

Mr Rubido, whose vessel is Spanish owned and fishes out of La Coruña but was detained at Castletownbere, was charged with a total of 12 fishing offences on various dates between 5 January and 24 January, while fishing within the exclusive fishing limits of the state. He was charged with two logbook offences: of failing to record the proper depth that his vessel was fishing at, and failing to record the proper soak times or times that he allowed his nets to stay in the water while fishing within Irish exclusive fishing limits. He was also charged with a total of nine separate offences of allowing his nets to exceed the permitted soak times of 72 hours allowed for the gear while fishing within the exclusive fishing limits of the state, contrary to section 14 of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006.

The best part, though, is still to come. The boat was detained. It was kept in the quayside as a consequence of action taken to seize it by the Irish authorities. The skipper himself was allowed bail on production of a bond of €5,000. The period for which the detention was to be permitted was actually extended on the application of the Irish Government. These trawlers—these massive gillnetters—are big businesses, and they only make money when they are out at sea. That old American saying, “If you get them by their reproductive organs, their hearts and minds will follow”, really characterises the way in which these people have to be tackled. The presiding judge, Colm Roberts, granted bail on Mr Rubido’s own bond of €5,000. He said:

“We have to make sure people realise how serious these matters are.”

Well, amen to that.

We are dealing with an industry that is probably the most dangerous way to make a living. Everybody knows that when fisherman go to sea, they very often put their lives at risk, and the fishermen themselves know that better than anybody else. They understand that this is a contest that sets man against nature and its elements. That risk is acceptable and understood, but setting man against man in such a way cannot be understood or excused. We have an exclusive economic zone. I suggest to the Minister and his colleagues that it is about time we understood what it means to be exclusive and to exclude those who will not use it responsibly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I assure my right hon. Friend that National Highways works closely with local communities when delivering major projects, and it will continue to do so on the A12 widening scheme. My Department is committed to delivering the scheme, and granted consent for it on 12 January but, as she said, it is subject to an application for judicial review. I therefore cannot add anything further, but I will continue to work with her local residents. If at any time she wants to raise issues with the scheme with me, I will be delighted to meet her.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I thank Ministers for facilitating discussions with the operators of the search and rescue helicopter service based in my constituency about the proposed response times. They have been fairly productive so far, and we will see what the outcome is. It is apparent already that the decisions are made solely on the basis of the number of calls and not the nature of the work undertaken. If the contract conforms to that, can we ensure that future contracts do not leave us exposed in that way?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)]

I know how important the helicopter search and rescue services are in Orkney and Shetland. The right hon. Gentleman has been a big campaigner for them, and has asked various questions and secured various debates on the matter. A review is going on about the recent incident data which will report in the summer, and we expect to publish it by the end of the year. That should include the answers to his questions. We are investing more than £1 billion in the new search and rescue service. The number of bases will go from 10 to 12 overall, and there will be no closure of bases and no change to services in Orkney and Shetland before October 2026.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

Despite what I said about this being the season of good will, quite frankly that is complete and utter nonsense. As I have stated, there will be a very careful analysis of the property that will be released. The Crichel Down rules require tests to be met, and only once they are will we return the property to the original owner at its market value. This will be done properly. We have delivered certainty: we have said that the route will not go ahead. What I am sure everyone along the line of the route would like to know is whether HS2 would go ahead under the Labour Transport team, or whether it would not, because of the Labour Treasury team. Give them some certainty.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

8. If he will make an assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the UK emissions trading scheme on domestic ferry services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Anthony Browne)]

The UK ETS Authority will publish a second consultation on the implementation of the UK ETS in 2024. We welcome any evidence in response to the consultation. We will publish a full analysis of the policy’s impact in the Government’s response to the consultation. The Department has not yet conducted a full assessment of the implications for domestic ferries.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He may be aware that there are many in the shipping industry who are concerned that including lifeline ferry services, such as those that serve my constituency, in the emissions trading scheme could hinder rather than help the process of decarbonisation. The EU has already recognised that by giving its lifeline ferry services a derogation until 2030. Will the shipping Minister—I know it is not this Minister’s responsibility—engage with operators in Scotland and elsewhere to ensure that we are not hit by the law of unintended consequences?

[Anthony Browne]

I very much welcome that question. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is a doughty champion for ferries in those islands and I know how important ferry services are for residents there. We have been very careful, across our transport decarbonisation plan, not to damage industries or sectors. We have given many billions of pounds in support for the whole range of different transport sectors and domestic ferries are very much a part of that. I am very happy to engage with the sector and to meet him to ensure that the ferries can carry on transporting passengers throughout Orkney, Shetland and elsewhere in the British Isles.