Meeting of the Parliament 24 November 2011
On Tuesday, I heard about the UK Government’s final decision to close the Forth maritime rescue co-ordination centre, which is in my constituency, with a mixture of anger, frustration and worry. I felt anger because the decision seems to be based largely on financial grounds, with the centre being another victim of the coalition’s cuts dogma, whereby the need to reduce the deficit takes precedence, whatever the cost. I felt frustration because I believe that the consultation was little more than a sham in relation to Fife Ness and that it failed to take account of the interests of the workforce, the strong views of the local community and the importance of local knowledge. I felt worried because I fear that the UK Government’s decision jeopardises the wellbeing and safety of all those who work in dangerous maritime conditions on our temperamental Scottish seas, which other members have mentioned.
It is important to consider exactly what the changes entail and what impact they will have on communities. The Fife peninsula juts out into the North Sea on the east coast. My constituency encompasses the easternmost point of the Fife peninsula, Fife Ness, which is home to the Forth MRCC. One glance at a map of the east coast tells us nearly all that we need to know about the importance of having an MRCC in Fife. The Forth MRCC is responsible for protecting those who work and serve on the seas and coasts for a stretch of more than 300 miles along the east coast. To the south, the Firth of Forth is a bustling waterway. Further south lies the varied coastline of East Lothian and the Scottish Borders, with its many fishing villages and harbours. To the north lies nearly 100 miles of Angus and Aberdeenshire coast before the northern limit to the zone at Doonie Point.
We heard in Claire Baker’s speech how busy the MRCC is, so I will not repeat that, but it goes without saying that the area concerned covers the site of the Forth replacement crossing, for which construction work is due to commence in the current parliamentary session. It represents Scotland’s largest civil engineering project in a generation. There will soon be hundreds of builders, material deliveries and heavy machinery around the construction site. We need to ensure that the project is given the best possible safety provision in the form of a marine safety service that is fit for purpose.
In addition, the substantial volume of maritime traffic in the Firth of Forth and the adjacent waters is expected to increase enormously in the next few years in line with the expansion of offshore renewable energy developments. As for fishing, the east neuk is renowned for its fishing industry, which is vital to the local economy. In the past few years, Anstruther harbour has been upgraded to include a marina that caters for leisure sailing, which is rapidly growing in popularity. We should not forget that, as the Scottish Wildlife Trust has said, Scottish waters are home to internationally important numbers of breeding seabirds, many of which are in the Firth of Forth, and also grey seals, whales and dolphins. They all need to be considered.
The original UK Government consultation on modernising HM Coastguard was truly senseless. It proposed the closure of Shetland and Stornoway coastguard stations as well as the stations at Fife Ness and Clyde. I acknowledge the point that Tavish Scott made in that respect. Thankfully, the UK Government was made to see sense and to change the proposals, which would have left Scotland with only two coastguard stations. It elected to revise its proposals, but it still failed to recognise the vastness of Scotland’s coastline and, as the Scottish Government stated in its response to the consultation, the expectation of increasing levels of activity in the Fife Ness area for the foreseeable future.
When the second consultation ran from July to October, we knew that it was likely to be academic for Fife Ness, and so it has proved. In effect, the second consultation precluded any revision of the Government’s initial proposal to close Fife Ness. Only time will tell what the impact will be of the decision to close MRCC Forth, but it is crystal clear after Tuesday’s decision that Scotland cannot afford to allow Westminster to continue to make decisions that jeopardise Scottish interests, be they maritime or otherwise.
I will put the situation in perspective. Scotland has 60 per cent of the UK’s coastline, but the figures in the second consultation document indicate that only 69 of the 324 staff will be based in Scotland. I reckon that that is just over 20 per cent, which speaks for itself. The UK leadership has proved to be insensitive, confused in its approach to modernisation and ineffective in addressing the coastguard provisions that need to be in place to ensure truly safe maritime activity in the 21st century.
The decision to close Fife Ness is yet another blow to my constituency, North East Fife, which is still coming to terms with the closure of RAF Leuchars and the continued uncertainty about the timetable for the Army’s arrival. Once again, the coalition Government has proved itself to be a Government that does not listen—even to its own supporters, such as my namesake Ming Campbell. In July, he asked:
“Forth is a station offering value for money and increasingly busy because of the increase in leisure and commercial traffic—why on earth should it be a candidate for closure?”
Why on earth, indeed?
I deeply regret the decision that has been made and I hope that the Scottish Government will continue to press the case for reversing it. In any event, I hope that the Scottish Government will press for greater clarity on the timetable for closure and continue to press the case for devolving maritime safety.