Filey Coastguard (Hansard, 12 June 1986)

§ Mrs. Elizabeth Shields (Ryedale)

The subject of the retention of the coastguard at Filey has been causing widespread concern to many people, both locally and elsewhere. More than a century ago — in 1862 to be precise — a coastguard station was first established to keep guard over the bay at Filey. The geographical features of Filey comprise seven miles of sandy beaches which end in three miles of cliff about 300 ft high at the north end, which is towards Scarborough. The bay is attractive to yachtsmen, canoeists, fishermen, swimmers and divers, but it contains some treacherous undercurrents with which only skilled people can successfully contend.

The necessity of keeping a coastguard at Filey must not be underestimated. The population of Filey and its environs is vastly increased each year during the summer months when as many as 100,000 or 150,000 visitors make their way to this popular seaside resort.

The bay is watched over by a full-time coastguard from a specially constructed lookout window built in the coastguard station. The visual importance of that lookout cannot be overemphasised. Scarborough borough council, Filey town council, and the Filey district home and water safety committee, as well as the Filey auxiliary coastguards, have expressed anxiety about the proposals, which are regarded as just another part of the general erosion of visual watchkeeping to which opposition has already been expressed. Several hundred residents and tourists who visit Filey regularly each year have also written to me on the matter.

The number of reportable incidents—those requiring external assistance, such as the lifeboat, helicopter, police or ambulance — illustrates the extent to which the coastguard helps the public. During the past four years, there has been an average of 33 incidents each summer, and this year to date there have been 10 incidents. The number of incidents that are avoided because of the physical presence of the coastguard is considerably more. Part of the his job is the prevention of accidents —warning people not to surf or swim or advising against putting a boat out to sea. It is impossible to quantify the incidents prevented that might otherwise have ended in tragedy.

Not only visitors use the sea at Filey bay. There is a fishing fleet of 16 cobbles, which put out to sea regularly throughout the year, and in the appropriate season there are an additional 13 salmon boats. During the summer months, six fishing boats take parties of anglers out to enjoy their pastime, and dozens of small boats sail in the bay, most of them without radios. All are kept under surveillance by the unremitting efforts of the full-time coastguard.

Another worrying factor is that the proposed reorganisation will lay the major responsibility for replacement cover on the Filey auxiliary coastguards. That is not a practical idea, since most of the auxiliaries are in full-time employment and would be unable to provide the overall weekly cover required in the summer.

The personnel at Filey have already been reduced drastically. In 1982, there were three coastguards. Two have subsequently retired and not been replaced. A year 661 ago, there were as many as 25 auxiliaries. Today, there are only 11, and I understand that there is little possibility of enlisting more members to the auxiliary. Yet the responsibility for that bay is no less.

It is absurd to say that by merging the sectors of Scarborough and Filey and depriving the latter of its full-time vigilante, the residents of the town, the tourists and fishermen will, detect an improvement in the standards of coverage. This is a prime example of remote bureacrats playing with maps and budgets, without taking into consideration the real local case. I wonder whether the Minister has visited Filey and is conversant with the geography, tides and dangers of the area. I should be delighted to show him round Filey, if necessary.

No money will be saved by transferring the service to Scarborough, although money will have to be spent on converting the toll house at Scarborough when there is already a purpose-built station at Filey. Scarborough also has a harbour master and lifeguards. Neither of those facilities is available at Filey.

One of the most important factors is the excellent Royal National Lifeboat Institution, whose members were not informed of the decision to remove the coastguard, with whom they work in close conjunction. During operations, the RNLI relies heavily on the expertise of the coastguard, who acts as a co-ordinator and monitor for its boats when they are out in the bay.

In his letter, the deputy chief coastguard assured me: When it is necessary to provide watch locally at Filey, it will be set, whether on the advice of the auxiliary-in-charge, the Sector Officer or the watch at Bridlington. Without the visual aid, immediate knowledge of incidents in the bay will be delayed. The Filey auxiliary-in-charge lives in Scarborough. The sector officer, who will spend only two days a week at Filey, will also be based at Scarborough, and the watch at Bridlington is equally remote. Perhaps the Scarborough coastguard will be omniscient as well as omnipresent.

The most important issue in all this is safety — the safety of human life, be it that of a child or an adult. I beg the hon. Gentleman to make this his main priority.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields) on her good fortune in securing this Adjournment debate.

I welcome the opportunity to explain to the House the circumstances surrounding the change in one coastguard officer's duties at Filey and to demonstrate that, in consequence, there will be no reduction in coastguard coverage on the coastline in the hon. Lady's constituency.

However, I am somewhat perplexed about why the hon. Lady has sought this opportunity to raise the matter on the Floor of the House since Adjournment debates normally follow correspondence in which Ministers have failed to satisfy the Member of Parliament concerned. In this case the hon. Lady wrote to the chief coastguard on 23 April, the letter was received on 28 April, and it was replied to on 2 May. Nothing more was heard until there was a telephone call on or about 3 June to say that the hon. Lady or her office had mislaid the reply to the letter and asking for a copy, which was sent to the House of 662 Commons on 3 June. I make no criticism of the hon. Lady for having apparently lost the letter—it can happen to any of us.

I wonder whether the hon. Lady sought this Adjournment debate in the time when the letter had been mislaid. I say that because, when my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), and for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) all raised this matter with Ministers, they received a full response which, I think, clarified the matter.

In her letter on Monday this week to the Secretary of State, the hon. Lady, as in her speech tonight, expressed concern about what she calls the Government's plan to close the vital coastguard service station. The Government have no such plan, they never had and there is no intention to close it, as I would gladly have told the hon. Lady, and will confirm in reply to her letter of Monday this week.

It may help the House if I explain the coastguard organisation. The United Kingdom coastline is divided into coastguard districts, each under the control of a coastguard rescue centre manned 24 hours a day with constant monitoring of radio distress channels and a 999 telephone system. I was concerned—as, no doubt, the hon. Lady is — that the hon. Lady had to refer, no doubt quite rightly, to the fact that boats go out to sea without VHF radio. It is a relatively inexpensive piece of equipment, and I hope that she will join me in urging all who take boats to sea to carry VHF radio because it is their lifeline to the coastguard and to the rescue service that comes with the coastguard.

The hon. Lady will well know that, slightly further north of the lookout point to which she referred at Filey, there is a ridge of cliff beyond which the coastguard cannot see. No matter whether he stands over the telescope or elsewhere, he cannot see it. That illustrates the value and importance of boats having VHF radio. I hope that all Members will seek opportunities to remind those who take out boats that they should ensure that they have VHF radio. It is a small cost for making life more secure.

I can assure the hon. Lady that any part of the coast can be placed under visual surveillance if required, and visual watch is ordered whenever required. That applies especially during bank holidays, when there are many more amateur sailors about—in which number I include myself — which obviously requires more visual watch because of the higher risk involved.

Each of the districts to which I referred — the coastguard districts under the control of a coastguard rescue centre manned 24 hours a day—is divided into sectors with a regular coastguard as sector officer, responsible for recruitment, training, overseeing and administration of the auxiliary coastguards who form the local coastguard company for the unit. The sector officer is not intended to man a watch. He recruits, he trains, and he organises.

The system can well be illustrated by a recent incident off Filey on Saturday 10 May, with which the hon. Lady is familiar. A sailing dinghy capsised, throwing four people into the water. I know the coast a little further north than Filey quite well; the water is very cold and it is necessary to get people out of it very quickly. They did not have lifebelts or any suiting to protect them against the cold. The incident was reported by a 999 call to the coastguard rescue centre at 14.23 hours. It immediately alerted the 663 Filey auxiliary coastguard manning the Filey marine rescue unit. The unit, led by Mr. Parrish, arrived on the scene in five minutes, and having assessed the position arranged the launch of the Filey inshore lifeboat. It was launched at 14.32 hours and, seven minutes later, had effected rescue, no doubt to the relief of the local windsurfer and his friend who had assisted, and, needless to say, to the immense gratitude of those who were in dire trouble in the water. I think that we would all wish to thank Mr. Parrish and his team for what they did and also the RNLI for its sterling and, as always, reliable work.

As I said, the sector officer's job is not to man the watch. He was on that day, having a day off. The first that he knew of the incident was when the RNLI fired its maroons for the inshore lifeboat. The crew already in the boathouse had been alerted by the coastguard through radio pagers; thus the rescue was fully under way without the participation of the sector coastguard. That is no criticism of him, for that is the way that the system is designed to work. In fact, Mr. Cother, the sector officer, although off duty, came as soon as the maroon launching the lifeboat was heard. I would like to thank him for that, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would also wish to do so.

I turn now from the way that the system was supposed to work and did work to the small staffing change that is to take place at Filey. In future, the sector covered by the sector coastguard officer will have 40 auxiliaries in three companies, one of which will be at Filey, and will consist of 14 auxiliares—exactly the same number as now. The lookout is not being closed; it will be used as required. The marine rescue unit remains. The only difference will be that the regular sector officer responsible, not for watchkeeping but for recruitment. training and arranging duties, will he stationed in Scarborough. No one can realistically claim that it should take one man to recruit, train and organise 14 auxiliaries— it does not anywhere else.

It has been claimed that the purpose of this reallocation of duties is to save money. The hon. Lady did not say that, 664 but it has been claimed in her local papers. I wish to make it clear that this rationalization is to enable increased manning to be provided on the Humber estuary. There is a great deal more activity there. There are various forms of danger and there is mixed shipping. I can assure the House that the sector officer, Mr. Cother, to whom I have already referred, will not lose his employment. He will be offered an alternative post in the coastguard service where he will be more fully employed.

Swimmers do not come within coastguard duties and many local authorities recoglise this by providing lifeguards, who mark safe batting beaches, and watch over them. If the local coastguard unit is aware of a problem, however, it will always Leek to help. At Filey, the 14-strong company remains. It is there for any duties which it may be called upon to perform. I cannot too strongly emphasise that there will be no reduction in coast guard services to those in trouble on the sea in the Filey area.

The hon. Lady referred to the proposed changes in her letter — she made a somewhat similar reference in her speech—having an incalculable effect on the fishing and tourist industries. If I may say so, that is going over the top a bit. Will there be an incalculable effect in putting the Filey auxiliaries under a different coastguard officer for the purpose of training and rostering? It would stem that the position has been misunderstood and that the hon. Lady's assertion cannot be taken seriously.

As the Minister who at one time had direct responsibility for HM Coastguard, I pay tribute to it for its constant watchfulness round the clock. Regular and auxiliary coastguards alike do a wonderful job right round our coast, including Filey, and will continue to do so. The House and those who go down to the sea in ships, boats, dinghies, and in these days surfboards as well, have every reason to say thank you to them. I believe that that is the right note on which to end this short debate.