HC Deb 29 July 1988 vol 138 cc842-9

1 pm

Mr. Tony Speller (Devon, North)

Today, as the Session ends and the holiday season in the south-west gets into full swing—I am not looking forward to the drive back to north Devon this afternoon—I have secured this debate to talk about the cost of the search and rescue services in the south-west. The matter concerns costs as well as services. The services are superb and the cost is high.

I am delighted to see on the Government Front Bench my good Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, who has a special place of respect in north Devon for the interest he has taken in our helicopter service and the work of RAF Chivenor. I am surprised to see him since the thrust of my argument is more suitable for reply by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but he may well be on the sands at his Southend constituency. I know that my hon. Friend's chieftan has departed for Ayr, which is good news for him, but I am somewhat worried that I shall not be answered by a Minister from the Department of Transport.

While the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy helicopters play a most effective role in search and rescue, most of their work involves saving our civilian population, which means tourists and natives of the west country. Inevitably, if 90 per cent. of the work is carried out for civilians, it is unreasonable that the defence budget should stand all the strain. I am well aware that if nine out of 10 rescue missions are not related to the services they could manage with fewer helicopters in the south-west than we have at present.

While I fully accept the problem, I wish to bring to the attention of the House some of the problems that we see in the south-west as our roads improve, tourist numbers increase, more footpaths open—often along the coasts and shores, for example, the south-western coastal footpath —and more and more people walk or ride on Exmoor, Bodmin moor and Dartmoor, and play in boats or along the beaches. Wherever one is in this world there is always a risk, and at present we are superbly served by so many organisations.

We have the coastguard—a professional body of full-time officers run and controlled by the Department of Transport who operate a good and satisfactory service. We have the auxiliary coastguards—a voluntary body of hourly-paid civilians who are trained to a high standard and who provide help under the instruction of the coastguard. We have the cliff rescue teams and beach patrols, which are paid for by local authorities, and mountain rescue teams, some of which are funded by the services but many of whom are civilians and volunteers. We have the Royal National Lifeboat Institution on the coast, a professional body of full-time and part-time experts, funded by voluntary contribution. I have already talked about funding from the state, local authorities, volunteers and from the private as opposed to the public purse. Other voluntary agencies include pot-holers and first-aiders; and then we come to the big stuff—the expensive matter of helicopters, which are mainly provided by the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and civilian contractors. Heavier still are the long-range maritime search and rescue fixed-wing aircraft funded by the RAF and operating far from our shores. All these work via the rescue co-ordinating centres at Plymouth and Pitreavie, which are manned by RAF personnel who co-ordinate the search and rescue requirements for all the agencies I have listed. But here we have the problem. Surely the time has come to study this hotchpotch of finance and control, and I am not using the word "hotchpotch" pejoratively. There is nothing wrong with a good stew or casserole but the ingredients in terms of cost and control are so mixed that we have a genuine problem. I speak for the south-west, but I am sure it is true for the rest of the country. Clearly there is a problem for the taxpayer, who is paying a great deal out of a tax pocket and he or she cares not which pocket it is. All we care about is that the excellent service continues. I realise that the defence budget is stretched and I do not blame the Ministry of Defence for looking to the Department of Transport and saying, "As we are dealing mostly with civilian transport responsibilities, the Department of Transport should bear some of the costs." To me, as an hon. Member representing the west country, the question of where the money comes from is irrelevant, as long as we keep our service.

We have had the most amazing public response to the suggestion—or fear—that the RAF Chivenor helicopters might be moved to Brawdy. I fully understand the reasons behind that concern and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure me that no precipitate announcement is likely.

The best announcement would be an announcement that there is to be no change in the system, and I look to my hon. Friend to tell me how things will go. There is much concern locally. District and parish councils, the Ilfracombe round table and our local press have all done wonders in alerting the community. Many who enjoy their surfing know Georgeham, a lovely village down on the sands by Saunton, and Woolacombe and Croyde bay. Vast numbers of tourists come there each year. A tourist is at risk every time he goes on a cliff path, tries to climb down a cliff or floats out to sea on his air bed. I know that accidents should be prevented, but they will and do happen. Georgeham parish council wrote to the Home Office about the closure of the coastguard station at Hartland in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). The council received a remarkable reply from Her Majesty's coastguard at the Department of Transport.

It described the excellent system that operates and said that there would be little change when the service was transferred from Hartland, in my hon. Friend's constituency, across the water to Swansea. There was a sting in the tail. The letter said: Regarding helicopter coverage, about which there has been much speculation, I can offer you some reassurance. The House must listen on: Specific criteria have been agreed for provision for civil maritime use"— nine out of 10 are civil cases. By day, it should be possible to reach any point within 40 nautical miles of the coast within one hour of alert". If one is clinging to the cliffs or swimming for one's life, an hour is not a great deal of help. Perhaps we could fire a rocket with a message attached saying, "Don't worry.

Another 58 minutes and you'll be all right." I found the letter from the chief coastguard very depressing. It continued: At night or in thick weather it should be possible to reach any point … within two hours. That I understand; it is a totally different matter at night for obvious reasons.

Georgeham council had asked the simple question, what will happen if the coastguard station is moved and, incidentally, what of the helicopters? The answer was that a person could still be reached within an hour. In the past few weeks, we have had cases in which people have been saved when within minutes of losing their lives. The Royal Air Force at RAF Chivenor can get to most areas of north Devon in four, 10 or 12 minutes. If the service were located across the water at RAF Brawdy—I do not seek in any way to reduce coverage there—an extra 35 minutes' flying time would be involved. In other words, the chief coastguard's one hour criterion will be followed, and it is an unacceptable criterion. It is said that there is no intention of departing from the standards in the Bristol channel. I do not suppose that anyone who is floating in a small boat or on something solid will worry about the hour. People may survive this hour but not in rough seas, not if they are on the rocks and certainly not if they are clinging to the cliffs.

My constituents find it hard to accept this kind of change when for years we have had a 10 to 15 minute service, given gladly, highly efficiently and commanding great respect from the community.

Worrying about the future of the service, I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and later met my noble Friend Lord Brabazon of Tara to draw attention to the problem about which a lady constituent wrote: It has shocked me too, at the thought of helicopters being transferred to Wales. We are all shocked. I do not know whether the chief coastguard in question is in the House, but my constituent continued: I would like to throw Captain Harris into the sea off Baggy Point in bad weather, without a life belt or raft and say, 'Will be back for you in an hour, old boy.' Lord Brabazon —put him on the rocks off Hangman, with the tide coming in plus lashing wind and rain. The lady asks simply: Has he no idea of the vicious weather we get here? I appreciate that no one wishes to reduce the quality of service, but the reference to 60 minutes means that the quality of service will be reduced by about three quarters of an hour.

Since the flight at RAF Chivenor was established in November 1958, about 4,000 searches and 2,000 rescues have been carried out. Many sorties are false alarms, or the people manage to save themselves. Nevertheless, those figures are impressive. The Western Morning News yesterday reported two cases in my constituency of people who had got into trouble and fortunately got out of it before the helicopters arrived, but what a reassurance it was for all of us to know that the helicopters were coming. People often do not appreciate how many brave folk there are who will risk their lives trying to help. With the helicopter service, we know that by the time we attempt the dangerous or the impossible, the professionals will be there to help—and I hope that they always will be. Scramble time is about four minutes to my coastline from RAF Chivenor compared with 35 minutes from Brawdy.

I emphasise that we in the west country are proud of everything in our area. We know that it is beautiful and a part of the country to which tourists wise enough to holiday in Britain will always come. But we cannot always guarantee the weather, and when the weather is bad there is danger. There can also be danger when the weather is good if people take a windsurfer too far out or go fishing from a dinghy. It is one of the oddities of our society that one may not take a car or motorcycle on the road without a licence and then a test but anyone can take out a boat, which is far more dangerous. The many boats for hire rightly contain life preservers, but danger is still obvious and inevitable. Our rescue services are thus not something added on but an integral part of the tourist season, and people expect and deserve those services.

Thanks to the Government, to whom I pay tribute, we have a good new road—the north Devon link road— which will be open from the Tiverton M5 up to South Molton in a couple of months and from South Molton up to Barnstaple and on to Bideford by this time next year. The purpose of good roads is to make travel safer and to carry more traffic. There will be more tourists, and that is good. There will be more people coming to live with us. That is excellent. We welcome all of them, but we cannot accept a lowering of safety standards at the very time when improved facilities to reach north Devon become available.

West country Members do not feel neglected. We are well looked after and kindly spoken to, but then these little points are thrown in showing that, although we are to have good roads—the excellent Okehampton bypass is being opened—and all the other good things that will make us more viable commercially, the dangers will remain and may even get worse.

I therefore put three main points to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, I accept that the purpose of Ministry of Defence helicopters is defence and their priority must be to help service men in difficulty. I suppose that their origins lie with the launches that used to go out into the Channel to pick up aircraft crew who had ditched during the second world war.

Modern aircraft are safe and modern flyers are excellent, so, happily, we have few defence emergencies. Unfortunately, we have many civilian emergencies. I ask for an assurance that there will be no danger of change in the immediate future, by which I mean this year or next year, of anything happening to the defence helicopters that look after us so well.

Secondly, if the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, for their own logical reasons, have to reduce their commitment, will there be an overlapping of rescue services? I believe that an interdepartmental committee is currently examining these issues. If the Royal Air Force had to diminish or dilute its support for whatever reason, would another organisation take its place? I understand that that could be a civil operation, and I am neither for nor against that. All that I want is protection for our people. If the Ministry of Defence cannot continue to meet its commitment, then my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport must take the next step.

Children, my own have been among them, take part each year in what is called the 10 tors competition. It is an exercise that is organised extremely well by the forces. Sometimes the youngsters suffer heatstroke. Sometimes a youngster will break his ankle or leg. In the past we have always had the support of the services to get any injured competitor off the moor. There are other things that go wrong on the moors and problems are not confined to the 10 tors competition. When the weather is bad—it can be extraordinarily bad on occasions—we have always had the support of the services. The Royal Air Force has flown in food for families and fodder for beasts. Without that support we would be extremely hard put. It is not just a matter of providing an extra helicopter for the four, five or six months of summer. There must be a total commitment year round.

I have figures that show how many people are carried from accidents by helicopter. Many of those who are injured in road accidents are motor cyclists. When youngsters damage their head or their legs, they are lifted from north Devon to the hospital at Barnstaple, which has a helicopter pad, or might be taken on to Plymouth. We are not dealing with the odd occasion when an injury takes place or when an idiot takes out a boat in dangerous conditions with a lack of experience. There is a day-to-day need to supplement the wonderful service of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the superb service that is provided by our coastguards. These services must be co-ordinated. All the individual bits and pieces are working wonderfully well, but more and more demands will be placed upon them as the years pass. There are times when we cannot rely entirely on the voluntary sector and the time is coming when there will have to be some form of service that goes beyond the central co-ordinating centres, which we already have and which work well. We shall have to co-ordinate the cash wihin the public purse so that the public are protected, our services continue and we can continue as happily and as fruitfully as in the past.

It is a great pleasure to represent a part of the west country which so many people visit and it gives great satisfaction to read so often in the press that someone has been saved. I know that everyone is grateful to the services but the need will always be present, and it is our job in Parliament to ensure that the means are available as well.

1.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman)

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) for the fact that a humble Defence Minister rather than a Transport Minister is standing at the Dispatch Box to answer the questions that he has put. I read the Prime Minister's reshuffle list carefully and I am not aware that I have been moved. I am sure that he will accept that any comments that are made in this debate will be conveyed to my colleagues not only at the Ministry of Defence, but at the Department of Transport.

May I also congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He has been a valiant champion of his constituents' interests concerning not only RAF Chivenor, but the search and rescue service provided from that RAF base. He has written to me on numerous occasions about this matter and has brought delegations from the North Devon district council to visit me. I was thus able to hear at first hand their views about the future of the search and rescue services in the south-west. I have also visited RAF Chivenor with my hon. Friend.

I have been extremely impressed by the response from the community, including the Ilfracombe Round Table, the local Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the local press—if one can pay a tribute to the press gallery— especially the North Devon Gazette. All my hon. Friend's constituents have adopted a positive and responsible attitude to campaigning and have drawn the attention of the Ministry to local concerns about the search and rescue services.

Many people in this country have good reason to be grateful for the excellence of the search and rescue service —for them it has made literally the difference between life and death. It is understandable, therefore, that when there is any prospect of change in any part of that service it arouses strong feelings among those who believe that they may be affected.

I should like to state at the outset, therefore, that in considering any changes that are within the province of Government we have had the interests of all users of the services in mind. We would not contemplate changes which we believed would not continue to provide a level of service across the country acceptable to the Government.

The search and rescue service is provided by the Government and other agencies and it is a matter of teamwork. The Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy provide helicopters; the RAF also provides long-range maritime patrol aircraft and mountain rescue teams and rescue co-ordination centres, which co-ordinate all air search and rescue assets. Her Majesty's coastguard co-ordinates civil maritime search and rescue operations within the United Kingdom's search and rescue region and provides boats and helicopters of its own. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution provides a whole range of rescue boats and, of course, the extremely brave men who crew them—I pay particular tribute to them.

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the wide range of agencies that contribute to search and rescue. When we pay tribute to the skills of RAF and Royal Navy pilots of the search and rescue helicopters we should remember that many other agencies assist. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to their bravery. Together, the services give a comprehensive range of cover enabling them to assist at the multiplicity of emergencies that arise around our coastline and in our mountains—emergencies which range from the massive tragedy of the Piper Alpha oil rig to the plight of civilians cut off by the tide, or the pregnant woman who needs emergency evacuation to hospital.

The spread of the search and rescue assets is reflected in the division of departmental responsibilities, and perhaps it would be helpful if I explained those briefly to the House —not least because the perception of many is that search and rescue is wholly provided by the Ministry of Defence. For example my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for civil maritime and aviation rescue, whilst the Ministry of Defence is responsible for military rescue. Naturally, departments work closely together, and Ministry of Defence assets are available to assist civilians in distress in peace time. It follows, however that some of the issues raised today by my hon. Friend fall within the purview of the Department of Transport, and I know that my hon. Friend understands that and has expressed his anxieties to Ministers in that Department. I will convey his remarks to those Ministers.

In the past 12 months, we have undertaken a review of the deployment of RAF and Royal Navy helicopters around our coastline with a view to deploying those assets as effectively as possible. It has been a major undertaking.

I have already told my hon. Friend that decisions on the remaining parts of the study, including those that affect the south-west, have not yet been taken and we shall not make an announcement on those aspects until after the summer recess. I assure my hon. Friend that no precipitous decision or announcement will be made. The Ministry of Defence will take all the time necessary to consider representations made to it when examining the complicated issues involving inter-departmental co-ordination and other considerations.

The primary purpose of the search and rescue service provided by the Royal Navy and the RAF is the rescue of military personnel in peacetime and war. That is why a military service was established and that remains its raison d'etre. Therefore, I must be certain that our military search and rescue needs are met and continue to be met as effectively and efficiently as possible.

We have also taken account of the recommendations of the helicopter coverage group set up by the United Kingdom search and rescue committee, which reports to the Department of Transport. It is our aim significantly to improve the national coverage we shall provide against helicopter coverage group criteria and I can assure the House that final decisions on the deployment of our assets will not be taken without the concurrence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Of course, I recognise that it is in the area of civil needs that the most public concern is felt, particularly in my hon. Friend's constituency, with its large number of holiday-makers—a number likely to increase, as my hon. Friend has reminded the House this afternoon, with the building of the new road into north Devon. I am well aware of the extensive leisure pursuits undertaken by holidaymakers and residents in the area, particularly with the ever-increasing popularity of sailing and windsurfing, and the scope for people to get into difficulties while undertaking such pursuits. Nor do we forget that people get into difficulties on land as well—in this area Exmoor and Dartmoor spring naturally to mind—and I remind the House that the RAF has a mountain rescue team stationed at St. Athan whose area of cover includes south-west England. I pay particular tribute to them; they work very closely with the police.

I emphasise that the Government are paying close attention to the needs of civilians who undertake enjoyable but potentially dangerous leisure pursuits. We will take the fullest account of the representations we have received concerning the future deployment of search and rescue helicopters.

My hon. Friend has suggested that we consider setting up a single comprehensive agency to meet our search and rescue needs. It is not for the Ministry of Defence alone to comment on that idea. However, there already exists a United Kingdom search and rescue committee advising the Department of Transport on which all the principal contributors to, and many of the users of, the search and rescue services are represented. It includes representatives of the Department of Transport, Her Majesty's coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and such users as the Cornish fish producers organisation and the Royal Yachting Association. The members of that committee agree to support the collective effort by contributing in ways most appropriate to them.

The United Kingdom search and rescue operation has developed from precedents which we still believe are valid on the basis of contributions from various authorities, which my hon. Friend has mentioned. By concentrating on developing teamwork, we believe that we have a greater capacity than would be the case if one single body attempted to provide everything. A single body might inevitably find itself aiming only to meet the minimum requirements, as can be seen in other countries with such a system. Continued reliance on the many agencies, all of which take pride in their contribution, produces a service that is second to none in the world.

Our review of military helicopter search and rescue services is designed to ensure that they are deployed as effectively as possible. This is not a penny-pinching exercise, designed to save a few pounds here or a few pounds there. But we have to be certain in this area, as in any other, that we are obtaining the best value for money whilst meeting our military requirements and, as I have explained, taking account of civil needs. If we were to deploy search and rescue helicopters every 25 miles around the coast we could ensure that delays in reaching any incident would be minimal, but such an organisation would be neither financially practicable nor necessary. Equally, if we were to base helicopters at only, say, four sites around the country we could not provide a service which would be adequate to meet either military or civil needs. Our aim is therefore to ensure that our basing policy strikes the right balance between the available resources and the tasks to be undertaken.

I have explained that decisions about helicopter search and rescue deployment as it affects the west country have not yet been taken, and will not be taken until the autumn. I undertake to consider again the points made in this debate when reaching those decisions. I assure the House that the Government would not contemplate any changes to the present deployment if it was not convinced that anything other than a service which met the needs of the military and civil communities would result.

I hope that I have covered most of the questions that my hon. Friend has asked me. He asked for three assurances, and I hope that I have covered them. The first was that no precipitous decision will be taken and no announcement will be made on defence helicopter deployment. I hope that I have convinced him that, following our very full representations, we will take all the necessary time to review those and reach a conclusion.

Secondly, my hon. Friend asked whether, if the Royal Air Force did not provide a service at Chivenor or at any other station, his constituents would not be left in the lurch. The Government intend to ensure that the national criteria for search and rescue and cover for those in difficulties at sea are met. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will ensure that those criteria are met.

Thirdly, my hon. Friend mentioned those who are caught in the open or suffer injury on Exmoor during the winter. They will not be forgotten, as the House should not foreget the men of the search and rescue service.