Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke in the Chair]

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.

rose—

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.

rose—

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.

rose—

This is the intervention.

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.

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.

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to catch my eye. Colleagues can see how many people are bobbing. We will go to the Front Benchers at 3.28 pm. I intend to start with a three minute limit to try to get in one speaker from each of the parties. That may not be possible, but I will try to achieve that.

I will try to keep to your limit, Sir Alec.

The work of the Burry Port coastguards is absolutely vital to my constituency, which is surrounded on three sides by water. It has a long coastline, treacherous estuaries, constantly shifting sands and a huge tidal range, as well as very attractive miles of beaches and coastal paths, which draw locals and visitors to the waterside. There is significant local seashore activity and a tradition of cockle pickers and fishermen. Burry Port harbour has lots of small boat activity, and there is a small boat that goes from Ferryside to Llansteffan. Many holiday visitors enjoy the beaches and the sea, often unaware of the dangers. The coastguard station is very busy. It covers not just the immediate area but helps out across the Gower, all the way from Llansteffan to Port Talbot.

I was horrified to hear the news that, from September, HM Coastguard will cut even the small financial token of appreciation given to the volunteer coastguard rescue officers for their amazing dedication and work, which amounts to a mere £11 per hour during call outs—not even the national living wage.

I am concerned that the small allowance for coastguards, to which my hon. Friend refers, is what prevents public service from becoming a personal financial penalty; by removing that, we risk making it significantly harder to recruit and retain volunteers, particularly for new teams such as the Clydebank coastguard rescue team—a new station in my constituency. This sets a worrying precedent and threatens the frontline capability of our search and rescue team. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to look at the changes before September?

Indeed I do.

Sir Alec, just think how much time and effort our volunteer coastguard rescue officers put into ensuring that they can provide the very best service and dovetail with the other emergency services. They are real multitaskers and trained to a very high standard. They have to be multiskilled. They are trained in search skills up to police search adviser standard and trained to medical critical care standard. They have the mud rescue fitness of a fire officer, do water rescue—entering the water in full personal protective equipment, including steel toed boots—and are trained for cliff rescues and working with rescue helicopters. In other words, they have to be really versatile and ready to go out in the most appalling rain, risking their lives.

CROs give up their own time to do the training, but it is no good just doing the training. They have to maintain the skills through practice sessions, because lives depend on it. They get £11 an hour for some training sessions, but they have to do the practice sessions every week just as volunteers. Of course, many of them have been extremely loyal, given many years of service and even had awards from the King for their service. No one is pretending that volunteer coastguards do it for the money, but a little something towards the costs and inconvenience that they incur is welcome in a cost of living crisis. Yes, they get some costs and mileage, but there are, even there, serious legal matters like having to pay business insurance for their own cars.

Stopping the payments in September looks exceedingly cynical: as if to say, “We will make the most of your skills and dedication over the summer, when we are expecting loads of visitors”—perhaps more than ever, because of the jet fuel fears—“but come September, we will make the cut that we know might make some of you resign.” I can tell the House that CROs feel so insulted and angry, to put it mildly. Who can blame them? If His Majesty’s Coastguard thinks that it will be able to get new recruits, it is living in cloud cuckoo land. No one is going to volunteer after this treatment. Plus, it takes a very special person to be able to do this type of work, and gone are the days when big employers could release people. It is much more difficult now, given that far more people are self employed.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister, first, pause the current cuts plan for September to give time for a rethink and then, importantly, find a way for volunteer coastguards to be at least as well rewarded financially as they are now? I do not want any hiding behind legal issues. There must be ways of doing that. Could the Minister also clarify what is happening about death in service for those who pass away while they are still volunteer CROs? That would greatly benefit the families of the deceased.

We simply cannot allow our dedicated volunteer coastguard rescue officers, with all the service that they have given and continue to give, to be kicked in the teeth like this. Lives depend on their good will and expertise, and we have a responsibility to ensure that they are properly respected and rewarded—

Order.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate and introducing it so very well.

In Burnham on Sea, we have a fantastic coastguard team and rescue officers. They are dedicated volunteers who respond to incidents along one of the most challenging stretches of coastline in the country. The Bristol channel has one of the highest tidal ranges in the world, and the risks are very real. When people get into difficulty, it is these volunteers who respond, often within minutes. Following the recent court ruling and changes to policy, many of those volunteers now face losing the limited financial compensation that they receive in return for their valuable efforts. I have spoken to members of the Burnham on Sea coastguard team, who are deeply concerned about what that means for their future involvement.

The hon. Member talks about the responsibilities. Does he agree with what the coastguard in South Queensferry, in my area, has said—that at the stroke of a pen, the MCA has dispensed with all responsibilities to the CROs and put them in a vulnerable position?

I agree with the hon. Lady: I think those volunteers have been poorly treated.

The payments were never a salary, but they made it possible for people to continue volunteering. One officer of many years, who shared his thoughts with me, said: “Call Outs never come at a ‘convenient’ time. The money we earn would never replace the time lost, but it does soften the blow.”

It is often said that rescue officers do not volunteer for financial reward but out of a strong sense of duty and community spirit. However, the modest compensation recognised the very real costs involved: travel, time away from work and the disruption to family life.

I understand that the MCA must operate within the law, and that the Court of Appeal ruling has created a complex situation. It is, though, sad to see these committed volunteers penalised as they have been. I urge the Government to look at what they can do to continue supporting our volunteer coastguards and would be grateful if the Minister addressed these questions when he sums up. What assessment has been made of the impact on recruitment and retention? In constituencies such as mine, a reduction in volunteer numbers would have a direct impact on public safety. Is the Minister satisfied with the MCA’s engagement with volunteer coastguard teams? I end by thanking the coastguard volunteers in Burnham on Sea and across the country.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I pay tribute to the brilliantly dedicated and inspiringly selfless coastguard rescue officers across the country, but particularly those who operate in my constituency—at Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh. They are represented in the Gallery today.

For my constituents and the many visitors who come to our area to experience our brilliant and beautiful coastline, the coastguard makes a vital contribution to the emergency services’ ability to keep people safe. I recently met a number of volunteer officers from the Folkestone and Romney Marsh coastguard rescue teams. They attend hundreds of incidents a year, including cliff rescues—we have the white cliffs of Dover; sadly, people sometimes jump off them: it is necessary to address what is going on at the top as well as at the bottom—as well as missing persons. There are all sorts of circumstances in which the police or the fire brigade cannot or will not reach people, so the CROs perform a vital role as part of the emergency services.

My constituency neighbour and I share a coastline, and we know the important work that CROs do. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that they must be valued as the emergency service that they are, especially as more extreme weather events mean that they are more needed than ever?

I entirely agree. That is absolutely key. A coastguard officer said to me that the money they get helps to offset some of the costs, but I think this phrase sums it up: “we do not do this for the money; the money means we can do it.”

Other Members have talked about sacrificing family time; one officer said to me that he once left a wedding to attend a call out. That is the level of bravery and commitment that these individuals are showing every day. The approach that the Maritime Coastguard Agency has adopted is not the way to treat them.

If we remove the recognition in those payments, I, like the CROs I have spoken to, think it is obvious that availability will fall, resilience will decline and our coastal rescue services will simply start to disintegrate. That will put lives at risk. I echo the point made by others: the MCA has dealt with this in a very heavy handed way—it seems entirely procedurally irregular. The MCA has serious questions to answer about how it has gone about this.

My questions for the Minister are similar to those posed by other hon. Members. Does the Minister know whether the MCA has modelled the likely reduction in volunteer availability following the proposed changes to remuneration, particularly for high demand response teams such as those in Folkestone and Romney Marsh? If so, can we please see them? Does the Minister know whether the MCA has carried out a safety impact assessment, and whether that will be published? Critically—this has been raised by others—what meaningful engagement does the Minister know the MCA has had with unions such as the GMB and with serving officers? Are the Government open to reviewing the proposed model of employment and the removal of the call out fee for CROs in the light of that dialogue?

Finally, like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), I ask for the implementation of these changes to be paused so that we can understand the impact on volunteer capacity. Ultimately, we have to maintain the standards of the service and the good will of those who volunteer every day to keep people safe. That is in the interests of the country and of all those who put their lives on the line for that service.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate and thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate and for how he opened it.

With 23 inhabited islands, innumerable uninhabited islands and an aggregated coastline longer than that of France, my Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber constituency has 22 coastguard stations—more, I believe, than any other constituency in the UK. On behalf of everyone in the House, I want to say a sincere thank you to those dedicated, highly skilled and incredibly brave men and women who risk their lives at sea working out of Kilchoan, Kames, Salen, Coll, Tiree, Tobermory, Craignure, the Ross of Mull, Colonsay, Jura, Port Charlotte, Port Ellen, Appin, Oban, Crinan, Tarbert, Gigha, Campbeltown, Inveraray, Rothesay, Dunoon and Helensburgh.

Across my vast but sparsely populated constituency, many of those coastguard stations are already understaffed. They have been struggling to recruit volunteers as it is, because of the low availability of suitable candidates. The MCA’s plan to strip these vital volunteers of their pittance of a remuneration will be another huge stumbling block to both the recruiting and retaining of coastguard rescue officers in these rural areas.

I add my voice to those of the growing number of people not just protesting against the MCA’s decision but calling on the UK Government to become directly involved in the dispute and to use their influence to force the decision to be paused, to allow for meaningful consultation and discussion to take place, so that a fair and equitable solution can be found.

Whether they like it or not, the UK Government have a hugely important role to play. Although the decision has been taken by the MCA, the MCA is answerable to the Department for Transport and, ultimately, to the Secretary of State. Should the Government not intervene and pause the MCA’s plan to cut the remuneration and allow meaningful discussion to take place, they will have to accept that serious consequences will inevitably follow—not just for morale or recruitment and retention, but for public safety.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec, and I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing forward this important debate.

In 2024, Fleetwood and Lytham’s coastguard stations were officially recognised as the busiest in the UK. Only four days ago, Fleetwood coastguard rescue officers spotted around 20 teenagers out in the sea in Bispham. While some were able to get themselves out of the water safely, others were struggling. Coastguards then rescued three of the children, who were taken to hospital. Without our heroic coastguard, it could have been a lot worse.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency plans to maintain the legal volunteer status of coastguards by removing their remuneration. That will have a terrible impact on my community, and it cannot be allowed to happen.

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Does she agree that the coastguard is essential to the safety of our coastal communities—both residents and tourists—and that we must ensure it continues to deliver this vital service?

I do.

To make things even worse, according to the GMB, members were informed of the removal of the payment by a WhatsApp message. We all know that coastguards are not motivated by financial reward; they come into this role to serve their community, protect our residents and save lives. Coastguards in my constituency have told me that they already lose income from their main work, as call outs are often late at night and during working hours. They also miss out on time with their loved ones because they are keeping our community safe. Removing their remuneration is unsustainable for our coastguards, and we cannot afford to lose them.

Coming from Falmouth in Cornwall, I know that coastguards and the brilliant work they do are crucial. May I suggest a potential solution for the Minister to consider, whereby HMRC agrees some sort of disturbance or disruption allowance that volunteers can claim? We have to ensure that coastguard volunteers can continue doing this vital work.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I am sure that the Minister will look at that suggestion—well, I hope so, anyway.

One coastguard wrote to me stressing that removing this support risked affecting availability, recruitment and retention. They warned that we might lose capacity in people and in skills that would take years to rebuild. I have written to the CEO of the Maritime Coastguard Agency to express my concern and I call on the Government to ensure that a sustainable remuneration model is found. We owe it to our coastguards to get this right.

I will be grateful for answers to the following questions. First, have the Government considered options that would allow for remuneration while complying with employment law? Secondly, how will the Government ensure operational resilience if large numbers of coastguards leave, and has an impact assessment of that happening been made? Finally, do the Government believe that it is sustainable to rely on volunteers who receive expenses only?

Diolch o galon i holl wylwyr y glannau am eu gwaith. [Translation: Heartfelt thanks to all the coastguards for their work.] The economy of Gwynedd is highly dependent on tourism, especially our coastal communities in the Llŷn peninsula and on the Meirionnydd coast, as well as in the uplands of Eryri. To give a snapshot of the impact on population numbers, the year round population of Abersoch in Llŷn is 600, but that increases to 50,000 in the summer. The volunteer rescue services and the salaried blue light teams are under immense pressure to deal with these numbers, even as things stand. Keeping the public safe under such pressures requires a close knit response from people who know their local coast and country like the back of their hand, who are prepared to turn out at short notice and who are fully trained to bring a professional response to an ever changing environment and hazardous challenges.

Gwynedd has eight coastguard stations at Aberdaron, Abersoch, Bangor, Barmouth, Criccieth, Landwrog, Porthdinllaen and Tywyn, and there are at least 80 volunteer coastguard rescue officers in the county. The coastguard rescue teams at these stations provide essential emergency response capability along the Welsh coastline, including search and rescue, missing person operations, flood response, and cliff and mud rescues. They co ordinate with North Wales police and transport police, North Wales fire and rescue service and the Welsh ambulance service, and with volunteers from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and mountain and cave rescue teams. They even attended the Talerddig train accident in 2024, where there was a fatality. The public do not distinguish between the services. They see emergency responders, they see uniforms and kit, and they trust them—sometimes with their lives.

Portsmouth coastguard rescue officers responded to 171 incidents last year, and I rise to express my admiration of them and of the coastguard rescue officers in the right hon. Member’s constituency. Does she agree with me and my constituents that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency had a number of options available to it, but it chose to blatantly ignore those options and instead put the burden on the shoulders of the CROs and their families, which is just not good enough?

I agree entirely. A CRO suggested to me that we should look at the model for retained firefighters. I wonder whether that is something the Minister might consider. Obviously, there will be issues with that model, but other models have been suggested by the CROs.

I have already cited the evidence showing that we need CROs. Now, let me pass on what they have told me about the proposed changes. Teams will be put under extra pressure when—not if—some members cannot attend incidents because they will be out of pocket, whether they are working or for another reason. The exact same issue will arise in respect of essential training sessions. We risk losing officers with decades of experience, skills and local knowledge. Emergency response times will increase when neighbouring teams are called in because local officers are not available; we already know that that happens with the fire service on occasion. Recruitment will be hit as new team members are required to do 10 days’ training without remuneration. This will reduce the pool of people who can afford and are willing to do this work. CROs already feel isolated and ignored; their morale will fall even further.

I will also quote what one CRO told me, and I have been careful here because CROs do not want their names to be put on the record. We have already heard that they are being threatened by their management, which is frankly appalling, although it gives us a role here as MPs to say the words that really should be coming from their own mouths. This CRO told me their work involved “People sacrificing time that could be spent with family to go out in all weather, at any time of day or night, to carry out all manner of rescues, from a dog on a cliff to recovering dead bodies.”

That is what these people do.

I have already tabled written questions about whether the Government have assessed how many CROs are likely to leave the service, the impact on public safety and the long term sustainability of the coastguard if it were to operate on a wholly volunteer model. The Government have not provided any answers to those questions. I therefore ask them again to the Minister, and I look forward to hearing his response. Diolch yn fawr.

Order. I am going to break with convention ever so slightly. The next speaker will be the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, as she is one of our new colleagues and I want to give her three minutes. After that, returning to convention, I will call Lloyd Hatton, at which point we will have a two minute limit.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate.

It is important to me that this is my first contribution in this place, having arrived only last week, because the first email I ever had from a constituent was on this very matter. I have been inundated with similar emails since. That demonstrates the importance of this issue to so many of our constituents, which many others have mentioned.

In my coastal constituency, a coastguard station in Arbroath proudly serves the stretch of coast between Montrose and Dundee; it is fundamental to the safety and protection of those in peril all the way to St Andrews. It is a busy corridor, and the coastguard works closely with RNLI stations in Arbroath and in Broughty Ferry to save hundreds of lives every year.

The volunteers who dedicate their time and lives are so much more than volunteers. They are members of our community—mine and everyone else’s—who work day in, day out and deserve to be respected for that. Coastguard teams not only respond to traditional maritime emergencies but, as many have said, are increasingly called to incidents involving, for example, people experiencing severe mental health distress, including vulnerable individuals at risk near coastal areas, bridges, cliffs and waterways, which my constituency has in abundance.

This very real decision has very real consequences for people’s lives, and constituents who have spoken to me do not feel it has been handled with adequate respect or seriousness. At a time when communities, including mine, are facing pressures on mental health services, reductions in community outreach provision and increased demands on emergency services, the coastguard is becoming an essential part of the crisis response service. Does the Minister accept that highly trained responders who are being relied on to undertake complex, distressing and lifesaving interventions cannot simply be viewed as casual volunteers? In coastal communities such as Angus, losing experienced CROs will affect not just rescue capacity, but the wider safety nets available to people in their darkest moments.

Morale in my CRO team in Arbroath is exceptionally low. My constituents have conveyed to me that they feel this process has been done to them, not with them or for them. The two questionnaires circulated—“badly drafted” questionnaires, as they put it—were the only basis on which they were able to convey their concerns. What assessment have the Government made of the impact that changing the status may have on recruitment, retention and the resilience of the coastal emergency response? Those are the key questions that my constituents have.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this timely debate.

As many Members have mentioned, the coastguard rescue service is an essential component of our emergency services, and that is certainly the case in South Dorset. Whether they are locating missing and vulnerable people, responding to injured climbers, walkers and sailors or, tragically, recovering those who have lost their lives, coastguard rescue teams across South Dorset are highly skilled and essential to keeping local people and visitors safe along our Jurassic coast. That is why I am incredibly concerned about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s changes to volunteers’ remuneration following the handing down of Court of Appeal’s judgment earlier this year.

Following initial conversations with volunteers across South Dorset, I know that they are particularly concerned that the proposed changes will harm the future recruitment of volunteers, undermine morale in existing teams and risk many volunteers leaving the service altogether. Those concerns were powerfully illustrated to me by one of my constituents, whose family have served in the service for more than 150 years across five generations. His recognition and bravery were rewarded and recognised with a Queen’s gallantry medal in 2017. Despite that lifelong commitment to the coastguard rescue service, he told me that the proposed changes could leave him unable to dedicate the time and effort that he once did.

I urge the Minister to consider carefully the concerns of coastguard volunteers in South Dorset and across the country. I fear that without action and direct intervention, the real impact of these changes will be devastating for coastal communities across the country. That is painfully clear from their stories. We all know that the outcome of the Court of Appeal’s ruling is wholly unacceptable and cannot be allowed to stand. For all these volunteers, we can and must do better.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for once again speaking up for coastal communities. I speak today on behalf of the brave, dedicated and selfless coastguard rescue officers not just in my beautiful constituency of Strangford, but right across the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

We should remember that this change will have an effect across all the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. A Northern Ireland coastguard rescue officer contacted me to say: “I am not writing out of personal financial interest”

but “because I care deeply about the future of a service that has protected lives for generations”.

Does the hon. Member agree that their voices need to be heard?

That is the whole reason why we are here. We are their voice in this place for them.

From Portavogie down to Ballywalter, all around the shores of Strangford lough and the Irish sea, the people of Strangford know the dangers of the sea. Our volunteers put themselves directly in harm’s way to protect complete strangers. They are the very pinnacle of noble public service. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who frankly feel insulted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s decision to strip away their remuneration completely, following the recent Court of Appeal ruling. The removal of the remuneration sends a devastatingly wrong message to those who give up their time, often at a moment’s notice and in the dead of night, to respond to life and death emergencies. They balance their lifesaving responsibilities alongside their regular day jobs, family commitments and community involvement. Remuneration provided by the MCA was never, ever viewed as a luxury. My fear is that the heavy handed withdrawal of payments will absolutely decimate morale. What will it do to recruitment? What will it do to retention, when our coastguard teams are already stretched to their limit safeguarding lives?

I have great respect for the Minister and this is in no way a personal attack, but I do have some questions. With the greatest respect, what assessment has his Department made of the impact that this policy change will have on volunteer recruitment? Will it just wait until a station cannot turn out to an emergency because it cannot retain staff? What alternative mechanisms are being looked at to ensure that these officers continue to receive appropriate recognition and support for their vital work? We need solutions. We look to the Minister to give us those solutions. We seek nothing less for our constituents.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec, as we debate an issue that matters so deeply to communities in South East Cornwall. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate.

Truthfully, this debate is about people. It is about those dedicated coastguard rescue officers who leave family dinners, children’s birthdays, Christmas day celebrations and their homes in the middle of the night to respond when somebody else is in danger. They are often the first on the scene when someone is trapped on the coastline, caught in mud, stranded on a cliff or at risk of rising tides. They do not consider whether it is a convenient time; they simply respond. Some descriptions of their role simply do not reflect that reality. I have heard the role publicly described as being only a few hours a week in a volunteer capacity, which does not speak to the sleepless nights and multiple call outs.

Officers have talked to me about the hours spent at incidents in really difficult conditions, including in my own village very recently. They talk about mandatory weekly training, travelling at their own expense and giving up significant personal time to maintain the skills that save lives. They are highly trained emergency responders carrying out category 1 response work. They understand the spirit of volunteering and public service and many are proud to give their time in that spirit, but they also carry legal responsibilities; they wear the uniform of a Government agency and they respond as part of our blue light emergency response system. The appropriate measure to deal with that must be engaged with.

I want to address remuneration. Officers question why training can be unpaid, why they often travel at their own expense and the impact that might have on family finances. They want to do this job in the spirit of volunteering but they must be recognised. I ask the Minister not to view the issue through just one lens but to engage with them, perhaps visit me in South East Cornwall and undertake discussions in that spirit, which is so important for our communities.

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.

You know me too well!

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.

I thank my hon. Friend and Cornish neighbour for giving way and join him in commending the Cornish coastguard agencies, particularly Boscastle, Bude and Padstow in my constituency. Boscastle had its fair share of disasters in 2024. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are other options, such as statutory retainers, and that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency did not consult on those?

My hon. Friend is right, and I will come to that in a second. I want to share quotes from some of many CROs who have been in contact we me. One said, “Many CROs…make considerable personal financial sacrifices in order to respond to incidents. Whilst nobody joins the coastguard for financial gain, the current remuneration helps offset the real costs associated with responding, including loss of earnings, disruption to employment, interrupted family life, loss of sleep and the wider impacts that emergency responses can have.”

Needless to say, many of the CROs in my area are self employed. Others say that on this occasion the bosses have “made us all redundant and re employed us as volunteers.”

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) spoke about using the model of retained firefighters, who are recompensed through a combination of an annual retainer, hourly rates for training and call outs, and specific disturbance fees. That is a good model for the MCA to look at seriously.

I gave the Minister advance notice of a large number of questions, so I will summarise some of them. What level of consultation was undertaken with CROs prior to this announcement? What alternative options, including models such as the fire service and the RNLI, have been considered? What workforce modelling has been conducted to assess the likely impact on retention and availability? What operational safety assessment has been completed regarding the potential loss of experience, skills and leadership capability? What contingency plans exist if volunteer numbers fall below expected levels? In terms of viability, how has HM Coastguard satisfied itself on public safety? What impact assessment has been undertaken of the resilience of the future of coastguard rescue teams as a category one emergency call out?

I do want to let everybody have a chance to put something on the record but, due to interventions, I have to cut to one minute. Any further interventions on speeches will reduce that further.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate on an issue that concerns those in my constituency. The south Essex coastline is one of my constituency’s greatest assets—beloved by residents, depended upon by our fishing community and a magnet for the more than 7 million day visitors who flock to Southend alone each year. But as beautiful as our coastline is, it can also be treacherous, from unpredictable tides to shifting mudflats.

Protection from physical danger requires specialised skills, a rapid response and a deep local knowledge. The Southend on Sea coastguard rescue team covers roughly 70 miles of coastline, and its 11 volunteers are the reason why our community can safely enjoy locations such as Shoeburyness’s east beach, the marshes of Wallasea island and, of course, Southend pier. Rescue officers, those who—

Order. I call Edward Morello.

Thank you, Sir Alec. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for bringing this important debate on what is, frankly, an outrageous and insulting decision by the MCA. I also pay tribute to the amazing work of the coastguard rescue officers in Lyme Regis, West Bay and across the country. I recognise the extraordinary sacrifice they make when they drop everything to respond to emergencies and save lives.

As has been said, no one joins the coastguard for the money, but that small, modest payment helps to soften the substantial financial impacts that they incur. My CROs tell me that it helps cover the cost of a family meal to say thank you for sacrificing time together; it replaces the sunglasses broken while performing CPR; it helps to compensate the children for an abandoned cinema trip; it helps to recognise the Christmases, birthdays and family gatherings that are missed because they are out on a cliff or in the sea, in the middle of a rescue, when the rest of us are at home. It is not a salary; it is recognition.

I believe this Government must find a way to square the circle of the court’s judgment with properly recognising the sacrifice that these heroes make.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for opening this debate and for bringing attention to this important matter. I will keep this brief, as most points have already been raised.

CROs have contacted me on this matter, and there was a real strength of feeling about how they have been treated. In my constituency we have members of the coastguard rescue service across Ardrossan, Cumbrae and Largs, and it is a very busy service. CROs told me that they take pride in their vital role for the community, and feel that they should be able to continue to claim an hourly remuneration.

I will just add that coastguard rescue officers perform safety checks and maintain equipment, as well as supporting the emergency services, searching for missing people, rescuing people who may be trapped on cliffs or drowning, and often dealing with people in difficult and distressing situations. It is only right that all that should be reviewed.

For coastguard rescue officers, remuneration provides recognition of the sacrifices that they and their families make: the nights away from home, the cancelled plans, the annual leave taken for training and the loss of income as a result of having to go out and answer calls.

These coastguard teams are not built overnight; skills in search and rescue, casualty care and water navigation take years to acquire. Local knowledge, local experience and team cohesion are impossible to replace. If experienced coastguard rescue officers leave, those capabilities cannot simply be replaced.

I am particularly concerned about the impact on smaller and more remote coastal communities, where recruitment is already challenging. For the Jurassic coast, that might mean the team at Beer having to become dependent on teams at Exmouth and Lyme Regis. When an emergency occurs, the public do not distinguish between those organisations and others.

We are a proud seafaring nation—as John Evelyn put it, the “sea is England’s element”—and the coastguard stands as the nation’s eyes and ears along our shore. The west Somerset coast runs along the north of my constituency and, in the Bristol channel, we have the second highest tidal range in the world.

I ask the Minister, on behalf of my constituents who now face greater vulnerability as a direct result, on what basis the decision was made. It looks like negligence, but I fear that the blame lies squarely with the MCA. These CROs show extraordinary courage in the line of duty, and, as we all know, “With courage, nothing is impossible”.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate. This weekend, I watched the coastguard rescue a kayaker very close to my house. I spoke to the coastguard, who brought me up to date on the situation. There are two things to say. First, it is clear that the MCA management has made a right mess of this. It should listen to the petitioners and put its plans on hold. Secondly, will the Minister confirm whether he has discussed the volunteer fire service’s terms and remuneration with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and whether, for example, an honorarium, a stipend or another of its policies could be adapted?

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate. Beachy Head in my constituency is, regrettably, one of the most visited suicide spots in the world. Every year, brave coastguards such as Mark Francis in Eastbourne recover bodies from those cliffs and intervene at the cliff edge. Their presence is often the difference between intervention and inquest. That is why I am outraged at the proposed changes that threaten to decimate our coastguard service and threaten lives. I urge the Minister, on behalf of not only our brave CROs, but the bereaved Beachy Head families, to pause the changes, to object to the MCA’s short sightedness and to ensure that our CROs get the support that they deserve and that our communities need.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. He truly is a champion that coastal communities like mine can rely on to stand up for them. In terms of miles of coastline per square mile of constituency, he is surely in the top three most qualified Members to speak on this topic.

I begin by expressing my gratitude and admiration for the work of the volunteer coastguard in North Norfolk and across the country. These brave teams go out to situations many of us could not dream of handling and save lives on a regular basis. As the weather improves and tourist season approaches, there will no doubt be more and more call outs in the coming weeks. Because of their hard work, those enjoying our coast are much safer. It is also worth making clear that, whatever the outcome of these new changes, we will still have a coastguard; there will be people willing to protect us, and this issue should not scare people away from visiting our coastline.

Ahead of this debate, I did something that I fear is too rare in politics; I went out yesterday to speak to the people to whom this issue matters the most. I had several back to back phone calls with coastguard rescue officers based in some of North Norfolk’s five coastguard rescue teams. Our coastguards have a fascinating range of backgrounds and experiences. They have a fantastic diversity of skills and careers that contributes to their excellent teamwork.

What was striking, and I think this has to be at the heart of our consideration, was that one chap said to me, “I’ll be honest with you, Steff, I didn’t even know that we got paid when I first applied”. I heard that again and again, and I have also heard it from right hon. and hon. Members during this debate. The motivation for being in the coastguard is so far from financial that many did not even know that they would be remunerated. Even so, having financial support to cover lost hours of work means that coastguards have the confidence to volunteer more and attend more call outs. Remuneration supports lost working time, but also the cost of those missed meals with the family because the pager went off and the plans cancelled so that they can spring into action. It is far from huge recompense—about £30 for a call out of three hours or less—but it helps. It makes it viable for more people, it enables people to give up more of their time to volunteer and it makes the service more resilient.

We desperately need people to attend call outs. One coastguard told me that when he started volunteering, his team received around 30 call outs. Last year, it was 150. Another team told me that they had had just shy of 200 call outs and were well on track to beat that this year. The coastguard is a vital service to my area and at this peak season it handles multiple call outs a day. A gentleman I spoke to told me he was called out three times on Saturday; after a full week at work, he then sacrificed much of a day off with his family to save lives on our coast.

It is also not just lifesaving rescuing that the coastguard carries out. The coastguards I spoke to told me that their role often includes keeping the public safe from unexploded bombs uncovered on our beaches. It is a wait of many hours for the bomb squad to arrive in my constituency from Colchester, during which time it is our coastguard who protect and secure the scene. It is an arduous task and not a glamorous or thrilling one—but would any Member prefer it if we just left bombs sitting on the beach and hoped for the best, or drew down on limited rural police resources instead?

I am not showing up just to complain at the Minister; I have a lot of time for him. Without having explored other avenues first, I too have spoken to the chief exec of the MCA, as have colleagues, and I do not feel reassured by what I heard. I asked the Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State, for answers when she came before the Transport Committee last week, and I was equally not reassured. It is worrying when those at the highest level behind such a decision simply cannot provide adequate answers or reasons that make someone like me, who lives in and represents a coastal community, truly believe that the future of our service is as safe as it needs to be.

I have some asks for the Minister and I hope he can oblige. From my discussions with coastguards, I understand that two questionnaires or surveys were put before them around the time of the court case on potential changes in remuneration. Can he place copies of them both in the Library of the House, along with the summarised results? The MCA has relied on legal opinions for its claim that the court decision means it has no choice but to take this approach. Will he publish those also? The Government say that there will be a transition period to assess the changes. Could they assess the changes before launching into that period? Otherwise, it feels rather like a fait accompli for those volunteers.

The plans seem half baked at best and penny pinching at worst. The coastguard is a vital emergency service that the Government seem to think is not worth investing in, and that is wrong. In my community, most people are more likely to call on a coastguard than a copper, but the Government would be seen as barmy if they suggested any pay for police by their mileage. I have seen some poor choices from the Government in my couple of years here, but this one has made me the most worried.

I truly think that the MCA and the Government have not realised what they are doing. They have heard some legal advice and listened to some Treasury bean counters, and decided that our service cannot be supported. As they have heard today, that is just not good enough. There is time left in the Prime Minister’s reign for one more U turn; I urge the Government to make it this one.

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing today’s debate—quite a feat, given that the Department for Transport was not meant to be answering Westminster Hall debates this week. He managed to secure a debate on an issue that has caused serious concerns not just for our coastal areas across the United Kingdom, but for all of us; I speak as a Member of Parliament representing a seat about as far away from the sea as it is possible to get within England.

The changes to the renumeration of coastguard volunteers have raised fundamental questions about the future of the service, as we have heard clearly from across the House today. I thank my colleagues who have attended the debate to set out those concerns and the scale of the challenges facing the coastguard. Those colleagues included my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who has had to go to run the drop in event. I welcome his informative comments on the process in the main Chamber, given his constituent’s role in the legal case and the need to get the response to the legal decision right.

The question of how the coastguard operates truly matters. Protecting our coastlines from harm is essential, and the coastguard has played a central role in that over centuries. We must preserve the lives of those who are in danger and support our coastal towns and cities, where upholding safety is a priority. That brings us to the issue underpinning the debate: what happens if we no longer have those volunteers? We know that the 3,000 volunteer staff play a considerable role in protecting the public; it is integral that they remain part of the service.

For as long as the coastguard has existed, there have been questions of remuneration. For example, in 1831, the Admiralty published new regulations as part of a plan for the coastguard to become a reserve for the Royal Navy. It included payments and allowances—a salary of £10 for a chief boatman and £5 for a commissioned boatman. As volunteer servicemen entered the system, the Government provided support to the coastguard and to volunteer lifesaving organisations across the UK. More recently, the 1990s saw the Department conduct internal reviews of the role that auxiliaries should play in the service compared with those working full time.

The relationship between the state and the coastguard has changed throughout the years along with the evolution of its structure, but there has been a principle of ensuring that people can volunteer, while maintaining incentives so that the coastguard is able to operate effectively. Worryingly, the decision that was accepted by the Government, stemming from the court case, completely alters the relationship that has been put in place.

Order. I am about to suspend the sitting due to Divisions in the House. I will aim to come back earlier than 10 minutes after the last Division starts. If the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the shadow Minister, the Minister and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland are here, we will start as quickly as we can, but it will be no later than 10 minutes after the last Division. I remind Members that if they have spoken, they need to come back to the Chamber. If I start slightly earlier, I will give some leeway, but I expect everybody who has spoken to be back in the Chamber 10 minutes after the start of the last Division.

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

On resuming—

Back from the Division break, we can think about the possible impact of the court judgment and the Government’s decision. I put it to the House that it is crazy that the Government have made this decision affecting our brave coastguard rescue officers. We face the prospect later this year of huge numbers of our coastguard personnel leaving because the Government have failed them.

I appreciate that the Minister has reiterated in multiple written answers that this was not a decision that the Government wanted to take. It was taken after a recommendation from the MCA; after engagement through the MCA with the coastguard rescue service—although on the basis of speeches earlier in the debate we can question the veracity of that—over previous months on the implications for the service; and after further conversations with area management teams, senior leadership visits and national representative forums, as well as two all member surveys, which played a direct part in understanding the impact of the models upon the service.

It is important to reflect on those remarks, because while they show on the face of it that steps were taken, I am unsure of the level of consideration they demonstrate. The Government seem to have sought to understand the models but reverted to the simplest option. There needs to be a comprehensive explanation of the thought processes within the Department. Let us consider the action stemming from the legal decision. What steps were taken to establish a path forward? Can the Minister explain how much time the Government took to analyse the legal decision and whether other bespoke approaches would have been more appropriate?

I acknowledge that the Minister has said that the suggestion came from the MCA and the Government accepted it. However, the MCA’s annual report for 2024-25 highlighted a lack of legal resources within the organisation. To quote one of the priority concerns listed in the annual report, the MCA said that there is a “lack of lawyer resources to implement legislative change – the ability to bring about legislative change hinges on the availability of scarce lawyer resource. The Agency continues to work with the Department for Transport Legal Team to ensure that it can access necessary resource. Progress is being made but the risk remains current.”

I hope that the Minister can clarify whether that remains the case, because the issue of remuneration and volunteer status is clearly a legal matter that could have consequences for legislation. If the MCA was considering the issue with the Department for Transport legal team, is it right to frame this as a decision merely stemming from the MCA? What legal resources were provided by the Department, and what work did its officials undertake to consider alternative options? I hope that the proposal did not merely stem from the Department’s own legal team.

Furthermore, the Minister’s previous responses referenced the discussions he has had with senior leadership and the surveys that were conducted. But for such a consequential decision, unless I have missed something, the Government have failed to publish significant analysis of the decision’s impact on volunteer numbers. From the outside, the Government seem to have chosen not to fully explain the scope of the options available to them and their full reasoning. That exacerbates worries among hard working volunteers across the country who know about their loss of pay but get the sense that there is a lack of explanation. That is reflected in the comments of the anonymous volunteer who told the BBC that they thought the choice would “damage morale and weaken the service”.

I say all this recognising that there is no simple option for the Government, but we cannot ignore the fact that they have taken a decision with possibly serious consequences for an institution with over 200 years of history. Given the reports about the impact of the change, I ask the Minister whether there is anything that can be done to delay it while the Government sort out the mess that many volunteers have identified.

Meanwhile, the Government have known the outcome of the case since January. The judgment on this area of law consisted of just 14 pages; since then, we have not seen anything as detailed from the Government. They should have anticipated the decision from the court, and we believe that they need to put together a solution that does not cause droves of people to leave our coastguard service. The current allowances should not be abolished before that is resolved.

Across the House, it feels like it has been lost on the Government that they have significant powers available to them and they should use those powers to achieve the best outcome for the British people. In this case, that should mean maintaining the existing system until they are confident that they have found a positive way forward that actually works for the safety of our coastlines and the future of our coastguard.

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.

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?

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.

I know that the Minister is responsive to our requests, so will he take the time to speak to the regions, particularly Northern Ireland? We have the same issues, but we sometimes feel at a distance.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about CROs across the United Kingdom feeling that their voice is heard. I will take that point away and ensure that it informs my engagement going forward, but, for the benefit of the House, I want to speak a little more about the modelling of potential impacts.

The risk assessment also focused on which workforce groups may be most affected and where any resulting loss of capacity would pose the greatest risk to operational resource and service delivery. The individual circumstances of CROs are diverse, and it would not be possible to model all the possible ways that 3,000 people could respond to the changes. Since the announcement was made, 29 CROs have left the service. Three of them stated that they did so because of the change, although that is not to say that others did not do so, nor that they have not reported it—I would not want to argue that. I hope that that information is useful.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and others made broader points about operational resilience. I reassure them that His Majesty’s Coastguard has contingency plans and measures in place and continues to draw on the full UK search and rescue system, including aviation assets, the RNLI and independent lifeboats.

Turning back to the situation we face today, as many Members will know, on 14 January the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that changed the status of CROs. For many years, the MCA provided the option of hourly remuneration to recognise the impact of such important work. I note that such an arrangement was not, and is not, typical for the voluntary sector. Although not all CROs chose to claim that remuneration, because the MCA had provided regular payments to CROs following call outs and because the remuneration was beyond reimbursement for their expenses, the court deemed them to be workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

That judgment has fundamentally changed the nature of the role of CROs. Those who had signed up on the basis that they were volunteers and could be a CRO alongside their primary employment are now suddenly classed as workers, meaning that they could be subject to liabilities and responsibilities that they did not sign up for. To be clear on what the change could mean, worker designation could push CROs into new tax brackets or put them in breach of primary employment contracts, if they are not allowed to undertake other paid work. We have worked hard and expressly to avoid those threats to people continuing to work as CROs. The judgment clarified the law, which must now be upheld.

As the Minister knows, the changes of duty will come into place in September. He will be aware of the feelings of Members across this House and their opposition to the changes. The Department for Transport has the power to suspend the change; it does not have to take place. Will the Minister take the opportunity to suspend the change to allow meaningful negotiations to take place, rather than bulldozing the change through?

I am committed to continuing to engage with CROs, trade unions and Members of Parliament on that important issue. The risks I just outlined around worker status exist now and it is important to consider that ahead of any implementation date, irrespective of whether that is in September, later in the year or at some other point. I will come back to the specific point about timing at the end of my remarks.

If we believe that CROs should retain the right to remain as volunteers, the existing model of remuneration cannot legally stay the same. I reassure Members that my officials and I have worked tirelessly but, regrettably, at this stage we have been unable to identify any legally robust option to continue payments beyond out of pocket expenses. Any alternative would carry a high likelihood of further legal challenge and could still be judged to be creating a wage/work bargain. Any carve out would require new and complex primary legislation that would take far longer to implement than the immediate action that the judgment demands. I sincerely wish there were, but there is no simple solution to this situation.

Might I gently suggest that it would be easier for colleagues to understand the Government’s conclusions on this advice if we were able to see it? Would the Minister consider placing a copy in the House of Commons Library, along with the two surveys that I believe were undertaken?

I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will have a conversation with my officials about what is appropriate to share with MPs, who I know are doing their level best to represent their constituents in this difficult matter.

All the Minister’s points apply to retained firefighters. He cannot say that we cannot appropriately transpose that framework agreement between the MCA and CROs simply because they have to be called out within five to seven minutes. Those kinds of details can be altered simply by using the framework. If it is possible in the case of retained firefighters, there is no reason why it cannot be transposed to the CROs.

Those considerations and how they would affect the lives of CROs are not immaterial, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is not saying they are. It is my understanding, although I am happy to be corrected if this is not the case, that to transpose that relevant scheme into a wholly different part of the voluntary sector would have primary legislative implications. We would need to work through them; it could not be done simply by wishing to do it.

I have set out why the MCA was compelled to accept the court’s judgment. Having done so, it needed to take immediate action to comply. Based on operational judgments and the desire to continue to preserve the important volunteer model, the recommendation was to move to a pure volunteer system that paid expenses, so that CROs did not have to choose between being a CRO and their primary employment. That was never a perfect decision, but to do nothing was not an option. As that decision has been communicated to CROs, it is only natural too that it would not and could not be a perfect fit for all who serve, which has been powerfully articulated today.

In the time since the decision was made, I have listened to and reflected on the points made by colleagues, including during this debate. I understand the very real concerns that have been raised about the potential impact of this change on the operational capacity of the coastguard rescue service. I hope that I have gone some way to addressing those concerns, but it is important to recognise that the alternative—moving to a worker model—would require a fundamentally different model and would likely lead to CROs having to leave the service, which would not in itself necessarily guarantee response capacity.

Will the Minister give way?

I am afraid that I will not take any more interventions; I have to get through my remarks.

It is about impact assessments.

I have given way plenty of times.

This is a complex challenge that we must all work through together. We do not want employers to be unable to continue to support their employees to volunteer. We do not want to see CROs tangled in a mire of employment obligations that make the choice of going to a rescue a difficult one. We all understand that the court judgment changed the legal status of CROs, and that treating people who signed up to be volunteers as workers does not necessarily solve the problems they face, and in fact could create many new ones, but we also all recognise the tremendous contributions of these volunteers. We have heard powerful testimonies about the sacrifices that they make day in, day out.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for allowing these issues to be so comprehensively discussed, and fellow Members for their excellent points. I assure them that the debate has resonated strongly with me. I will reflect on what has been raised and I will consider in the long term how our coastguard volunteers can be recognised. I have heard the deep concerns of the CRO community, and I want to carry on working with them, trade unions and colleagues across the House in the future to work through these issues. I thank everybody for their contributions today.

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.

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.

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.