Proceeding contribution from Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist Party) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 24 March 2011. It occurred during Adjournment debate and Backbench debate on Coastguard Service.
Coastguard Service
Nobody can read it. The Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland were in Northern Ireland on 9 March. The Minister said earlier that that proposal—option B—was a breath of fresh air. I am not misquoting him; those were his words, and we welcome them. That perhaps indicates an understanding and an acceptance that there has to be change. We accept that. We are not in the business of saying that we are against everything all the time. We are trying to be positive in our comments. We have an alternative and it has been put forward. It is not just a suggestion for Bangor; it is for all—for Swansea, for Humber, for London, for Aberdeen and for Dover. The proposals would help all Members here and all the areas we represent. That is what this is about. I feel that the proposals are very worthy of consideration, which perhaps shows our commitment to finding a solution. I am conscious that time is flying on, so I will conclude. I stand today and urge the Minister fully to consider the proposals presented to him on 9 March. The proposals outline how every area—from the tip of Scotland to the bottom of Dover, and from the Shetland islands to the Fermanagh lakes—would achieve adequate cover and make the most of the experience of the staff at the major locations. It is my belief, and the sincere belief of many, that the retention of Bangor coastguard is an essential aspect of any proposal. The Minister and his Department should accept that and take it into account in response to the consultation document. I have a six-point diagram on the proposals. It is a bit like a double Presbyterian sermon, in that a Presbyterian sermon has three points and this has six, and focuses on the strategy, which is cost-effective. That is one of the issues. It also focuses on the structure, which would be more successful through the roll-out and upon completion because it would enable the system to continue. The processes would retain possibilities for the future and on how best to do things. The people involved would have their motivation and good will enhanced, and the staff, who made the proposals and who want to work with the Minister and all of us as elected representatives, would be rewarded. That would mean safer lives, safer ships and cleaner seas. I stand by the coastguard station in Bangor. I stand by the alternative proposals and urge that every consideration be given, not only to the issues raised here this afternoon, but to the proposals made by the people who know what they are talking about, who co-ordinate rescues every day and who can tell what will work and what will not. I would listen to them, as they co-ordinate rescues at sea; the hon. Member for North Down and I had the opportunity to do that down at Bangor coastguard. I would listen to them, as they seek to co-ordinate a better UK-wide coastguard service. I ask the Minister to do the same.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 525 c351WH
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Finance Modernisation Rescue services Reorganisation Maritime and Coastguard Agency
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 22:27:35 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_731053
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_731053
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_731053