Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Clark of Kilwinning (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 8 June 2011. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Greenock Coastguard Station.


Greenock Coastguard Station

The constituents of mine who work at Greenock and other members of staff—I have spoken to them on several occasions over the years—were not involved in any way with the proposals, and that is one of the concerns that has been expressed up and down the country. The proposals do not seem to be based on the experiences of those who have been actively involved in providing the service. If the proposed closure of the Clyde and Forth coastguard stations goes ahead, it will leave the central belt of Scotland without a coastguard station. Indeed, if the proposals go ahead as originally announced in December last year, there will be no coastguard stations south of Aberdeen or north of Bridlington in Yorkshire. My constituents are concerned that it is far from clear what criteria were used to develop these proposals, so it is not clear why Clyde has been proposed as one of the stations that will close. That is also far from clear to my constituents who rely on the service provided by Clyde coastguard station. I hope that in the reply to this debate we will get more information on that point, so that we can try to rebut some of the arguments.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
529 c247-8 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Rescue services Maritime and Coastguard Agency HM Coastguard Greenock
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk