Loch Lomond Rescue Boat

– in the Scottish Parliament at 5:01 pm on 6 May 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour 5:01, 6 May 2004

The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-1071, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on the Loch Lomond rescue boat. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated

That the Parliament warmly acknowledges the work of the Loch Lomond Rescue Boat; values the service it provides to local communities and visitors enjoying the delights of Loch Lomond; pays tribute to the dedication of the volunteers, who all give freely of their own time to run the service; recognises the importance of their work in promoting and teaching all aspects of safety in and around Loch Lomond, particularly for water sports; notes that a substantial portion of the annual funding is raised by the efforts of volunteers, and therefore considers that the Scottish Executive should investigate the provision of stable funding, similar to that provided for mountain rescue teams, to support this essential, life-saving service.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour 5:09, 6 May 2004

I start by welcoming Archie McKenzie, who is the chair of the Loch Lomond rescue boat service, to the public gallery this evening. [ Applause. ] He is instrumental in helping to provide a truly unique and valuable service. The service is run entirely by volunteers and is funded predominantly by local fundraising efforts and donations from local organisations. The boat provides a 24-hour-a-day, 365-day-a-year service in what is the largest area of fresh water in Britain.

In 2003, the rescue boat was called out on 58 occasions to help to rescue everything from broken-down boats to people who were stranded in and around the loch, to search for—unfortunately—missing people and to transport fire and mountain rescue teams to emergencies. The rescue boat helped young and old alike, from all over the west of Scotland and from all over the world.

The demands on the rescue boat have increased substantially since 2002 and are likely to continue to increase due to the welcome creation of Scotland's first national park. Many members will remember that one of the first acts of the Scottish Parliament paved the way for the establishment of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, which subsequently opened in July 2002.

The area surrounding the loch includes the beautiful and hugely popular tourist areas of Balloch, Luss, Tarbet and Balmaha, which is in the constituency of my colleague Sylvia Jackson. Those are some of the busiest areas in the national park and they are where most water activities are concentrated, with many people taking advantage of the boat cruises and the water-skiing, sailing and canoeing facilities that are on offer. It is a little-known fact that there are approximately 38 islands on the loch, some of which are inhabited, such as the island of Inchmurrin—they, too, may have to rely on the rescue boat.

The majority of people who visit Loch Lomond will—thankfully—never need to come into contact with the rescue boat. However, for the small number who get into difficulty, for whatever reason, the boat is literally a life saver. Loch Lomond is stunningly beautiful and inviting, but it is 24 miles long and 5 miles wide and it is easy for the inexperienced sailor or water skier to be lulled into a false sense of security. Many of the call-outs are to rescue people who do not know the area or who have failed to prepare fully for their trip. As the number of visitors who come to appreciate some of the most stunning scenery in the world increases to the hundreds of thousands, we need to ensure that their safety has been considered.

The rescue boat service was founded in 1977 following—fittingly—an anonymous donation from a sailor. The current boat first came into service in 1993 and 11 years of continuous demand have naturally taken their toll. As with all vehicles of a similar age, the boat will need to be replaced in the near future if it is to continue to deliver what we know to be an excellent service. However, the cost of renewing the boat will be significant—£80,000, which represents a considerable amount of fundraising.

Aside from the capital expenditure, annual revenue costs for the service are in the region of £10,000 to £11,000. Grants from Strathclyde police, Central police, Argyll and Bute Council and the park authority, although extremely welcome, are in some cases small and diminishing. Voluntary fundraising makes up the rest.

I remind members that the service is run entirely by volunteers—they are the ones who staff the rescue boat and who raise the funds for its continuation. When that is taken into account, we begin to appreciate how truly impressive the service is. The volunteers come from all walks of life. Some are police officers, some work in local government and some run their own businesses. There is even one female crew member. They come from Dumbarton, Luss, Helensburgh and communities right the way across the loch.

Like the main rescue services, the crew of the rescue boat is alerted by the 999 system through Strathclyde police. Each crew member carries a pager and is summoned from work or home to ensure that the service is available 24 hours a day, every day. The fire service relies on the boat to transfer fire pumps and personnel to fires on the inner islands. The police and ambulance services also rely on the boat to help in searching for missing persons and in evacuating people to safety.

As well as co-ordinating their work with the work of the other rescue services, crew members place a huge emphasis on training. The boat instructors are Royal Yachting Association qualified; they are also British Red Cross first-aid instructors. They play an extremely strong role in supporting the ambulance services by stabilising people who are ill or injured before transporting them to the ambulance. The crew trains alongside the search-and-rescue helicopter, Strathclyde fire brigade and the local mountain rescue teams; it maintains consistently high standards in training and equipment and in the operation of the service. Crew members also provide advice and training to users of the loch and play an active part in promoting community events. In 2003, they provided safety cover at a number of events on the loch, including the popular dragon boat challenge—I recommend that to members—and the new year's day races.

In November 2003, the Scottish Executive announced a fourfold increase in public money for Scotland's mountain rescue teams. That announcement was welcomed by members from all parties. The Executive acknowledged that Scotland's mountains are among our greatest natural assets and play a vital role in tourism. Jack McConnell, our First Minister, rightly pledged our support to those who commit their time and risk their lives to help others. The extra money that was provided ensured that there would be better training and better equipment for the teams.

I hope that today's debate will highlight the strong similarities between the services that are provided by the Loch Lomond rescue boat and the mountain rescue teams. Both services require funding, training and expertise if they are to keep operating. In both services, the volunteers put their lives at risk.

The volunteers who crew the rescue boat, make up its management committee and contribute to the fundraising effort are ordinary people like us, but they do extraordinary things. They deserve to be recognised for their essential, life-saving, hard work. I ask the minister, first, to ensure that the Loch Lomond rescue boat service has stable, long-term funding and, secondly, to help with significant capital costs, in particular to replace the service's existing boat. Anything that the Executive can do to help that first-class service to continue will be greatly appreciated by future generations of visitors to Loch Lomond.

Photo of Stewart Maxwell Stewart Maxwell Scottish National Party 5:17, 6 May 2004

I congratulate Jackie Baillie on securing the debate and I warmly support the motion, which acknowledges the excellent work of the Loch Lomond rescue boat. I associate myself with her remarks and in particular with her requests to the minister about the boat's funding arrangements.

Loch Lomond is one of the most beautiful areas in Scotland and, consequently, one of the most frequently visited. However, despite its many attractions, the loch has many dangers. Without the efforts of the volunteers who crew the rescue boat, the loch would be a more dangerous and less attractive place to visit. For more than 25 years, men and women have given their time and dedication to ensure that the public, including a large number of overseas visitors, can enjoy the delights of the loch, safe in the knowledge that, if anything unfortunate should occur, the rescue boat is ready to come to their aid. During the past 12 months, the boat has attended nearly 60 emergencies and has rescued dozens of people.

The rescue boat is an emergency service in the true sense of the phrase and its crew are emergency workers. That raises a puzzling aspect of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill, which the Executive recently introduced. During the Justice 1 Committee meeting this week, I asked the Executive bill team about the definition of emergency workers in the bill. Section 1(3)(f) includes in the definition:

"a member of the crew of a vessel operated by the Royal National Lifeboat Institute or a person who musters the crew of such a vessel or attends to its launch".

I asked whether members of the crews of emergency rescue boats that are not RNLI boats, such as the Loch Lomond rescue boat and other inshore boats that are crewed by volunteers, should also be classified as emergency workers for the purposes of the bill. Clearly, such boats carry out an emergency service. Their crews do not work full time; they respond to emergencies at the call of the pager, as Jackie Baillie said. Will the minister say—if he can say at this stage—whether he will consider supporting an amendment to the bill that I want to lodge at stage 2 to include members of crews on rescue boats other than RNLI vessels? Such people are obviously emergency workers and they carry out sterling work on behalf of the public of Scotland.

Some examples of the work that the volunteers do might persuade the Executive that those emergency workers should be included in the bill. This year, several boats have been helped after running aground, breaking down or running into trouble in bad weather, which can quickly whip up on the loch. The rescue boat has also had to rush to the aid of several swimmers, windsurfers and people carrying out other leisure pursuits who have been involved in accidents or found themselves in difficulties on the loch. As some of us have found to our cost, the loch is often much colder than we imagine when we first look at it.

Another facet of the team's activity is that it often helps with mountain searches and accidents on the shoreline. For example, last August, a man was injured by a jet-ski while walking along the beach. He suffered a broken leg and was rushed to Luss pier by the rescue boat, where an ambulance took him to the Vale of Leven hospital. Alcohol is the cause of many incidents on and near the loch, a problem that is illustrated by the second case that I will mention. Last May, the rescue boat rushed to help three drunken sailors who ran into bother in a dinghy. I am sure that there are many limericks about drunken sailors, but had it not been for the rescue boat, the situation could easily have ended up as a tragedy.

The Loch Lomond rescue boat provides a useful and important service. As Jackie Baillie said, the annual cost of running the service is about £10,000, which is raised mainly from donations. I fully support her call for the Scottish Executive to

"investigate the provision of stable funding".

Such an important function, which, as I said, is better described as an emergency service, should not be funded on the whim of people's generosity. We need to bring long-term stability to the funding of what is a vital service so that it can plan for the future. By including non-RNLI rescue boats in the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill and by providing stable funding, we would show that we are serious about supporting important volunteer organisations such as the Loch Lomond rescue boat. I hope that the minister will deal with both those points in his response.

Photo of Sylvia Jackson Sylvia Jackson Labour 5:22, 6 May 2004

I thank Jackie Baillie for lodging the motion. Given that my constituency includes the other side of Loch Lomond, if she had not lodged the motion, I would have lodged a similar one. I, too, welcome Archie McKenzie, who is in the public gallery.

Jackie Baillie summarised what we need to say about the good service that the team provides. She mentioned that the service has been in existence for 25 years and that it is an independent charity that is run by a voluntary committee and crew and funded by public donations. She mentioned that a number of organisations make contributions, including Strathclyde police, which I believe gives £2,000, and Central Scotland police, which gives £500. However, those amounts are relatively small, given the amount that is needed and the fact that the boat will have to be replaced. The list that Jackie Baillie gave of organisations that contribute was not exhaustive, but it covered most of the regular contributors. That highlights the amount of voluntary work that is required to bring in more money.

There is certainly a need for the service, given what the rescue boat is used for. I looked through the Loch Lomond rescue boat service's operational report of 2003, which shows that it does not work only on the water. The incidents on the water to which Stewart Maxwell referred sounded rather interesting, but there are also many interesting cases on the Stirling constituency side of the loch and on the west highland way. I have picked out one or two cases to give members an idea. On 4 February 2003, a person who had gone missing on the west highland way was found at the Drovers Inn. I hope that that person was alive, although the report did not say. On 21 April 2003, the service ferried the Lomond mountain rescue team to Rowardennan to recover a hillwalker with a broken ankle. That stresses what Jackie Baillie said about the good co-operation with other services and with the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority.

On 18 May 2003, a speedboat ran aground 1 mile north of Balmaha and was towed back there. On 27 May 2003, the rescue boat covered for the canoe race from Balmaha. Later, on 20 August 2003, there was an exercise in Inversnaid—a liaison with the fire crews, to ensure that they can be uplifted and transported from Rowardennan to Inversnaid, in order to get to Inversnaid Hotel. On 5 September 2003, the rescue boat was involved—unfortunately—in the recovery of the body of an elderly male from the west highland way and, on 7 September, the Lomond mountain rescue team was brought in to Rowardennan to take a suspected heart attack victim from Rowardennan pier. The list goes on. Just as many rescues are taking place from the loch itself, a considerable number of them are taking place from the land.

The Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park is a marvellous resource for us to have. Jackie Baillie spoke about the stunning beauty and scenery that attract many visitors to the area. It is vital that we ensure that walking and water activities are done in safe conditions. I know that the rescue boat service has indicated that we need to do more to train people. I have no doubt that the access code will do a lot in that respect, particularly for walkers.

However, there will always be a need for a facility such as the Loch Lomond rescue boat. It gives me great pleasure to support Jackie Baillie's motion and her plea for financial support, especially in relation to the capital costs, which are huge, as members can imagine.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative 5:26, 6 May 2004

I, too, would like to congratulate Jackie Baillie on securing a debate on the subject of the Loch Lomond rescue boat. Although only a small gathering is present, that in no way diminishes the importance of the subject.

The Parliament willed the existence of the national park and the effect of so doing was to say to all of Scotland, "Here is a magnificent leisure asset—use it." That obviously means increasing and more systematic use of the park, greater commercial exploitation and more people in and around the water of Loch Lomond. As we encourage people into the area to use its assets, it is incumbent on us to ensure that mechanisms are in place to secure their safety, but that does not mean that we should do that ourselves or that the state is entirely responsible. By far the most commendable aspect of the arrangement that has been discussed this evening is that the rescue boat is in fact a charity, which has existed without substantial aid for many years and which actively raises funds to support its activities.

As Jackie Baillie and others have made clear, although money is available from agencies of the state—from the police and local authorities—that amounts to a small proportion of the boat's overall costs. As other members have covered all the factual information, I do not propose to add anything, other than to relate a point that I obtained from a member of the crew. Expenditure on boathouse improvements, engine replacements or new equipment—in effect, the capital expenditure—can vary extraordinarily. In some years, it can be as little as a few hundred pounds but, in other years, it can top £30,000.

To have that statistic thrown at one—as well as the point about the cost of the new boat—is to have forced into one's consciousness the fact that the rescue boat's expenditure is unpredictable and sometimes quite substantial. It is beyond the means of groups that raise money on a voluntary basis to absorb the high levels of extraordinary expenditure that might hit them in a particular year; such outlay might be affordable only over a couple of financial years. Therefore, we must find some way of providing the rescue boat with grant aid, to ensure that the essential equipment can be replaced when that is necessary.

There is another point that it might be appropriate to mention. Although I assume that the level of leisure use on Loch Lomond is well above the level of such use on other waterways in Scotland, it occurs to me that there are other Scottish lochs on which we allow and encourage substantial leisure use; I am thinking of the lochs along the Caledonian canal and Loch Awe. I wonder whether anyone has ever done any risk analysis of the extent to which the people who are involved in boating and leisure pursuits in those areas might be at risk and whether anyone has a clear grasp of who takes responsibility locally for whatever water incidents arise in those areas.

That prompted a further thought that local boat owners, fishermen, leisure users and local residents will respond to incidents that happen off sea coasts as well as on inland lochs. In remote locations, they volunteer and render their services and their boats when the need arises. They do so on an entirely ad hoc, voluntary basis, and we should take the opportunity to congratulate and thank them, and to mark the efforts that all those people put into making walking, swimming, sailing and climbing a much safer prospect in our remote areas and on our waterways.

Photo of Hugh Henry Hugh Henry Labour 5:30, 6 May 2004

Murray Tosh referred to this being a small gathering but, having heard the contributions, members will agree that it is the quality, not the quantity, that counts. We have heard some excellent contributions. Jackie Baillie, in her usual passionate, yet methodical, style, has brought to the attention of the Parliament something of local significance in the area of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park that has a resonance way beyond its boundaries, which takes into account the support that has been provided to people from many parts of Britain and the world.

Jackie Baillie, Sylvia Jackson, Stewart Maxwell and Murray Tosh have paid tribute to the people who crew the rescue boat service. It is worth putting on record our welcome for, and the significance that we attach to, the work that is done by many people who are involved in volunteer rescue services throughout the country, whether in the hills and mountains or in the seas and lochs. We recognise the time that they give up to provide those services and we acknowledge the fact that they work in very difficult circumstances, sometimes in dangerous and inclement weather. They risk their own life and limb aiding the police and other emergency services in saving lives. I do not think that anyone should underestimate the work that they do. It is right to recognise the fact that we have a proud tradition of volunteer rescue teams in Scotland, which is highly valued.

We should further recognise that those who provide such volunteer services not only give their time; they often contribute significantly to raising those services' running costs through the support and generosity of the public. Many volunteers are quite ingenious in the fundraising activities that they undertake. It is not just the collective effort of responding to emergencies but the collective effort to raise money that makes those services such effective teams. A camaraderie is established that bonds members of the team and makes them singularly effective and efficient in what they do. It is right to put the debate in the context of that volunteer effort.

Jackie Baillie and others have rightly paid tribute to the Loch Lomond rescue boat service, which is widely recognised for the quality and effectiveness of its work. As Sylvia Jackson said, Loch Lomond is one of our great national assets and it is enjoyed by many people throughout the country and the world. It is a vital attraction for developing our tourism industry. It is not just welcome, but essential, that services such as the Loch Lomond rescue boat service exist to help those who enjoy the facility of the loch. The service exists not just to rescue, but—as members have said—to encourage a better awareness of the dangers of using the loch. The service educates people by promoting various aspects of safety.

It would not be appropriate for me to engage in a debate on the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill during this members' business debate, but suffice to say that extensive consultation has been carried out and the Minister for Finance and Public Services has reflected carefully on what he has heard from a range of people employed in different professions throughout the country. I think that he has come up with a considered package. No doubt he would take into account some of the comments that were made by Stewart Maxwell, but it would be inappropriate for this debate to be turned into a debate on what might or might not be included in the next stage of the consideration of that bill. The decisions that have been made on what should and should not be included have not been made lightly and have been made for good reason.

We understand the pressures that search and rescue teams face, but it is also right to say that we do not generally provide funding to volunteer rescue teams—although there is a specific issue in relation to mountain rescue. Similarly, we do not provide financial support to a range of local voluntary organisations throughout the country. Perhaps, in the fullness of time, the Parliament might want to take part in the debate about whether the Scottish Executive should provide direct support to local organisations, as Jackie Baillie, Stewart Maxwell and others have suggested. It might be that we should top-slice money for many of the organisations that would like us to provide the money directly to them rather than through local authorities, the police or other services. That is a legitimate debate for the Parliament to have in the future but, generally, local services are supported by local agencies rather than by the Scottish Executive.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I entirely understand that point and concur with it. However, I suggest that there is a role for the Scottish Executive in encouraging the efforts of local organisations and encouraging others to respond positively to calls for funding.

On behalf of Sylvia Jackson and on my own account, I would like to issue the minister with an invitation to take a trip out to Luss, where the rescue boat is based, to see at first hand the valuable work that is done.

Photo of Hugh Henry Hugh Henry Labour

If my timetable can accommodate it, I would be more than happy to take up that offer.

Jackie Baillie pre-empted what I was about to say. While we do not provide central, national funding to local organisations, I recognise the strength of the case that has been made. Following this debate, prompted by Jackie Baillie and others who have spoken, I will draw some of the powerful comments that have been made to the attention of the police forces, who have primary responsibility for land and inland water search and rescue services. I will ensure that they appreciate the level of support that exists for the organisation we are discussing and ask what their plans are for future provision of the service. Indeed, I will also make inquiries of the local authorities in the area to find out what assistance they intend to provide. I acknowledge that they make a small contribution at the moment.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

Will the minister put the same point to the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority, which is Executive funded and has a substantial responsibility for the safety and well-being of the people it encourages into the area?

Photo of Hugh Henry Hugh Henry Labour

I was just about to mention that authority. However, I will not direct it to provide assistance; I will highlight the points that have been made tonight. I will draw them to the authority's attention, indicate the level of support and ask what its intentions are with regard to the provision of the service.

I recognise that, at the moment, the funds that are provided by the police and other bodies are only a relatively small part of the running cost of the service. As has rightly been pointed out, people need some feeling of stability and continuity. That applies to other organisations as well. I hope that the points that I raise with the bodies I have mentioned will be given proper consideration by those concerned. Jackie Baillie has mentioned that as a requirement.

Having said that and put it into the context of where responsibility lies, I am happy to make appropriate inquiries on behalf of those who have spoken tonight. I hope that, as a result, I can ensure some wider recognition of the invaluable service that is provided by dedicated volunteers whose efforts are all too often underplayed—not by them, but by the rest of us. I know that they are not doing what they do to gain plaudits, recognition and credit: the fact is that, without them and others like them throughout the country, not only would many more people have a poorer quality of life but, as has been pointed out, many people—not only drunken sailors—would find their lives in danger.

The volunteers provide a valuable service and are to be commended. I thank Jackie Baillie for bringing this matter to our attention.

Meeting closed at 17:40.