Call for debate on scrapping of emergency tug Anglian Prince

[Nick]

.
After the Stornoway-based tug Anglian Prince was called out last month to help refloat the nuclear submarine HMS Astute the UK Government is under renewed pressure to reverse a decision to scrap the emergency tug service and launch a full consultation with the shipping and fishing industries.

MCA figures showed the Stornoway tug was deployed just five times and the Shetland vessel seven times over the five years between 2004 and 2009.

Critics say cancelling the two tugs in Scotland, which patrol the waters between Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles, and two on the south coast of England, is short-sighted and could cost lives. The decision, which would take effect from September 2011, is expected to save the government £32million over four years.

We say that this decision means there will be no capable emergency response in the event of an incident with a VLCC transiting the Minch, and that this decision is incompetent and incomprehensible from an environmental protection standpoint.

[Mark]

I guess there's a balance between the need for the tugs and the need for the stuff that would need to be cut to keep the tugs.

I'd need to know a bit more about that equation to have a meaningful opinion.

I doubt this is a case of "foolish MCA cut necessary safety tugs when they could save money in less important areas.", but it might be. Who knows.

I thought I'd kick things off with an unhelpful post!

[Rowana]

Well, my question would be along the lines of - "Would you stop insuring your house to save a few quid?"

Just my 2p worth!

[sahona]

I assume they don't charge enough when they do get a 'customer'...

[DaveS]

I assume they don't charge enough when they do get a 'customer'...

In the discussion on this in TOP the point was made that the £32M was gross, before taking account any income from salvage which IIRC has to date covered about half the cost. Since the south based tugs respond to more incidents it could well be that their costs are more fully covered and the northern tugs less so. It's a bean counter way of looking at it though. Their provision should, as suggested by others, be looked at as an insurance policy.

While not the best of times for suggesting increased spending to any politician, I would have thought that the Scottish Government would (should?) have a view on this. Environmental protection is, I think, a devolved matter.