Minister and Maritime Chief Accused of Misleading MPs on Coastguard Pay Plans
Keir Mather and Virginia McVea’s statements follow the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's decision to reject the worker status of coastguard rescue officers.
A government minister and a senior official have been accused of misleading MPs regarding plans to remove hourly pay from coastguard officers.
Keir Mather, the maritime minister, was reported to have made false claims on Wednesday, while Virginia McVea, chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), faced similar accusations during a meeting with MPs a week earlier.
The controversy has escalated recently. On Wednesday, coastguard officers assembled in Westminster, expressing they were “deeply saddened” and called for a pause to enable negotiations, while MPs questioned Mather in a Westminster Hall debate.
The scheme originated after the Court of Appeal confirmed in January that coastguard rescue officers (CROs) serve as workers, not volunteers. Lord Justice Bean noted this was partly because CROs receive payment for their time during callouts.
Instead of acknowledging their worker status, the MCA decided to cease these payments from September, aiming to legally reclassify CROs as volunteers.
Accusations of Misleading Parliament
Joe Robertson, Conservative MP for Isle of Wight East, accused Mather of misleading MPs when he stated the judgment had “changed the legal status of CROs.”
“The government and MCA must stop peddling this line,” Robertson said.
“It is simply not true and the minister should know better. The court simply found that CROs are already workers, which is hardly surprising considering they get hourly pay and payslips.”
“The very fact the MCA is working through backdated tax liabilities and backdated pay is an admission that CROs have been workers for some time and the MCA has been in breach of certain obligations. It is the MCA which has now decided to change the CRO’s worker status since the court’s judgment.”
The MCA initially stated its changes were a “mandated consequence” of the judgment. However, on 19 June, it acknowledged the “ruling did not specify any specific model the MCA should use.”
Despite this, McVea was accused of telling MPs five days later that the judge’s ruling left the MCA with no alternative.
“It was a stormy meeting. The MCA were defensive and the MPs were angry on behalf of their volunteers,” said Torcuil Crichton, MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Western Isles).
“That’s not a formula for resolution.”
Following the talks, Alistair Carmichael, Liberal Democrat MP for Orkney and Shetland, said McVea had “tried to mislead MPs.”
The MCA did not dispute the accuracy of McVea’s comments and declined to explain why she appeared to repeat claims the agency had already acknowledged were false.
“She seemed to be blaming the court of appeal ... All the court of appeal decided was that these heroes are workers,” Robertson said.
Robertson added that McVea then claimed “coastguard rescue officers wanted this,” stating she told MPs the MCA had “done a survey,” citing a figure of 93% support, also referring to it as “above 90%” at another point during the meeting.
Survey Results and MCA’s Position
A survey of CROs, reviewed by and not disputed by the MCA, showed no direct attempt to measure CROs’ support for either the volunteer or worker model. Instead, CROs were asked how each model would affect their availability.
The results suggested the MCA included individuals who indicated they would be less able to respond to calls if classified as volunteers, as well as those who replied “other,” among those it reported to MPs as supporting the volunteer model. The agency stated “survey findings were considered alongside a range of operational, legal, and practical factors,” but declined to specify how.
Moreover, the survey results indicated that if a similar calculation was applied to the MCA’s worker model, it would have garnered greater support than the agency claimed for the volunteer model. This perspective was not presented to MPs, nor was the worker model part of MCA policy.
The MCA has also argued it would have had to introduce “formal employment requirements and constraints” if it had maintained CROs’ worker status. It contrasted this unfavorably with the “flexibility” it claims the volunteer model offers, which coastguard officers reportedly value highly.
Legal Expert’s View on Worker Status and Flexibility
However, Nigel Mackay, a leading employment lawyer and partner at Leigh Day, stated it would have been within the MCA’s power to preserve worker status while maintaining flexibility.
“Besides increasing the hourly remuneration to meet the minimum wage threshold and including holiday pay, there were few extra requirements the MCA would have been legally bound to introduce. Effectively, [worker status] is just slightly more expensive,” Mackay said.
An MCA spokesperson commented:
“The court of appeal ruling meant we had to change the way the coastguard currently operates. After careful consideration, we judged the volunteer model to be the best option to protect the future of the service, as it allows members more flexibility to continue to serve alongside their primary employment.
We deeply value and recognise the significant service coastguard rescue officers provide along our coastline and we continue to engage with them throughout this transition.”
