After finding significant flaws in the plans to close 50% of HM Coastguard Maritime Regional Coordination Centres, campaign members of the Coastguard SOS campaign group made representations to the Shipping Minister, Mike Penning, and the Prime Minister, David Cameron.
The comprehensive and detailed report featured 10 Major Concerns. Each concern in its own right would warrant serious consideration as to the safety of the current ongoing closure and restructuring programme. Each concern was backed up wherever possible with linked documents which (in the main) came from the Maritime Coastguard Agency.
The only response we have received to date (15th July2012) was the referenced letter from Mr. Cameron (see letter).
|
|
LETTER FROM Mr CAMERON 12thJULY2012 | RESPONSE FROM COASTGUARD SOS CAMPAIGN GROUP | linked Reference |
|
A |
I believe that there are a number of benefits to the proposed reforms | You have failed to list “a number of benefits”, the reply given was lacking any substance unlike our detailed & substantiated list of concerns, | |
|
B |
The current rescue co-ordination arrangements have changed very little since the removal of the visual watch system in 1970′s | Inaccurate: In Nov 1997 Select Committee on Public Accounts on HM Coastguard looked at the structure changes to HMCG including closure of stations, advances in the use of technology and upgrade to digital technology. Results of which led to procedural changes and skills testing including exams on local knowledge. Significant improvements made to rescue coordination. | |
|
C |
By introducing a nationally-integrated network, the coastguard will be more resilient to sudden increases in workload | With 50% less rescue centres, remaining staff have considerably more work/responsibility exacerbated by current staff shortages; there will be little resilience for the system to manage sudden workload increases. | |
|
D |
The recent consultation led to the Government keeping open at least one of each paired coastguard centres. | A fact on paper, however the split in area responsibility has meant that (for example) Belfast was never paired with Liverpool but is now taking over this area as their responsibility without any local knowledge or experience of the types of incidents that Liverpool regularly deal with ie: mud rescue at Morecambe bay. Additionally,Belfastis one of the smallest areas with the least number of incidents per year. | |
|
E |
Operational pairs have experience and knowledge in managing incidents across their shared geographical area. | Pairing fiction. ‘Pairing’ between MRCC’s is, in reality, (if it happens) limited to switch over of 999 calls and monitoring of local VHF channels. Local knowledge is NOT shared. Assurances were given on the basis that one of each pair could fully take over the others area, which is simply NOT TRUE. | |
|
F |
By keeping at least one centre from each pair, we will ensure that this invaluable experience and local knowledge is retained” | The MCA’s own document states: “With the exception of Aberdeen, MRCCs are neither staffed nor equipped to provide full cover across a pairing.” | |
|
G |
changes will allow us to have more money for full-time staff to train the volunteers, more equipment and a professional career and pay structure that we would all be happy with, rather than the structure we have today | MCA & HMCG have a statutory duty of care to provide proper training & equipment for all staff, especially those engaged in hazardous activities such as cliff rescue, mud rescue etc. HM Coastguard is no different from any other 999 organisation e.g. Fire/Rescue and should already have acceptable pay/career/training. Sacrificing 50% of rescue centres to achieve budgetary requirements without demonstrating operational ability to meet mandatory requirements of SOLAS is criminal negligence. | |
|
H |
those centres that are planned for closure will remain open until 2015 in order to ensure that the planned transition to the new arrangements will maximise the retention of local knowledge | This statement encouraging yet contradictory, the first centre was to have closed September 2012 according to recent announcements. To confirm that NO centre will close before 2015 is a welcomed reprieve and falls back in line with the original House of Commons statement by Mike Penning MP on 22nd Nov. 2011 . Also this statement contradicts Ref. F as it acknowledges the need to transfer local knowledge. | |
|
I |
The Government has run two consultations on these proposals and has studied carefully the responses we received. | This statement is incorrect, there has been one consultation which was in two parts, they were intrinsically linked “in the light of consultation on the proposals published on 16 December 2010 in the Maritime and Coastguard Agency consultation document “Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century”. These conclusions and the reasons behind them are set out in the consultation document, which identifies those specific changes from the original proposals on which the Government wishes to consult further.” No new objections were considered in the second consultation. | |
|
J |
This clearly demonstrated by the retention of more centres than originally proposed and ensuring that all centres stay open for 24 hours a day throughout the week | The original proposals for the future of HMCG service were unanimously unacceptable to any of the main stakeholders in maritime safety. The only thing clear about the whole proposals regarding HMCG were that they were extremely poorly thought out and had little operational basis or consultation within the service. |
Conclusion: Our meticulous effort in raising the issue of factual concerns, has so far been met with a mediocre, inaccurate reply. The reprieve given by the PM to closing HMCG centres until 2015 at least allows more time for the Government to look properly at the 10 fatal flaws in the current plan.
Written by Coastal Joe
Recent Comments