After beating their heads and laying their evidence out before a series of uninterested short-stay Shipping Ministers, some of whom represented landlocked constituencies and had no personal understanding of seafaring and marine leisure activity, the Coastguard SOS campaign, led by the formidably resolute former Welsh coastguard, Dennis O’Connor, has had a more hopeful experience.
This week the UK Shipping Minister, John Hayes MP, met representatives of the national Coastguard SOS campaign group in Westminster to discuss the controversial plan to close half of the UK’s maritime rescue coordination centres [MRCCs].
Speaking on behalf of Coastguard SOS, Dennis O’Connor explained that the meeting was ‘an opportunity for the campaign group to relay continued safety fears and discuss the way in-which the closure programme has been handled by the Maritime & Coastguard Agency [MCA]‘, which is now directly within a department of government.
Following the closure of stations at Forth, Clyde, Yarmouth, Solent, Portland and Brixham, the meeting also created the opportunity for the campaign group to ensure that the Minister, who has only been in post since the last cabinet reshuffle, was given information that otherwise would not be given to him by the MCA or Department for Transport.
Mr O’Connor says: ‘We took the opportunity to appraise Mr Hayes with an overview of how the service has suffered since the closure programme was announced four years ago, because it’s unlikely that certain information would readily be disseminated by the departments who are answerable to him.
‘There are always two sides to a story and we were of the firm opinion that, as the Minister is now responsible for maritime affairs, he should be fully appraised in order to be able to manage his portfolio effectively.’
Representatives of the MCA and Departmern for Transport [DfT] were also present at the meeting.
During a frank discussion the Minister gave assurances of his intent to carry out an in-depth analysis of the closure programme, specifically the effects that the closure of stations has had so far.
‘Mr Hayes made it perfectly clear that he wanted all of the facts not flannel from the MCA and DfT and we are very pleased that he has underlined this’, says the straight talking Mr O’Connor. ‘We made it clear to the Minister that we feel strongly that neither the MCA or DfT could be relied upon to present balanced information to him and asked that information gathering be carried out independently of those organisations to ensure that he can take a balanced view of the process. This would include receiving submissions from all stakeholders.
‘It was evident that Mr Hayes appreciates that people have genuine concerns about the closure programme which need to be addressed. As with the campaign group, coastal safety is also his priority and he intends to ensure that the management of the closure programme is being conducted in an appropriate way which does not affect or undermine safety in any way.’
Concerns about the way the closure programme is being handled have increased since a recent freedom of information request revealed that the understaffing at stations across the UK has increased dramatically. As For Argyll has reported, Aberdeen Coastguard [the worst affected] reached a peak of 97% understaffing during this year, with Dover at 92%, Humber at 83% and Swansea up to 80% understaffed.
In September the MCA’s centralised centre at Fareham opened, despite almost half of the staff being recent recruits with no search and rescue coordination experience.
The continuing loss of experienced Coastguard officers has taken its toll on the service but during the meeting with the Minister, Keith Oliver, MCA’s Head of Maritime Operations, responded to campaigners criticisms of understaffing and the use of inexperienced recruits by saying: ‘There are no inexperienced officers at the Fareham centre’; and that understaffing is not an issue because ‘a higher calibre of staff had now been recruited to replace those who have left the service.’
This could hardly have been a more obvious ‘Light blue touchpaper and retire’ canard.
The campaigners, with some reason, insist that the statement by Mr Oliver is an obvious example of how the MCA are prepared to dismiss the value of its officers and the concerns of the wider public. Dennis O’Connor says: ‘Quite how the MCA can defend the loss of experienced Coastguards by stating that their replacements, despite having no SAR [Ed: Search and Rescue] experience, are ‘experienced’ and of ‘a higher calibre’ than the experienced officers they replace is beyond comprehension. The new recruits just do not have the training, skills or service experience of those who have left.
‘It is shameful for the MCA to say this when, clearly, the facts conflict sharply with statements already being made by the MCA about safety being their priority. You cannot replace years of experience overnight and it seems to suggest an element of ensuring that new staff, irrespective of their lack of experience, are being favoured because of their compliance within the ‘Future Coastguard’ set-up. The statement by Mr Oliver also underlines concerns that this is not a transparent process.
‘We welcome the decision by the Minister to take a fresh look at the closure programme. This will offer some reassurance that concerns are being addressed and it will force the MCA and DfT to finally admit that there have been failings in the way the process has been handled.
‘The MCA has failed to offer any evidence to suggest that the process is safe or workable and without compelling evidence they should never have been allowed to proceed.
‘We hope that the Minister will concur with previous concerns raised by the Transport Select Committee and finally emergency measures will be taken to ensure that the service is stabilised.’
For Scotland, the Forth and Clyde MRCCs were the first in the programe to be closed and, whatever happens, their reinstatement is improbable.
It has to be noted that the MCA plan was for Belfast Coastguard to add to its own area the responsibility for the entire [and massive] sea areas that fell under the responsibility of Clyde Coastguard.
Belfast was unable to cope with all of this and the former Clyde Coastguard area has had to be split, with the northern part handed to the control of Stornoway Coastguard – which itself was planned to close.
These facts doubly reinforce, from practice, the dangerous incompetence of the MCA proposal.
The MCA ‘Future Coastguard’ plan saw the entire coasts of Scotland controlled from one MRCC – at Aberdeen on the east coast, leaving the treacherous west coast and islands and the very difficult and environmentally sensitive waters of the north west and far north with neither specific coastguard cover nor any emergency towing vessels.
Had it not been for Denis O’Conor and the team at Coastguard SOS, this mess would have been consigned to the digital files of Whitehall and not the matter for constant public debate it has become.
The Government cannot disguise the simple fact that this ‘modernisation’ programme has seen a procession of senior and experienced officers leave the service disheartened and devalued. Recruitment has been difficult and has not met its targets The volume of loss of experienced officers – cannot, of course, be replaced by equally experienced new recruits.
There is no gainsaying the reality of this picture.
The question that the Shipping Minister must confront is whether the current situation can guarantee effective monitoring of marine traffic in British waters and effective incident and rescue coordination should a major incident arise in an inconvenient location.
