Hebrides  News                                       newsdesk@hebrides.biz

No to Coastguard closure         23/1/11

 

 

 

 

Sirs,

 

 

As an ex-Coastguard Officer my views on the proposed rationalisation or should that be destruction are a very definite NO!

 

Having worked within the Civil Service for approximately 12 years I think my apparent cynicism may be nearer realism.

 

There was even a proposal in the late 80s for the Coastguard service to be slimmed down, with the suggestion of a North MRCC (maritime rescue co-ordination centre) and a South MRCC.

 

I have listed my opposition to the proposal as follows:

 

 

1. Reducing the number of MRCCs ultimately reduces the quality of service that the Coastguard can provide - less MRCCs would mean at least one member of staff giving out an almost continuous "Safety Information Broadcast", moving from region to region via each region's own existing set of aerials.

 

In the current set-up, when a particular MRCC is involved with casualty working, safety information broadcasts are cut back because of the intensive workload of casualty working - trying to cover a greater area could result in more than one incident running at the same time, so something has to give way. Take a note of how long the Minch safety information broadcast takes at present then double it, treble it, for however many MRCCs would be shut down.

 

2. Reducing the number of MRCCs reduces the "personal contact" between the Coastguard service and its "customers" - i.e. merchant navy, fishermen, yachties, pleasure craft, whoever.

 

3. Reducing the availability of personal contact reduces the number of people who would contact their nearest MRCC with details/queries about a proposed voyage/journey - this is a proven fact.

 

4. Point 3 would therefore increase the number of potential incidents/casualties/statistics thereby increasing the workload on a reduced number of MRCCs and no there wouldn't be that many more staff available (see 7).

 

5. Reducing the number of MRCCs ultimately reduces the detailed knowledge particular to each area that the remaining MRCCs would have available to them - just look at how many similar place names there are around our coasts, never mind identical ones! And that's before we add the Gaelic spelling of place names, not to mention local nicknames for particular areas!

 

There are also many radio and mobile phone "blind spots" which are known to local MRCC staff as well as local vessels - but not to people living on the opposite side of the country.

 

6. Therefore the remaining MRCCs would be under more pressure to cope with - a no-win situation. Point 5 above highlights the difficulty caused by a lack of local knowledge - even if local Sector Officers are retained in order to provide local knowledge, he or she will not be available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to answer the obscure placename question which will undoubtedly be mispronounced by the Watch Officer in the far away MRCC - this results in time being lost in dealing with a situation.

 

Everybody working in the Emergency Services is acutely aware of how precious the minutes are in the early stages of an incident, and has spent what seems like ages trying to phone a contact who can or cannot verify a place, an access, whatever.

 

7. Reducing the number of MRCCs would also reduce the number of Coastguard personnel - irrespective of the politically correct statements about reducing numbers by "natural wastage."

 

I doubt very much if many Coastguard personnel would like to relocate from the Highlands and Islands to another part of the country, given the differential in house prices - despite the housing assistance given to staff who move, there would still be a substantial difference in market values.

 

I believe the previous round of closures resulted in approximately 10% of personnel relocating.

 

The surviving MRCCs would require substantially more than an increase of 10% in staff numbers to operate satisfactorily. It is folly to assume that a Coastguard officer will be able to transfer from one side/end of the UK to the other and expect him or her to immediately grasp the geographical details as well as the anomalies and habits peculiar to that area. Staff are entitled to leave periods outwith their shift patterns, where would the "trained officers" come from to provide cover? The Government itself states that "it takes years to train Coastguard officers."

 

My understanding is also that the remaining "daytime-only centres" would provide different cover to the whole country - 999 calls, local safety information broadcasts, tidal information - supposedly to "free up" the dedicated remaining MRCCs to provide search and rescue (SAR). The calls would therefore be received at a centre, probably staffed with reduced manning, who would then have to transfer the information to the MRCC? = time lost in dealing with the emergency.

 

Local safety information broadcasts are transmitted via the network of aerials around the coast, and since only one frequency can be transmitted or received at each aerial at the one time - therefore the remote daytime station would select an aerial to commence its broadcast at the scheduled time, possibly disconnecting the MRCC which may be using the aerial at that time.

 

8. Such a proposal would destroy what is left of a very low level of morale within the service and turn HM Coastguard into a government department concerned only with statistics.

 

This proposal is obviously being driven by Civil servants, the majority of whom obviously have no grasp of the work of the Coastguard Service - a lack of understanding made embarrassingly obvious by the number of times officials refer to the MRCCs as "call centres."

 

9. It would turn the Coastguard service into a department that would be less visible to the public, like many other civil service departments, thus making its ultimate demise much easier (in case further Government spending cuts are required) - i.e. privatisation as per point 10.

 

10. It would speed up the existing gradual privatisation of the SAR services to other rescue services.

 

Norman G Smith

7 Gress

Isle of Lewis

 

 

 

Letters @hebrides.biz

 

Letters require the writer’s full name and address for publication. Please include a phone number for verification.