After the long anticipated publishing this week of the damning report of the Transport Select Committee into UK Coastguard rescue coordination centre closures,the big question is ‘What happens next?’.
The answer say campaigners is that the Government must take on board the findings of the report and act on them immediately.
As has previously been reported, Clyde Coastguard has effectively been closed for the past month and coordination duties for the West coast has been passed to Belfast. With just three officers on duty in the Greenock station – able only to observe how their Northern Irish counterparts handle distress calls from across the Irish Sea – morale is understandably at a low ebb.
The ‘official’ closure date for the Greenock station is 18th December.
The campaigners fighting to save Clyde – and another seven UK stations across the UK – insist that an 11th hour reprieve must be handed to the station after the Chair of the Transport Select Committee; Louise Ellman MP said: ‘The government must rule out further closures and ensure that its reforms do not undermine safety and make proper use of local knowledge when applicable.’
That statement, say campaigners, should be enough for the UK Government to order an immediate reversal of the decision to close Clyde Coastguard.
Speaking on behalf of the National Coastguard SOS Campaign Group, Dennis O’Connor told ForArgyll: ‘The statement by Louise Ellman MP in her capacity as Chair of the TSC should be regarded at the beginning of a reversal of the process to close the station at Clyde.
‘If the Prime Minister allows his Ministers to bring the axe down on that station he will do so in direct contradiction and challenge to the cross party committee of MP’s and it will render their credibility as worthless. He (the Prime Minister) must put a stop to this immediately or risk bringing the whole democratic political process into disrepute’.
Mr O’Connor went on to ‘… urge the Scottish Government and all MP’s and MSP’s to make the most urgent and strongest representations to the Secretary of State for Transport.
‘Time is rapidly running out and the Scottish Government in particular must show it’s people that it is prepared to undergo a period of siege mentality in order to protect it’s assets’.
He noted that the devolved Government of Wales has attempted to get agreement from London to carry out an independent risk assessment on the closure of one Welsh station.
Mr O’Connor is now once again suggesting – we published the campaign’s earlier request on this, which was ignored – that the Scottish Government must also attempt this, even as a last throw of the dice.
So what next for the National Coastguard SOS Campaign group?
Simple.
They intend to carry on campaigning until the closure programme is stopped.
The campaigners say that the strength of the report by the Committee vindicates the continued action by the group and, as the process is not over, they will continue to provide a voice to beleaguered Coastguard officers and fight for safer modernisation plans.
The justification for the level of concern felt amongst campaigners is evident.
Mr O’Connor explains that in response to the damning report by the Transport Select Committee which once again leaves the Government’s Coastguard station closure plan in tatters, the UK Shipping Minister, Stephen Hammond MP, has responded with the following ‘flat earth society’ statement:
‘Our reforms to modernise the coastguard will deliver a more resilient and effective rescue system with faster response times, benefiting all parts of the UK.
‘The issues raised in the report have been addressed throughout the two consultations and in our evidence to the select committee we have been frank and open in our responses on these and will continue to be so.
‘We also have some concerns that the committee has given too much weight to anecdotal evidence and too little to the evidential testimony of the MCA [Maritime and Coastguard Agency] and the DfT [Department for Transport].’
The campaigners are understandably outraged by the Minister’s statement and have hit back with the following statement:
‘We have news for Mr Hammond and are putting in in black and white so that there is no ambiguity: He is wrong.
‘If he speaks for the Government then his statement proves beyond doubt that it is a non-democratic and blinkered Government.
‘He has been in the job only a very short while and seems content to continue to trot out the well worn lines of the former Shipping Minister who as history shows, is as guilty of mis-management of these closure plans as Mr Hammond himself.
‘The Minister must understand that he is an elected MP and on this issue he is failing miserably to instill any public confidence whatsoever in either the DfT or the MCA who are supposed to be answerable to him.
‘ Just like these plans, the MCA is an utter mess and is seriously lacking credibility after receiving another mauling at the hands of the Transport Select Committee.
‘At this rate we would not be surprised to learn that non operational MCA staff are also preparing to leave in droves because the management is focused on the wrong thing when they should be investing energy into keeping experienced Coastguard officers.
‘The sheer fact that successive DfT Ministers and MCA bosses are ignoring the advice and input of staff is incredible and Mr Hammond, as UK Shipping Minister, must accept responsibility for this.
‘His department does not have the respect of Coastguards or the public because this process is far from transparent. If it was, then how would the Transport Select Committee be able to claim that Coastguard officers themselves do not know what’s happening?.
‘Mr Hammond’s final comment, in which he states: “We also have some concerns that the committee has given too much weight to anecdotal evidence and too little to the evidential testimony of the MCA [Maritime and Coastguard Agency] and the DfT [Department for Transport]“, is, we believe, a true reflection of ignorance to the legitimate concerns that have been raised.
‘In making that comment he has served only to undermine the credibility of maritime experts and show that he has no real appreciation of the role that he has been given.’
We ourselves would remark that, in the light of the assessment of the Transport Select Committee’s assessment of the quality of the responses provided to it by the Minister and by Sir Alan Massey of the MCA, Mr Hammond’s talk of ‘the evidential testimony’ of the pair of them is pretty rich.
Massey ‘evidential testimony’ was described in a key instance as being ‘complacent and lacking in detail’.
The committee also dismissed Mr Hammond’s ministerial reassurance – that coastguard officers were far happier than their evidence to the committee suggested – as short on credibility since he had never visited a coastguard station.
In saying that it would have carried more weight had Hammond chosen to find out the reality for himself from such visits, rather than rely on information provided to him by the MCA, the committee was in fact describing the Minister’s own ‘evidential testimony’ as anecdotal.
Less politely translated, they were saying he literally didn’t know what he was talking about.
For Argyll full supports the campaigners call action from gthe Scottish Government and for the UK government to reactivate Clyde coastguard immediately, pending a radical revisiting of the current and dangerously unable plans.
Response from Stuart McMillan MSP
For Argyll has had the following statement on the Transport Select Committee report from Stuart McMillan, who, as a West of Scotland MSP, has campaigned for Clyde Coastguard.
Mr McMillan has welcomed the report published by the Westminster Transport Select Committee into the reorganisation of the Coastguard service by the UK Government.
He notes that the report was highly critical of the reorganisation process and highlighted a number of areas of concern, including the loss of local knowledge and a lack of clarity in transfer of responsibilities.
He remains concerned that, under the reorganisation, Clyde Coastguard has been closed and its responsibilities handed over to Belfast Coastguard, despite a long campaign to maintain services on the Clyde.
Mr McMillan says:
‘This report re-iterates a number of the concerns that those of us in the Save Clyde Coastguard campaign have been raising since the beginning. The re-organisation of Coastguard services has lacked clarity from the start and is putting water users at greater risk due to the loss of local knowledge.
‘The west of Scotland has a complex coastline and many similar place names, it has nuances that can only be picked up on following years of experience. The report highlights this loss of local knowledge and a haemorrhaging skills due to the loss of coastguard services, this could have a devastating effect on the provision of safety across the region I represent.
‘The UK Government must stand up and take note of this influential committee report. It cannot simply push ahead with its ill thought out plans in face of such overwhelming evidence against them.
‘The UK Government must take seriously its responsibility to provide safety on our coastline, it must put safety over cost, local knowledge over budget cuts and re-think its disastrous reorganisation of coastguard services.’
