'Morally obliged to speak out'

IT IS customary for a retired person to stand back and permit successors to progress the business in their own style and manner. While this may well be appropriate in respect of business matters, when safety of life is being adversely impacted, one feels morally obliged to speak out. It is, therefore, with no little soul searching and regret that I feel compelled to write addressing the consequences associated with the creation of the Joint Emergency Services Control Centre, particularly regarding the later decision to incorporate Guernsey Coastguard therein. There are a number of issues which draw me to the conclusion that the present JESCC proposals are impractical and, unfortunately, not based upon any demonstrable coastguard experience.

PSD will lose direct control of its mandated responsibility for provision of a coastguard service and despite public statements to the contrary, it is crystal clear to those who know and understand the function of a coastguard that this vital public service will be severely damaged and diminished upon creation of the JESCC and that lives will, in consequence, be at significantly increased risk.

The current 999 telephone switchboard staff (call handlers) do not purport to be a competent coastguard, and regrettably despite assurances to the contrary, neither will be the JESCC staff. They will receive information and interrogate a caller in accordance with a pre-set, menu-driven, information-gathering and 'first aid' advice system. This checklist and procedure system alone should not be interpreted as representing competence in coastguard matters or indeed be a measure of the relevant essential local knowledge. It only ensures that the responder has followed a process sufficient to indemnify the management thereof.

In addition to maintaining what ought to be a dedicated coastguard listening watch, the responder at the coastguard desk will be required to monitor all other blue light radio communications. This diversion of attention, a multi-tasking overload, is a frighteningly serious issue.

At present, coastguard staff perform the competent function, (responding to some 500 calls per year in 2013) dealing with the vast majority without further management consideration. Of these, recourse to the harbour officer on duty 'for advice or direction' occurs some 50 times per annum, largely due to the competence and experience levels of the current coastguard incumbents. The officer on call may well be trained and have the appropriate experience, but he is only 'on call' and has other day-to-day responsibilities and commitments which also call upon his time.

Indeed, irrespective of the level and amount of training the call centre staff receive, it will not be possible to maintain an appropriate degree of coastguard competence. Under the present arrangements, nine staff deliver a weekly average of 18.6 hours per person coastguard service, plus an additional 12.4 hours at Port Control. This arrangement ensures that the vital competence and familiarity with local shipping and operations is maintained for both functions.

The JESCC will, assuming a total staff of 21, deliver on average a mere eight hours' coastguard coverage per person per week. Crucially, though, they will have absolutely no opportunity to maintain an appropriate level of local knowledge. In consequence, the combination of number of staff in the centre and the limited frequency with which they will undertake the responsibility for responding to a marine incident will mean that experience can only be acquired very slowly, especially as there will not be anyone present with greater experience to pass along knowledge and offer a guiding hand.

The numbers of persons available at JESCC are indeed a benefit. However, their lesser level of coastguard competence cannot ever compensate for the consequential need to contact and await arrival of the duty man on call. It will not be long before the French authorities at Cross Jobourg recognise the significance of these changes and they will undoubtedly lobby the UK government and HM Coastguard to assume responsibility for safety in our waters. Unfortunately, they too are discovering that modern technology is no substitute for local knowledge or competence. The issues and political significance of this topic have been previously brought to the board's attention and need not be repeated here.

The previous removal of Guernsey Coastguard to the Harbour Office in 2002 was undertaken for what were, at the time, believed to be very good overall management reasons. However, it was soon realised that even this physically short distance created significant difficulties and delays in communication and it was with some relief that the subsequent co-location was undertaken before any serious consequence resulted.

The most appropriate solution remains with a Coastguard Control having a view over its main risk area, as do Cross Jobourg, Cross Corsen, Cross Griz Nez and Dover Coastguard. In agreeing to the separation of Port Control from Coastguard and relocating to a lesser location, the PSD board is agreeing to both a significant reduction in maritime safety and to compromising its own responsibility for the Coastguard function. If, as we are led to believe, there is no associated financial saving, the decision is even less understandable. First prize must be a co-located Port Control and Coastguard with the updated technology and a competent call centre.

On December 2014, the chief officer of Channel Islands Air Search and I, as RNLI lifeboat operations manager, were kindly invited by the harbour master and the centre manager to visit the new JESCC at the police station site. We were afforded a preview of the site and, as key stakeholders, given the opportunity to better understand how this would impact upon maritime search and rescue activities.

Although none of the computer equipment was working, we were given a management overview of the call centre response program, functionality of the room and its capability and the opportunity to ask questions. The information gleaned was shared with the operational team and boat officers at the St Peter Port lifeboat station and with regional RNLI management.

In discussing the matter, concerns have been raised by the deputy launching authorities, boat officers and others who are well connected within local search and rescue circles, that the incorporation of Guernsey Coastguard within the JESCC is a move that appears to have little professional support beyond that of highest management and that the perceived benefits are far outweighed by the drawbacks.

Notwithstanding the above, it is important to state the RNLI remain firmly committed to the provision of a lifeboat station and service in the Bailiwick of Guernsey and will keep that provision under review to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. The RNLI will, as it always has done, respond to requests from a competent authority for assistance in saving lives at sea.

CAPTAIN Peter GILL.