|
Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60 - 79)
WEDNESDAY 13 MAY 1998
MR MAURICE STOREY AND MR JOHN ASTBURY
60. I cannot say I necessarily agree with
you, but that is clearly your view. You are promising that local
knowledge will not suffer because people from somewhere else will
be trained with the local knowledge that is already there. I am
not sure it sounds hugely efficient, but that is what you plan
to do. In respect of your performance data, one of the things
that comes out of the NAO Report is that they are not too impressed
with the quality of your performance indicators and the intellectual
data. You have already said earlier that you accept some of the
criticisms that have been made, you want to make some of the changes
in Appendix 2. How can you be sure that your decision-making proposals
in respect of this are adequate when your performance indicators
and the basis upon which you have taken these decisions is criticised
in this manner?
(Mr Astbury) I think the criticism
that the NAO set out in their report is two-fold. Firstly, on
page 72 when they list the various aspects of the performance
indicators they are talking in the first instance about coastguards'
method of recording the performance of the service as a whole,
i.e. the UKSAR service and we are working with other members of
that service to produce a national database. Secondly, the way
the coastguard has actually measured its own performance, not
the data itself but what it does with that data in terms of measuring
its performance and we have accepted that as a criticism. I think,
as Mr Storey says, we are making tremendous moves to put that
right because we are as keen as anybody else to do so.
61. The point I am making is given its inadequacies
at present, how can you be satisfied with your decision-making
process, for example, in preparing co-ordination centres?
(Mr Astbury) The NAO were criticising
our performance in terms of rescue resources and so on. The investigation
we carried out in Focus for Change, which is the prime source
of data, which took six months of fieldwork, personal interviews
which I conducted myself with many of the officers whilst on watch,
at all times of the day and night, provided a great deal of information
upon which we could actually sensibly inform the future strategy
of the coastguard. We actually used the information from Focus
for Change together with the flexibiilties the new technologies
would give us to help us develop a strategy for three, four, five
years ahead in coastguarding.
62. Are you satisfied that the quality of
the data that you collect is sufficiently robust to enable you
to make a proper decision between the co- ordination centres?
(Mr Storey) I think the key performance
indicators are shown in the annex covering the coastguard service
generally and not specifically and I think that is the difference.
You are talking about the area of UK coastal waters, you are not
talking about a station by station scheme. The corrections that
we are doing are based on the coastguard service as a whole. The
detail of each individual coastguard station will have that information
available. It is maybe not laid out in this particular way. I
believe that the information that was looked at at the time the
decisions were made was correct and decisions were made correctly
on that basis.
63. So you did not have this information
available in order to enable it to inform your decision about
which centres to close. The NAO has now compiled some of it whilst
criticising the way in which you measure centres against each
other, but your decision-making process effectively excluded this
kind of detailed information anyway, is that what you are saying?
It looks to me a bit like you just looked at that map, which is
reproduced in figure 11, and knocked a few out every inch or so
around the coast. Would that be a fair description of the way
in which you decided which stations to close?
(Mr Storey) I do not think so. Nobody
would make a decision like that. It was based on using the right
technology and making sure that you can cover the coast to meet
the requirements that are laid down statutorily for search and
rescue.
64. Are you aware that many other emergency
services and other agencies with which you have to deal have written
to people like myself expressing quite serious reservations about
the proposed closure and, if you are aware of it, what are you
doing to make sure that they understand your decision-making process
and end up agreeing with your rationale?
(Mr Astbury) I think this comes
back to the answer I gave to Mr Campbell. We are talking here
about liaison on the ground. As part of any implementation planning
that we put in place, if the proposed closures go ahead we will
ensure that the concerns of all those emergency services in terms
of emergency planning and so on are met. The thrust of their concern
is that if a coastguard goes from Liverpool, for example, who
are they going to talk to in terms of formulating emergency plans?
Our answer is there will be somebody there to talk to. We do not
necessarily need a co-ordination centre there in order to ensure
that those plans and those requirements of the emergency services
are met.
65. Can I read to you what the Chief Emergency
Planning Officer of the Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority
said to me recently [3]
when I contacted him about this. He said he was very concerned
about the closure and about the loss of local knowledge and possible
loss of local liaison with senior coastguard staff. He went on
to say: "Both local knowledge and liaison are essential ingredients
for effective emergency planning and any possible reduction in
either could have tremendous ramifications on public safety. I
can only reiterate my concerns that the closure of Liverpool Maritime
Rescue Sub- Centre would be a retrograde step which is influenced
for reasons of finance rather than public safety." You have
not filled him with confidence, have you?
(Mr Astbury) We hope we can convince
him if we have an opportunity to speak to him. [4]
Maria Eagle: I hope you can too.
I hope you can convince me too because I am not convinced as yet.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Page
66. I think I should say right up front
that my constituency is South West Hertfordshire and it is a little
difficult to get further from the sea than South West Hertfordshire
and I have to say that the Grand Union Canal annual regatta at
Hemel Hempstead is the nearest we get to a maritime experience
so my questions will be based on the Report rather than personal
experience or any constituency aspect. The questions you have
had so far have been directed to the future. I would just like
to look at some of the questions that have been raised by this
Report because the changes in the future, fine, but if you have
not been operating the old system effectively and efficiently
what confidence is there you will be operating the new one effectively
and efficiently? My first question to you is that you had the
aerials in remote areas inspected by National Communications Limited.
Why is it for a year they only inspected 58 per cent of them?
(Mr Astbury) We, too, were appalled
at that and our chief technical officer had a meeting with their
managing director to rectify it and I am pleased to say they are
now on schedule.
67. Now this is going to be come as a slight
surprise to me. When did you discover that they were not inspecting
all the aerials?
(Mr Astbury) Our chief technical
officer had regular meetings with them and he was aware they were
behind schedule and he was pushing them to keep on schedule and
the NAO picked up on it right at the time we were making inroads
ourselves.
68. You did not answer what I asked because,
as I understood it, the failure started from May 1996 and has
been sorted out in April 1997. So how soon after May 1996 were
you aware they were running behind schedule?
(Mr Astbury) I do not know the exact
dates but I can let you know. [5]
69. You can see the point I am raising.
By some strange chance the NAO come in and look at it and you
discover you are behind schedule.
(Mr Storey) If I may come in here.
I take your point very strongly. As a result of reading the Report
I have had put in place a situation where there is a monthly report
comes in and that is discussed with the management board on all
these topics to make sure it is being done efficiently. I know
that does not help what happened in the past.
70. Okay. A small financial aspect. They
no doubt are on an annual contract. As they have only delivered
58 per cent of it for a period of a year are they going to give
you any rebate?
(Mr Storey) That is not something
I have looked at at the present time but, yes, I think that is
something worth looking at.
71. How much is their annual contract?
(Mr Astbury) I do not have the exact
figure. Again we can let you know.
72. Can I say to both of you, is it not
a little surprising that you have only had 58 per cent of a service
delivered yet you apparently have not bothered to see whether
in fact you should get any money back?
(Mr Storey) I take the point, yes.
73. I hope you can let the Committee know
a) how much the annual contract was [6]
and b) what will be the result of your negotiations in asking
for a rebate for a service that has been only 58 per cent delivered.
[7]
(Mr Storey) I have just been advised
they did catch up on the contract and so they fulfilled the contract
at the end of the time although out of time and there was no penalty
clause in the contact. [8]
74. So they rushed around in April 1997
and covered them all. Luckily there were no aerials not working
and therefore no lives were at risk or lives could have been at
risk but luckily it did not happen. The Report talks about a few
gaps in radio coverage. Has that now been rectified?
(Mr Storey) There is about a five
per cent shortage of coverage. It is very difficult because of
the terrain around the Stornoway area to achieve that. I was in
that area a couple of weeks ago and the people up there are looking
at it to see if there is any way we can get round it. We do it
by personal issue. It is difficult because of the terrain without
putting huge aerials up but we are looking at it at the moment.
75. I can understand that. If I could take
you on to the shortage of watch officers in five co-ordination
centres other than Milford Haven when they were visited by the
National Audit Office in 1996. We see an average figure of 16
hours a month overtime which in itself is not that dramatic but
an average is an average. What is the maximum amount of overtime
an individual was clocking up in this period?
(Mr Astbury) We do not have the
answer to that to hand at the moment but we can let you know.
76. But that does not worry you because
you obviously know that you are paying overtime because you have
to sign off these extra charges, these extra salary costs. Is
it not of concern that you may have an individual there who is
doing many many hours of overtime and one appreciates surely with
tiredness etcetera etcetera efficiency falls off and therefore
it is a dangerous situation.
(Mr Astbury) I would be very surprised
if a local manager would allow that to happen remembering that
watch officers are doing watch keeping so their potential for
actually doing a massive amount of overtime is restricted by the
very watch keeping cycles themselves. For example, when they come
off a 12-hour watch we would never allow an officer to carry on
another 12 hours. That would be crazy.
77. How do they do the overtime?
(Mr Astbury) A watch officer has
a cycle of four days on and four days off. During that four days
providing they volunteer and providing they have had sufficient
rest (that is a local management issue) then they can do overtime.
78. So they come in the middle of their
rest period and may do another 12-hour watch right in the middle
of it?
(Mr Astbury) They may very well
do.
79. I see. Thank you. Could I ask about
the training of your staff. If you look at page 33 and paragraph
2.25, again we only have Milford Haven co-ordination centre out
of the 21 existing centres which met the requirement to retest
staff on their familiarity with their search and rescue area every
two years. Are you satisfied that of the four other centres that
were inspected they had retested only 50 per cent of their staff?
(Mr Storey) No, I would not be satisfied
with that situation but the situation has now been corrected.
3 Note: See Evidence, Appendix 3, pages 28-32 (PAC
365). Back
4
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 2, page 20 (PAC 302). Back
5
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 2, page 20 (PAC 302). Back
6
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 2, page 20 (PAC 302). Back
7
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 2, page 20 (PAC 302). Back
8
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 2, page 20 (PAC 302). Back
| 
