FOIA answers

You are here: FOIA answers

FOIA answers

Freedom of Information Requests – Issue 1 (as at 19 July 2011)

As outlined on page 10 of the consultation document Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century the MCA has undertaken to publish answers to frequently raised queries for clarification during the course of the consultation.

The following are questions relating to the modernisation of the Coastguard that have been received and answered under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Question 1

In the consultation paper Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century: on page 20 it states:

We believe that five day-time only satellite sub-centres, in addition to a 24/7 centre at Dover and the 24/7 small centre at London, offers the optimum balance between the advantages they offer, and value for money.

Would you please send me the quantitative analysis made to determine this optimum balance.

Answer 1

The advantages sub-centres offer and the value for money aspects are outlined on pages 20 and 23 of the consultation document “Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century”

The MCA have proposed that the national total number of watchkeepers required to meet peak demand for the new concept of operations is 48. With the provision of up to five sub-centres the total number of watchkeepers required to support the national network can be allocated between the MOCs and sub-centres while enabling the MOCs to be able to manage, in extremis, peak demand on their own. Once more than 5 sub-centres are provided allocating the required total number of staff leads to the situation where the MOCs would not be able to manage peak demand on their own (in extremis) and additional watchkeepers are required to be added in to the national network. This would lead to the service being overstaffed with the resulting problems which are articulated at pages 16, 17 and 18 of the consultation document. The resulting larger footprint would also constrain MCA's ability to offer increased remuneration.

Question 2

In the consultation paper Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century: on page 17 it states:

Peak periods at the busiest stations are over 20 times as busy as the quietest stations at periods of lowest activity, yet the latter will have the same number of officers on duty.

Would you please tell;

(1) how many times busier are the busiest stations at peak periods compared to the quietest stations at their peak periods;

(2) how many times busier are the busiest stations at periods of lowest activity compared to the quietest stations at their peak periods.

Answer 2

How many times busier are the busiest stations at peak periods compared to the quietest stations at their peak periods?

Seasonal – 7.5 times busier
Diurnal – 9.2 times busier

How many times busier are the busiest stations at periods of lowest activity compared to the quietest stations at their peak periods?

Seasonal – 2.9 times busier
Diurnal – 2.8 times busier

How many times busier are the busiest stations at peak periods compared to the quietest stations at their lowest activity?

Seasonal – 17 times busier
Diurnal – 32 times busier

Question 3

Please tell me the percentage of incidents to which the Coastguard has responded to in (a) the calendar year 2009 and separately (b) this calendar year to date, which started on either a Saturday or Sunday.

Answer 3

Percentage of incidents* to which the Coastguard has responded to which started on either a Saturday or Sunday:

2009 – 48%
2010 – 52% (until 19/12/10)

*Incidents as recorded in UK SAR Vision Database where the incident ias graded as Alert, Distress or Uncertainty which commenced on eitehr a Saturday or a Sunday

Question 4

In the consultation paper Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century: on page 25 it states:

An analysis of current workload, including foreseeable peak incident activity periods, has shown that with a nationally networked structure across which work can be effectively distributed, the maximum number of Coastguard officers needed on duty to meet all anticipated requirements, including emergency response, routine and secondary tasks, is between 35 and 48 during the day depending on predicted activity levels, reducing to 20-32 at night.

Please send me a copy of the analysis mentioned above please

Answer 4

The Coastguard Modernisation proposals provides for 48 watchkeepers at periods of peak demand. This will be flexed from a pool of 238 watchkeepers (excluding London).

The analysis reveals that 43 watchkeepers are required to cope with peak demand. This is based upon a typical SAR incident concurrency on the busiest day recorded, projected forward to 2015 at expected growth rates. It identifies an averaged growth of 3% per annum for SAR. Counter pollution activity is shown to be steady over time. The growth in shipping is averaged at 3% over the previous decade. Data sets for SAR concurrency are based on 2006. This was a busy year, influenced by an extended period of fine weather, and data capture was not corrupted by industrial action. Counter pollution data is taken from NAO data. Traffic monitoring data is derived from current data derived from AIS and CERS.

As the effort required to conduct different incident varies an over estimation of the number of watchkeepers required has been factored in. Additionally, the analysis notes that not all work is time critical, can be prioritised and be undertaken concurrently with other tasks. This efficiency smoothes the huge peaks and troughs in loading experienced currently by watchkeepers.

Question 5

For each of the existing 18 Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres please tell me which Local regional resilience forums do they liaise with.

Answer 5

MRCCs do not formally liaise with Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) as it is the responsibility of the MCA Region to ensure representation at LRFs which fall within their geographical area of operations.

In the main it is a mix between regional CSM/RCCMs who attend LRFs, in some cases attendance is supplemented by the HQ Resilience Coordinators.

In addition Scotland / Northern Ireland does not have the same process and does not technically have LRFs, they have Strategic Coordinating Groups.

Question 6

For each of the existing 18 Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres please tell me for (a) the calendar year 2009 and (b) separately this calendar year to date, how many incidents did the Coastguard respond to.

Answer 6

* 01/01/2010 - 19/12/2010 only

Incidents as recorded in UK SAR Vision Database where the incident as graded as Alert, Distress or Uncertainty

Question 7

On behalf of the PCS General executive could we have the following documents sent to us:

The Equality Impact Assessment Screening Exercise

Answer 7

Links to:

Equality Impact Assessment [Word document]

Equality Impact Assessment - Final Stats Summary [Excel spreadsheet]

Question 8

In the consultation paper Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century: on page 37 it states:

The Coastguard service currently costs some £35M a year to run with a further £6m of capital expenditure to support the existing infrastructure. These figures exclude non-cash costs, the cost of Search and Rescue helicopters and costs associated with the Coastguard volunteers.

Of the 'some £35M' figure please break that down into the following component parts:

Staffing costs;
Rent;
Utilities (e.g. electricity etc)
Consumables (e.g. paper, ink cartridges)
The rest.

Answer 8

We do not consider the format that you requested as reasonably practical and therefore have responded as enclosed.

Question 9

In the consultation paper Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century: on page 37 it states:

Could you give me the details for the following individually for each Coastguard Station excluding London Coastguard.

Rent
Rates
Maintenance Costs
Utilities (e.g. electricity etc)
Facility Management Costs
The rest.

Answer 9

We do not consider the format that you requested as reasonably practical and therefore have responded as enclosed.

Question 10

In the consultation paper Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century: on page 37 it states:

The minimum capital cost of sustaining the current structure with essential upgrades for obsolescence and compliance is estimated to be £35M over the next four years and in the region of £130M over 25 years.

Please send me all calculations and assumptions made by DfT/MCA to arrive at the estimated figures of £35M over the next four years and in the region of £130M over 25 years.

Answer 10

Over next 4 years;

** Replacement of MRCC Solent – Whytecroft house is provided under an agreement with the South East of England Development Agency (SEEDA). SEEDA have publicly stated a desire to incorporate redevelopment of Whytecroft House within their development plans for this site within the next 3-5 years

*** This figure includes the £29.8m Technology Cost for the first 4 years plus £96m for the technology refresh cycle of 10 years based on current understanding of technology prices

Question 11

In the consultation paper Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century: on page 37 it states:

The proposals set out within this consultation document to move to a new structure for the Coastguard would reduce both long term running costs and capital expenditure and generate a total saving, in Net Present Value terms, of some £120M over 25 years. These figures include early exit costs for some staff and the relocation, training and other costs associated with moving to the new structure.

In order to arrive at the above figures DfT must have estimated how much the early exits would cost. Please tell me the estimate for early exit costs.

Answer 11

The estimate for early exit costs included in the costs outlined in the consultation paper “Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century” is £4,780,634. This was based on the provisions of the then draft Superannuation Act which is due to come into force and is based on Voluntary redundancy terms.

Question 12

Please tell me what time period constitutes day-light hours in regards to staffing the sub centres and what seasonal adjustments would be made to those hours.

Answer 12

In the new national network sub centres will be operating as an extension of the parent Maritime Operations Centre during the day. The hours of operation will be subject to operational needs and predicted demand, but would normally be for at least 8 hours between 0900 and 1900 local time. The actual hours of operation will be determined by the senior operational manager responsible for the network at the Maritime Operations Centre based upon an assessment of long term workload prediction, internal operational needs and the assessment of workload expected in the near future.

Question 13

Any documentation (including technical details/specifications) relating to the communications plan and infrastructure that underpins this whole process, especially that which relates to how it proposes to maintain a credible, reliable, resilient and secure communications link between the UK Mainland and the Shetland Islands with respect to the ability of an MOC to maintain round-the-clock distress watch using the remote radio sites in Shetland, any telephone links (including the mobile telephone network), data transfer/information transfer (for systems such as AIS).

Answer 13

It is intended that only existing technologies will be used to enable the future concept of operations – to this end, it is currently the MCA’s understanding that the existing BT infrastructure used to effect our distress monitoring and communications are currently not switched within the BT infrastructure on the Shetland Islands. If this is confirmed by BT this means that all communications from the remote radio sites are sent from the Islands to the mainland before being sent back to Lerwick to the MRCC. Any return comms from an operator based on Shetland necessarily takes the same path in return to the hilltop for broadcast to air.

It follows that no change is envisaged in the reliability, resilience or security of the communications infrastructure as a result of moving the core technical equipment (ICCS) off of the Shetland Islands.

MCA has no knowledge of the impact of these communications links on the mobile phone networks. In relation to telephone links in general, MCA are not aware of there having been any coincident failures of the ‘kilostream’ (private wire) infrastructure and the public telecommunications network (PSTN). As an example there have been no reported incidents of Shetland being unable to raise faults with failed BT Kilostreams.

In respect of AIS (and with the RER project DSC as well) data from hilltop to server is IP, which as a protocol is inherently more tolerant of brief interruptions or slow speed as the protocol requests resends of missing or corrupt packets invisibly to the end user; However, this IP traffic is currently carried over fixed point-to-point BT Kilostream bearers into the MRCCs.

Irrespective of the current consultation and any outcome thereafter, MCA hope to investigate any benefits of a move to alternative bearers for our IP traffic to make use of developments in technology since our AIS network was installed.

Question 14

Under the freedom of information act can I have the names of the people involved in the production of the proposed changes to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and also who will be involved in reviewing any suggestions sent in using the reply form.

Also, where it has been demonstrated that having co-ordination centres that close for up to half a day, works.

Answer 14

The programme team has pulled together a wide range of skills and experience covering Operational Coastguard, HR, Finance, Communications and Programme/Project Management. Operational Coastguard experience has been drawn from HQ officers who have performed a wide range of operational roles during their careers, and current serving Coastal Safety Managers, Watch Officers and Watch Managers.

It is the intention of MCA that the review of the responses to the consultation will be undertaken by a team which includes operational coastguards who have not been involved in the production of the consultation document “Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century”.

The proposals as stated in the consultation document outline the rationale for the operation of co-ordination centres which are active during daylight hours only. These proposals are designed to meet the specific requirements of the United Kingdom and are not comparable to, nor based on, any other international Coastguard organisation. This is why international Coastguard organisations have developed differently to meet the unique national requirements of its Search and Rescue Region (SRR). As outlined in the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue (IAMSAR) Manual published by the International Maritime Organisation:

Every SRR has unique transportation, climate, topography and physical characteristics. These factors create a different set of problems for SAR operation in each SRR. Such factors influence the choice and composition of the services, facilities, equipment and staffing required by each SAR service.

Question 15

In regard to the following documents available on your website.

Consultation on proposals for modernising the Coastguard 2010 Chapter .6 Pages 37 & 38

Documents or other evidence providing more detail about the;

£6 million of Capital Expenditure to support the existing infrastructure.
£35 million over the next four years and £130 million over 25 years for essential upgrades for obsolescence and compliance
£120 million savings in Net Present Value terms over 25 years.

Public Consultation Q&A

Question 5 - The analysis quoted referring to dealing with incidents over busy summer weekends.

Question 18 – Documents relating to the decision making in relation to which stations should stay open and which should close.

Answer 15

Chapter 6 – Pages 37 & 38

Point 1

Due to the nature of capital expenditure it varies from year to year depending on what investment the MCA needs to undertake. The capital budget for MCA supports all its investments, whether for Survey, Inspection, Seafarers Services as well as HM Coastguard. The kind of expenditure involved includes major building maintenance, the building and refurbishment of property, IT development, Communications Infrastructure and procurement of assets such as vehicles. Some of this expenditure will support a single function such as HM Coastguard; other types will be more corporate, mapping across a range of the agency’s functions.

Therefore as capital expenditure will include one off purchases as well as periodic refurbishments, upgrades and replacements, the figure of £6m relating to HM Coastguard is based on an annualised amount, reflecting the average yearly cost of supporting and maintaining HM Coastguard. In some years the actual amount maybe higher, in others it may be lower, depending on the requirements at the time. These requirements are influenced by external factors such as implementation of EU directives or adverse weather.

Point 2

This information has been published previously in response to another FOIA request and is available above.

Point 3

The £120m savings in Net Present Terms is based on the difference in cash cost of running the present Coastguard service compared to the cost of running the proposed new Coastguard service, over 25 years discounted and at 3.5% a year.

Public Consultation Q & A

Point 4

The following table outlines the number of incidents that happened during weekends during July and August 2009.

These statistics cover incidents graded as Alert, Distress or Uncertainty in 2009 (Less London, Exercise, Training, Faults).

Point 5

The information below is a consolidated list of the factors used in developing the proposals for the location of Maritime Operation Centres and sub-centres on which we are currently consulting. Responses to the consultation will be used to develop and test the analysis further.

Maritime Operations Centres (MOCs)

The two inter-linked Maritime Operations Centres (MOCs) will be at the heart of the proposed new Coastguard structure.

The sites for these centres need to be large enough to accommodate the necessary numbers of staff and equipment and use existing Coastguard or government infrastructure to minimise costs. To ensure resilience from events such as a pandemic or poor weather and enable the retention of experienced staff, it is proposed that the MOCs are established at two widely geographically dispersed sites: one in the north and one on the south coast of the UK

The existing MRCC at Aberdeen is the only Coastguard station in the north that is large enough to accommodate a Maritime Operations Centre. It also offers security of tenure for the medium term with a lease up until 2020. Accordingly, it is proposed that the MRCC at Aberdeen should be converted to a MOC.

There is no existing Coastguard facility on the south coast suitable for conversion into a MOC, and alternative options would need to be considered. The MCA has land on the Daedalus site at Lee-on-Solent which is suitable for a new-build centre. The Portsmouth/Southampton area in any event provides a highly suitable location for such a centre with good transport links, a large maritime sector (both commercial and recreational) and proximity to MCA, RNLI and DfT HQs along with the Northwood HQ, where the MCA has a significant (currently dormant) place within the National Maritime Information Centre. This area also provides the potential for a reasonable commuting distance for staff in the existing centres at Portland (Weymouth) and Lee-on-Solent. We will therefore also look at any existing government buildings in the area which might offer a good potential location.

Sub-centres

The selection of the most suitable existing locations for future sub-centres is guided by a range of factors. When taken together these make the case, on balance, for a site to be preferred even though no single factor may be decisive in itself. In this calculus, we have taken judgements also on the basis of what is both reasonable and practicable.

There are two specific operational functions that require capabilities to be tied to certain geographical locations because of technical and specific local liaison reasons. These are:

Dover, which will continue to be required as a 24/7 sub-centre to the Maritime Operations Centres due to its unique function in operating the Channel Navigation Information System (CNIS) and the ‘Sunk’ Vessel Traffic Service in the southern North Sea. These are critically important for maintaining the safety of vessel traffic in the congested Dover Strait, Thames Estuary and their approaches. The CNIS and ‘Sunk’ VTS use active radar monitoring, and the radar links cannot easily or cost-effectively be relayed to other locations.

London, where Search and Rescue operations on the tidal Thames are managed by the Coastguard. This is a unique station with only one Coastguard Officer on duty at any time (sharing the facilities of the Port of London Authority’s operations centre at Woolwich) and where emergency response is complex owing to the fast flowing and hazardous tideway and involving the many stakeholders and administrative boundaries ashore and on the water.

To minimize costs, sub-centres should be selected from the existing coastguard estate to avoid the need to build or lease new buildings when the Maritime and Coastguard Agency already has a property portfolio that is broadly fit for purpose. This is particularly the case where there are other MCA functions (e.g. Marine Office) currently co-located with an MRCC. Utilizing the existing estate would also minimise disruption to the provision of Search and Rescue co-ordination service during the transition period. Sub-centres would also most sensibly be located in areas with a reasonably large population and pool of job seekers to facilitate future recruitment.

The future vision is of a national, networked system with all individual Coastguard coordination centres integrated into the whole. In principle, each sub-centre would have direct access to the same information feeds as the MOCs. There would therefore be no single, compelling operational reason for preferring one existing centre over another. It does, however, make intuitive sense to have the MOCs and sub-centres evenly spread around the coast, thereby giving HM Coastguard a well-distributed strategic presence in all the constituent parts of the UK.

There could also be merit in seeking to embed a substantial HM Coastguard presence within each of the Devolved Administrations, where routine cooperation with the local authorities and emergency services would help overcome any differences in approaches to civil resilience and contingencies, and in operational doctrines and techniques, where these exist. This would help ensure effective integration of HM Coastguard’s maritime and coastal Search and Rescue expertise into the UK’s wider civil response tapestry.

Finally the broad co-location of a coordination centre with the volunteers of the Coastguard Rescue Service, other Search and Rescue partners and local regional resilience fora is a further factor to be weighed in the overall assessment of preferred sub-centre locations.

On this basis the following sites have been identified as options for the potential sub-centres to operate alongside the MOCs, Dover and London within the national network:

Belfast or Liverpool
Falmouth
Humber
Stornoway or Shetland
Swansea

Characteristics of the existing MRCCs against the rationale above are shown in the attached spreadsheet.

The rationale for the proposed selection of the options for potential sub-Centres is set out below:

Belfast

This site could provide a Coastguard presence in Northern Ireland, ensuring a strong interface with the Northern Ireland Executive and Search and Rescue partners on the island of Ireland. As the MCA owns 60 per cent of the current building, with a ground lease running to 2090, it provides long term security of tenure. The site includes both a significant Marine Office and radio site which would need to be provided elsewhere if it were closed. This area of the UK is also the only one with an international land border and as such presents specific issues that may have to be factored into operations. Northern Ireland has its own legal framework and a different approach to civil resilience than the rest of the UK. A Coastguard sub-centre in Northern Ireland would enable an enhanced level of mutual understanding and cooperation under such circumstances

Liverpool

As a freehold property, the site provides long term security of tenure. The location currently includes both a Marine Office and a radio site which would have to be provided elsewhere if it were closed. The site provides for a locus of operations at the west coast of England

Falmouth

Falmouth is geographically well placed at the south-western tip of the UK mainland. As a freehold building with a long term ground lease, expiring in 2090, this site has long term security of tenure. The provisions of the ground lease would require MCA to dismantle and remove the building and radio site should we cease occupancy. There is the potential for considerable cost on vacating of the building, with no potential for a property sale. Whilst there is the possibility to re-assign the lease this is at the sole discretion of the landlord, there is also a restrictive covenant which stipulates that the building can only be used as a Coastguard station. The site currently includes both a Marine Office, the Registry for all UK-operated Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons and a radio site, all of which would need to be moved elsewhere if the Coastguard were to vacate.

Humber

This site is optimally placed to provide a strategic presence on the north and east coast of England. As a freehold property, the site provides long term security of tenure. The location currently includes both a Sector Manager and CRT presence, which would have to be provided elsewhere if it were closed. An alternative site for this region might be the current MRCC at Great Yarmouth, but the lease on that building expires during the life of the potential restructuring programme and does not provide long term security of tenure. The MRCC at Thames is also sited on the east coast, but provides little geographic dispersion from Dover and London.

Stornoway

As a freehold property, this site provides long term security of tenure. The location currently includes a both a Sector Manager and Coastguard Rescue Team (CRT) presence. There is also a radio site which would need to be re-located or otherwise provided for if the MRCC were closed.

Shetland

As a freehold building with a long term ground lease, it provides long term security of tenure. The provisions of the ground lease include a re-instatement obligation to dismantle and remove the building and radio site. There is the potential for considerable cost on vacating the site although there may be potential to re-assign the ground lease with the written consent of the landlord. This request cannot be unreasonably withheld. Consent is not required to re-assign the lease to another government department.

Swansea

This site provides for a strategic presence in Wales to enable a strong interface with the Welsh Assembly. As a freehold building with a long term ground lease, expiring in 2079, it provides long term security of tenure. The provisions of the ground lease include a re-requirement to maintain the building with no requirement to demolish the site and re-instate the land. A separate lease agreement covering the radio site and emergency generator facilities includes a requirement to remove equipment and reinstate the land if the lease is terminated at any point. There is no provision for re-assignment of the ground lease. An alternative site for this region might be the current MRCC at Milford Haven. However compared to the MRCC at Milford Haven. MRCC Swansea is a location for a higher number of other MCA functions and staff. Alternative premises would need to be found for these functions if the site were closed. MRCC Swansea currently includes both a MCA regional office and a radio site.

16. Question

1. A list of all those involved in authoring the aforementioned document and their position within the MCA (or external agency/employer should that be the case).

2. A list of all those having had input into the document and any supporting documentation, who they work for, their position within that company and on what basis their opinions/expertise were sought.

3. Details of where any data, information or submissions came from that helped formulate the aforementioned document.

16. Answer

It is not DfT policy to name members of staff below the rank of Senior Civil Service (SCS), therefore we have responded as follows.

The consultation document “Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century” was drafted with input from the Department for Transport (DfT) on the basis of its role as MCA’s parent government department; specifically:

International Networks and Environment (INE) Directorate General. This Directorate General has responsibility for Maritime policy within DfT and acts as MCA’s departmental sponsor; and
Advice from DfT professionals in respect of Legal, Finance and Human Resources matters;

All the information used to formulate the consultation document was developed by the programme team and sourced from data held within the MCA and DfT.

17. Question

On page 16 and page 17 of the consultation document there are charts regarding the number of events in 2009 by month and time of day

Could you send me the raw data they used to produce the two graphs in the document.

17. Answer

Click Here for Reply

18. Question

Could you please supply details of all/any plans submitted this year to DEPT OF TRANSPORT regarding the modernisation of the coastguard of which I believe to be 3. Also the costings and authors of the plans.

18. Answer

The MCA has not submitted any proposals on the modernisation of HM Coastguard to DfT Ministers this year, 2011. However a proposal was put to DfT Ministers in December 2010 which was subsequently put out to public consultation on 16 December 2010 in the document "Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century". The costs for this proposal are outlined on pages 37 and 38 of this document.

We do not consider the format that you requested information in respect of authors of the plan as applicable as it is not DfT policy to name members of staff below the rank of Senior Civil Service (SCS). The programme team has pulled together a wide range of skills and experience covering Operational Coastguard, HR, Finance, Communications and Programme/Project Management. Operational Coastguard experience has been drawn from HQ officers who have performed a wide range of operational roles during their careers, and current serving Coastal Safety Managers, Watch Officers and Watch Managers.

19. Question

Property and Estate Costs

The operational real estate costs, broken down by rent / utilities / other non staff costs for all MCA operation non-HMCG locations (i.e. Marine Offices, Spring Place, Flag Registry, etc),
The current valuations by site of major HMCG operated assets (MRCCs, to exclude radio sites, CRS assets),
The current valuations by site of all other major property operated by the MCA excluding third party contract sites such as airfields,
The current valuation of the Deadalus site at Lee on Solent, MCA Flight at Portland, and any other airfield asset which is owned by MCA and whether such property will pass in title to the new SARH operator,
The estimated realised property values of all assets made available for disposal by the full implementation of the proposed changes,

Consultation Document Basis of Calculations

Any details of external (non-MCA) confirmation of basis of savings calculations which the Consultation document states will be realised by the changes,

Miscellaneous

The details of any other IMO recognised country with full SAR responsibility which has moved from a mature, fully operational, multi MRCC / centre of operations structure to one similar to that proposed by the Consultation.

19. Answer

Property and Estates Costs

Please find attached spreadsheet which covers questions 1 to 4. Click Here

Consultation Document Basis of Calculations

The costing as outlined on pages 37-38 on the consultation document were developed with liaison from the Finance Directorate of the Department for Transport. There has been no external (non-MCA or non DfT) confirmation of this costing.

Miscellaneous

The proposals as stated in the consultation document outline the rationale for the operation of sub-centres which are active during daylight hours only. These proposals are designed to meet the specific requirements of the United Kingdom and are not comparable to, nor based on, any other international Coastguard organisation. This is why international Coastguard organisations have developed differently to meet the unique national requirements of its Search and Rescue Region (SRR). As outlined in the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue (IAMSAR) Manual published by the International Maritime Organisation:

“Every SRR has unique transportation, climate, topography and physical characteristics. These factors create a different set of problems for SAR operation in each SRR. Such factors influence the choice and composition of the services, facilities, equipment and staffing required by each SAR service.”

In respect of Property and Estate Costs question 5 the MCA has decided, after careful consideration, to refuse your request for information in accordance with section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The information you require is exempt from release under section 43 (2) Commercial Interests, as release of the information is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person (A person may be an individual, a company, the public authority itself or any other legal entity). In this respect it would likely prejudice the MCA’s ability to achieve value for money in any future property sale and/or negotiations.

20. Question

1. With respect to Shetland. What fault diversity, redundancy and backup capacity exists in the current BT network carrying the MCA kilostreams between the Remote Radio Sites (RRS) and the MOC such that traffic can be re-routed around any radio link or other equipment faults if necessary?

2. Assuming a high-order fault which affects multiple circuits, how many sites can expect to be off-air at the same time?

3. What are the Single Points of Failure in the BT network as it affects the connectivity of RRS (VHF, DSC & MF) and how are the effects of such failures mitigated with the planned MCA system assuming that Shetland CG were to be closed?

4. What agreement is in place with BT to require them to segregate and route MCA kilostream traffic from various RRS onto diverse paths to mitigate the effects of high order multiplex faults?

5. Will any backup connectivity for the RRS be provided in the event of a loss of kilostream connection?

6. When a fault occurs, and given that many times a high-order BT network fault will often affect normal telephone lines (land-lines, mobile and 999) what contingencies are in place to provide a Distress Watch and what will allow such a watch to be capable of co-ordinating the necessary rescue resources, should the proposals go ahead?. With respect to Shetland. What fault diversity, redundancy and backup capacity exists in the current BT network carrying the MCA kilostreams between the Remote Radio Sites (RRS) and the MOC such that traffic can be re-routed around any radio link or other equipment faults if necessary?

2. Assuming a high-order fault which affects multiple circuits, how many sites can expect to be off-air at the same time?

3. What are the Single Points of Failure in the BT network as it affects the connectivity of RRS (VHF, DSC & MF) and how are the effects of such failures mitigated with the planned MCA system assuming that Shetland CG were to be closed?

4. What agreement is in place with BT to require them to segregate and route MCA kilostream traffic from various RRS onto diverse paths to mitigate the effects of high order multiplex faults?

5. Will any backup connectivity for the RRS be provided in the event of a loss of kilostream connection?

6. When a fault occurs, and given that many times a high-order BT network fault will often affect normal telephone lines (land-lines, mobile and 999) what contingencies are in place to provide a Distress Watch and what will allow such a watch to be capable of co-ordinating the necessary rescue

20. Answer

The information you have requested is available on the MCA’s website.

21. Question

I would like to see how those figures (pages 37 & 38) were arrived i.e. what data they were based, what calculations were made to arrive at those figures.

21. Answer

We do not consider the format that you requested as appropriate as elements of the request are exempt from publication in accordance with section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. An element of the information you require is exempt from release under section 43 (2) Commercial interests, as release of this information is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person (A person may be an individual, a company, the public authority or any other legal entity).

In this respect it would likely prejudice the MCAs ability to achieve value for money in respect of:

Pay and reward/Terms and Conditions negotiations
Redundancy terms negotiations
Property Sales
Rent negotiations
Procurement of ICT equipment
Procuring construction services
Future maintenance contracts

We therefore have responded as enclosed.(Click Here)

Since section 43 (2) is a qualified exemption, we have had to consider whether the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in releasing it. Our conclusion was that, in all the circumstances of this case the public interesting in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

22. Question

Prior to the current proposal that is under consultation how many other plans/proposals were considered by the MCA

22. Answer

I am writing to advise you that the MCA does hold information that is relevant to your request, but regret to inform you of my decision not to disclose this information.

The information you require is exempt from release under section 36 (Effective Conduct of Public Affairs) sub sections (2) (b) (I) and (II) and sub section (2) (c). Release of this information would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation. Disclosure would also prejudice the public authority’s ability to offer an effective public service, due to the disruption caused by the disclosure and the diversion of resources in managing the impact of disclosure.

Therefore disclosure of this information would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs by reason of an inability for MCA to effectively provide advice to ministers in respect the final decision on the future structure of HM Coastguard following the current public consultation.

Since section 36 is a qualified exemption, we have had to consider whether the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in releasing it. Our conclusion was that, in all the circumstances of this case the public interesting in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

23. Question

Has any estimate been made as to the possible range of costs of a new build for the South Coast Maritime Operations centre and for it to be fitted out with suitable electronic equipment, communication links?

23. Answer

The MCA has decided, after careful consideration, to refuse your request for information in accordance with section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The information you require is exempt from publication in accordance with section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The information you require is exempt from release under section 43 (2) Commercial interests, as release of this information is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person (A person may be an individual, a company, the public authority or any other legal entity).

In this respect it would likely prejudice the MCA’s ability to achieve value for money in respect of the procurement of construction services and/or ICT equipment

24. Question

In the consultation document relating to proposals for modernising the Coastguard 2010 there is a table on page 38.

The table states that the total cash cost of running costs for the new structure will be £74 million over 25 years.

In arriving at that figure has any assumption being made that the pay of coastguards will increase over the 25 year period; if so please tell what assumptions have been made.

The table states in Years 1-4 the running cost of the new structure will be £14 Million.

In arriving at that figure has any assumption being made that the pay of coastguards will increase during years 1-4 or is it assumed that pay rates will not change from the current levels?

24. Answer

In this respect it would likely prejudice the MCA’s ability to conduct effective negotiations regarding new rates of pay within the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

We have therefore replied as follows:

It is the intention of these proposals to give coastguards more satisfying jobs with new skills, more opportunities to use them, and better pay and career structures. How this is implemented will be subject to the outcome of the public consultation and subsequent negotiations with Trade Unions.

25. Question

In the consultation document relating to proposals for modernising the Coastguard 2010, on page 25 is the statement "An analysis of current workload, including foreseeable peak incident activity periods, has shown that with a nationally networked structure across which work can be effectively distributed, the maximum number of Coastguard officers needed on duty to meet all anticipated requirements, including emergency response, routine and secondary tasks, is between 35 and 48 during the day depending on predicted activity levels, reducing to 20-32 at night.

Would you please send me a copy of all papers relating to the analysis referred above.

25. Answer

In accordance with section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the MCA is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from a person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the making of the current request. Your request for information has therefore been declined.

The information you have requested was supplied in an answer sent to you on 14 January 2011. This answer has been subsequently been published on the MCAs website.

26. Question

In the consultation document relating to proposals for modernising the Coastguard 2010, on page 20 is the statement "We believe that five day-time only satellite sub-centres, in addition to a 24/7 centre at Dover and the 24/7 small centre at London, offers the optimum balance between the advantages they offer, and value for money.

Would you please send me all papers relating to how the agency determined that having five (rather then six, seven etc) day-time only satellite sub-centres (in addition to a 24/7 centre at Dover and the 24/7 small centre at London) offered the optimum balance between the advantages they offered, and value for money.

26. Answer

The information you have requested was supplied in an answer sent to you on 14 January 2011. This answer has been subsequently been published on the MCAs website.

27. Question

In the consultation document relating to proposals for modernising the Coastguard 2010 it proposes a number of changes to staffing and the number of offices.

Have Ministers set a cost saving target that the new structure must deliver; if so when was that target set and what is the target.

27. Answer

No cost saving target has been set by Ministers which the new structure must deliver.

28. Question

I would like to request details under FOI for the running costs (including salaries) of the MCA Regional Directors and their staffs, by region.

28. Answer

2009/2010 Regional Business Unit Running Costs

29. Question

Could you please supply me with copies of all reports, documents, emails, letters and correspondence relating to the current Coastguard consultation that specifically mentions the possible downgrading of Falmouth coastguard station. This includes anything written or received by Sir Alan Massey both internally and externally.

29. Answer

I am writing to advise you that the MCA does hold information that is relevant to your request, but regret to inform you of my decision not to disclose this information.

Since section 36 is a qualified exemption, we have had to consider whether the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in releasing it.. Our conclusion was that, in all the circumstances of this case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

30. Question

The annual running costs for 3 Regional Directors and Support Team/The total running costs of all Regional Directors and their Support Teams, with a break down of each posts salary and other associated costs.

30. Answer

We do not consider the format that you requested as appropriate as an element of the information you have requested is exempt from publication in accordance with section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. An element of the information you require is exempt from release under section 40 (2), Personal Information. In this release of this information would disclose personal data which can be related and identified to a living individual. We have therefore have responded as follows.

31. Question

Financial Year 2009 - 2010 running costs for each of the 18 MRCC's.

Financial Year 2009 - 2010 projected running costs for each of the 18 MRCC's.

31. Answer

The information regarding financial year 2009-2010 running costs for each of the 18 MRCCs is available on the MCAs website.

In respect of your query regarding the “projected running costs” for 2009-2010 further details were requested from you in order to identify and locate the information you require. To date we have not received details that will allow us to locate the information, consequently the MCA cannot process your request in this respect

32. Question

What were the total costs of the roof maintenance including scaffolding that was done in 2010. Also what was the total cost of the Generator Upgrade that was done the same year. Could you give the cost to the MCA of Brixham coastguard rates/rent/utilities etc in 2008.

32. Answer

The cost of the replacement roof (inclusive of all professional fees and VAT) was £105,246.24

The cost of the replacement generator (inclusive of all professional fees and VAT) was £65,900.09

No rent is payable as MRCC Brixham is freehold
Business Rates for 2008/2009 were £7,738
Utilities Costs for 2008/2009 were £9,270

33. Question

In the consultation document relating to proposals for modernising the Coastguard 2010 on page 14 it states "In 2005, for example, there were 16,516 reported incidents, and 18,614 in 2007. So far in 2010, Coastguard Coordination Centres have handled 20,544 incidents".

Would you please tell me the total number of incidents that actually occurred in 2010?

I assume that MCA has a system for classifying incidents by their seriousness. If this is the case would you please break down the incidents recorded in 2010 by this classification.

33. Answer

34. Question

In the consultation document relating to proposals for modernising the Coastguard 2010 in the Executive Summary on page 7 it states that "Analysis shows that the busiest centres handle over five times as many incidents as the quietest with 30% of all incidents happening in July and August and 70% of all incidents occurring between 9am and 7pm.

When the documents talks of "70% of all incidents occurring between 9am and 7pm" does that mean that 70% of incidents start and finish between 09.00 and 19.00?

If the answer is no would you please tell me what proportion of incidents that start between 09.00 and 19.00 actually are concluded within that time slot.

34. Answer

As stated on page 16 of the consultation document 70% of incidents occur during the period 09:00 and 19:00. This figure is derived from incidents that have an ‘Open Time’ during this specific time period.

It should be noted that the time that an incident is closed in HM Coastguard’s Command and Control system Vision is not same as the time that the actual incident concluded. The closure of an incident is an administrative task which can happen days or in some circumstances months after the incident has concluded; therefore incident close time on Vision cannot be interpreted as the end time for the incident. To extract the end time for an incident would require a manual review of over 21,000 incidents; this would exceed the appropriate limit of £600 as set out in the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If you wish to alter the scope of the question it may be possible to provide an answer within the appropriate limit.

35. Question

Request for Freedom of information. On page 38 of the consultation document MCA states current preferred Option of...

1. What other options were considered?

2. How were each of these options explored - are there any reports?

3. What were the identified advantages and disadvantages of each option?

4. Why was this option considered the most appropriate?

5. Can you provide minutes of the meetings where these options were considered or any associated reports?

35. Answer

I am writing to advise you that the MCA does hold information that is relevant to your request, but regret to inform you of my decision not to disclose this information.

Since section 36 is a qualified exemption, we have had to consider whether the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in releasing it. Our conclusion was that, in all the circumstances of this case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

36. Question

The estimate for early exit costs included in the costs outlined in the consultation paper "Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century" is £4,780,634. This was based on the provisions of the then draft Superannuation Act which is due to come into force and is based on Voluntary redundancy terms.

Would you please send me the calculations the agency undertook to get to the £4,780,634 figure. Along with the calculations please send me the assumptions accompanying the calculations e.g. that X percentage of staff would take severance; that Y percentage would take early retirement and what length of service was assumed for the calculation.

36. Answer

In this respect it would likely prejudice the MCAs ability to conduct effective negotiations regarding terms for any potential voluntary redundancy scheme.

37. Question

Can you please let me know if there are any plans to change the current system operating on Ch. 16 and move away from the existing speaker-based listening watch?

37. Answer

The information regarding the operation of Channel 16 is available on the MCAs website. Click here

38. Question

Please will you supply the following information. How much were Operational Staffing costs at MRCC Milford Haven for the year 2009-2010 in Salary & NI Contributions, to the nearest £1K. What is the projected cost to the MCA for Staff Salary & NI Contributions for 2010-2011, to the nearest £1K.

38. Answer

MRCC Milford Haven Operational Staff Costs 2009/10 - £655k
Projected Milford Haven Operational Staff Costs 2010/11 - £654k

39. Question

In the consultation document "Consultation on proposals for modernising the Coastguard 2010" at page 26 is a table which shows that the future proposed staffing for the SAR co-ordination is 248.

When deriving that figure was the handling of routine calls from the public and industry (enquiring as to the weather, sea conditions etc.) factored in?

39. Answer

When deriving the figure of 248 for future proposed staffing the handling of routine calls was factored in.

40. Question

I hereby request under the Freedom of Information Act all relevant information relating to the any risk assessments conducted in relation to the Coastguard modernisation programme.

This should include any emails and letters between Marine and Coastguard Authorities and the Department for Transport as well as any completed assessments.

40. Answer

I am writing to confirm that the MCA does hold information that is relevant to your request, but can advise that elements of the request are exempt from publication in accordance with section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The MCA published a suite of documents on its website (www.mcga.gov.uk) regarding Risk Assessment on 11 February 2011. The following documents represent some of the underpinning analytical work undertaken in developing the consultation proposals. Taken together they illustrate how consideration of risk and an appreciation of impact have been integral throughout the whole process. These documents are enclosed with this correspondence.

Elements of the information you require are exempt from release under section 36 (Effective Conduct of Public Affairs) sub sections (2) (b) (I) and (II) and sub section (2) (c). Release of this information would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation. Disclosure would also prejudice the public authority’s ability to offer an effective public service, due to the disruption caused by the disclosure and the diversion of resources in managing the impact of disclosure.

Since section 36 is a qualified exemption, we have had to consider whether the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in releasing it. The attached tables sets out the factors that we considered both for and against disclosure. Our conclusion was that, in all the circumstances of this case the public interesting in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

41. Question

I would like to find out how many rescues and incidents requiring coastguard intervention involving recreational craft (of all kinds- including kayaks, windsurfers, kitesurfers, small angling boats, motor boats, dinghies, yachts etc) were recorded between 2005 and 2010. Statistics by year would be preferable to see if there is any kind of trend or pattern.

41. Answer

We do not consider the format that you requested as reasonably practical and therefore have responded as enclosed (Click Here). This because to respond in the format you have requested would have exceeded the appropriate limit in terms of cost, which for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is £600.

42. Question

Currently VHF Ch16 is monitored at each MRCC, by way of a dedicated 24/7 headset watch. At any time, 24/7, 18 coastguards are currently performing this task around the coast.

(1) under the proposed new structure, will there continue to be a dedicated headset listening watch on Ch16?

(2) if answer to (1) is yes.......how many coastguard officers will be undertaking this task at any one time? Will this duty be limited to staff at the MOCs, or will control of local aerials revert to the Daytime Stations during their watchkeeping hours?

(3) if answer to (1) is no.......how will vessels call HM Coastguard (a) if they are in distress, or (b) if they wish to pass routine traffic. How many coastguard officers will be involved in monitoring such VHF traffic? Will this duty be limited to staff at the MOCs, or will control of local aerials revert to the Daytime Stations during their watchkeeping hours? how many staff will be employed at the MOCs monitoring DSC, and also how many staff will be taking Traffic Reports on Ch67.

(4) At present each station can monitor its own local VHF aerials, plus those of its paired station. Under the proposed national network, will the Daytime Stations only be able to monitor their local aerials, or will the system allow any of the 8 stations to monitor all 154 aerial sites.

42. Answer

(1) No we will not continue a dedicated headset watch on channel 16 because we ceased the obligation to do so on 22nd September 2003 and this has been our declared level of cover since 1st February 2005. A headset watch can be set if required see CG3 Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section 5.2.3.

The Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) was implemented on 1 February 1999. The implementation of the GMDSS has involved the adoption of Digital Selective Calling (DSC) for distress alerting in maritime radio frequency bands – e.g. VHF. While the United Kingdom Coastguard will continue coverage of VHF Channel 16 for the foreseeable future, from 1 February 2005, the Coastguard watch on Channel 16 will be downgraded from a dedicated headset watch to a loudspeaker watch. Also, from this date, ships that are currently obliged to keep a listening watch on Channel 16 where practicable, will no longer be obliged to do so. Where it is considered that VHF should be fitted……… it is strongly recommended that vessels are equipped with VHF DSC with its significant benefits in distress situations by February 2005.”

Coverage will continue as currently. In the proposed new structure the allocation at a MOC or sub-Centre of any functional or geographic responsibility, and the necessary staff to undertake this, will be determined by the senior operational manager responsible for the network (located at the Maritime Operations Centre). This will be based upon an assessment of long term workload prediction, internal operational needs and the assessment of workload expected in the near future. The norm is proposed to be that control of aerials in the geographical area that a sub-centre is located would be by that sub-centre during their operating hours.

The integrated National Network will allow the MOCs and sub-Centres to monitor any aerial in the UK.

44. Question

Please supply for each MRCC the total office floor space that each station would have available if they were being sold.

44. Answer

Please find the attached table which outlines the Gross Internal Area (GIA) for MRCC properties which are either freehold or crown build on ground lease. It should be noted that in respect of the latter to realise any sale a re-assignment of the existing lease would have to be negotiated. The tenure notes column outlines the detail on this.

45. Question

Over the past 5 years how many times, and for how long, has a single MRCC lost all services requiring its paired station to adopt its role (list station(s), dates and times - exclude planned maintenance).

Over the past 5 years how many times, and for how long, have both MRCCs in a pair lost all services (list stations, dates and times - exclude planned maintenance).

45. Answer

Click Here for Response

Click Here for 2009 Statistics

Click Here for 2010 Statistics

46. Question

Could you please supply the latest resale valuation you have of the site and buildings of MRCC Brixham

46. Answer

MCA has decided, after careful consideration, to refuse your request for information in accordance with section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The information you require is exempt from release under section 43 (2) Commercial Interests, as release of the information is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person (A person may be an individual, a company, the public authority itself or any other legal entity). In this respect it would likely prejudice the MCA’s ability to achieve value for money in any future property sale and/or negotiations.

In all the circumstances of this case the public interesting maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

47. Question

Request for details on Table top exercise 24th of May 2010

47. Answer

The table-top exercise was designed to be a test of the MOC/Day Sub-centre concept. It was carried out on 24 May 2010 in London between MCA and PCS representatives. It was carried out without prejudice and examined the working of a single MOC with three sub-centres covering England and Wales only. No locations were defined as it was only a test of the concept.

The concept was measured against the busiest day on record, 23 June 2006, plus an additional major incident and a complete power failure. The outcomes of the exercise were only to hold a discussion with union reps that took part on the model. No report on the outcomes of this exercise was produced by MCA.

What was found was that at the peak hour, 1 MOC and 3 Sub Centres were strained for a short period of time. What was not examined was the capacity that would have been available with a second MOC for that day plus sub-centres in Scotland and/or Northern Ireland. The loading for the day in question for those areas was not significant. It is worth noting that the concept had no major issues. The loading (which was artificially inflated above the busiest day on record) did stretch the MOC and 3 sub-centre model that was requested by the PCS.

48. Question

In your recently published FOIA document question 6 asks for information on incidents. Falmouth has figures of 2380 and 2275 for 2009 and 2010 respectively. Can you please provide me with statistics on how many of these incidents where GMDSS or Security related, including those initiated by DSC and how many of these incidents were actually in the UKSRR and resulted in SAR units being tasked by Falmouth.

48. Answer

The following is the breakdown of ADU incidents as categorized in Blue Boss for 2009 and 2010.

49. Question

I have received reports that there is a great deal of anger and resentment amongst the volunteers in the existing Service about the organisation of this consultation. I would be most grateful for your comprehensive responses to the following questions:

1) Please could you deliver under the Freedom of Information legislation the full list of options that were examined at the outset of the policy review for the future of the Coastguard service?

2) Please will you explain whether any approach will be made to dovetail the UK review with the Isle of Man Coastguard Service?

3) Please will you explain why it was decided that just ONE meeting in Southport would be sufficient to receive the views of interested parties for the whole of the north west and north wales area?

4) Will you consider the organisation of a further consultation meeting to listen to the volunteer Coastguards for the Cumbrian coast?

49. Answer

1.Your question as outlined at point 1 has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I can advise you that the MCA does hold information that is relevant to your request, but regret to inform you of my decision not to disclose this information.

The information you require is exempt from release under section 36 (Effective Conduct of Public Affairs) sub sections (2) (b) (I) and (II) and sub section (2) (c). Release of this information would inhibit both the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation. Disclosure would also prejudice the MCA’s ability to offer an effective public service due the disruption caused by the disclosure and the diversion of resources in managing the impact of the disclosure.

Therefore disclosure of this information would prejudice, or would be likely to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs due to an inability for MCA to effectively provide advice to ministers in respect the final decision on the future structure of HM Coastguard.

Since section 36 is a qualified exemption, we have had to consider whether the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in releasing it. The attached tables sets out the factors that we considered both for and against disclosure. Our conclusion was that, in all the circumstances of this case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

2.The Isle of Man Coastguard has been consulted extensively, and we are jointly considering opportunities to develop their role within the UK SAR framework.

3.The reason we have held one meeting in Southport in respect of MRCC Liverpool is because the aim of the public meetings is to address the specific concerns of those communities in which MRCC Coastguard officers live, and who have daily contact with the staff and the MRCC. There was a further public meeting held at Holyhead on 2 March 2011 to address the specific concerns of those in the North Wales areas.

These meetings are supplementary to the comprehensive wider consultation which has been designed to allow individuals, businesses, organisations and community groups to respond using the dedicated response form. The public consultation is being carried out in accordance with the HM Government Code of Practice on Consultation.

4.Since launching the consultation on 16 December 2010 my managers have met with both staff and volunteers to listen to their views on the Coastguard modernisation proposals. In respect of volunteers on the Cumbrian coast the MCA’s Regional Director for Wales and West attended the North and North West Station Officers meeting in Liverpool on 12 March 2011; this included an open discussion on the modernisation proposals. The MCA’s Sector Managers (the full time Coastguard Officers who manage the volunteer Coastguard Rescue Service) have been briefed on the proposals to enable them to discuss the proposals and listen to the views of their volunteer teams. This process is ongoing throughout the consultation period.

50. Question

I am writing to make an open government request for all the information to which I am entitled under the freedom of information act. In order to assist you with this request, I am outlining my query as specifically as possible. If however this request is too wide or too unclear, I would be grateful if you could contact me as I understand that under the act, you are required to advise and assist requesters.

A Table top exercise took place at an undisclosed location in London on the 24th OF May and was deemed to be a success despite no documentation from the MCA to prove that was the case. Can the MCA please provide details of the following:

How were the proposals tested - How was data handled ? Who input the data ? What assets were available and how were they tasked ? What level of Search Planning was undertaken ?

Who was Present - MCA and TUS

How were stations loaded with incidents and materials used – How were stations given incident information ? Were whiteboards or paper used ? Were Computer data bases involved

How many operators were assigned to each incident

What Command Structure was used ( from sub centre to MOC and vice versa) – Who was SMC ? What level of operator handled each incident

How was local knowledge obtained – e.g. from books or data bases

What day in 2006 was used to provide incident input

50. Answer

The proposal was not tested. What was tested was the concept of how a MOC and 3 sub-centres would manage and distribute a typical incident workload for England and Wales only. It was looking at how the opening and closing of sub-centres might impact on incident handling and what pressure points might occur with the construct given. The exercise was not about the physical prosecution of SAR.

The data took the form of incident summary strips that gave the start-time, finish time, location and summary description of each. A PC logged into BOSS was available for interrogation for more data as required.

The exercise took the form of a walk-through of a 24 hour time period. Participants were distributed to represent either one of a number of teams working in a MOC, or a team working in a sub-centre. As the exercise clock was advanced so incident strips were distributed across the available teams at that time. What was tracked was how many incidents each team were managing at any one time, as well as the complexity of the events.

As the clock progressed so incidents that had reached their closure time were removed from the operational table. What was therefore presented was a rolling picture of the ebb and flow of workload.

White boards were not used.
Paper was used as described.
Operators were not assigned to incidents.
Command structure and SMC duties were not applicable.

The date used was 23rd July 2006 with a power outage and additional major incident added to the workload.

51. Question

Could you please provide the following information.

Can you confirm that there are 4 quadrants that cover the whole country and not 4 in south and 4 in the north.

Relating it to the MRCC's that exist now for easy reference what areas/sections of coastline are in which quadrant.

Which Quadrants are allocated to the North and which are allocated to the South

How many operators would be in each MOC during daytime from May - September

How many Operators would be assigned to each area/section and how many aerials would they be responsible for.

Can a station in one Quadrant take aerials of a station in another quadrant whether it be via a MOC or not.

What known or possible limitations are there on the proposed comms network configuration ie certain aerials not being able to be accessed by a Moc or by a day station.

51. Answer

Following your request received on 11 March 2011 we had a telephone conversation to clarify your question in respect of the term quadrant. I can confirm that following discussions with colleagues in ICT that the term quadrant that you use in your question relates to the current RER project in respect of MF aerials. This is a construct for the current HM Coastguard infrastructure to allow stations within a technical ‘quadrant’ to access the MF aerials for that operational grouping. Quadrants will not feature in the infrastructure as proposed in the modernisation proposals as it will be operating as a single national network.

In respect of your query regarding manning levels I refer you to page 25 of the consultation document which states that:

Actual staffing levels will be determined by the senior operational manager responsible for the network at the Maritime Operations Centre based upon an assessment of long term workload prediction, internal operational needs and the assessment of workload expected in the near future. Therefore no set figure for the period, May to September is available.

As we discussed during our telephone conversation all aerials will be available to all operators in the national network. The allocation of responsibility for aerials to teams of operators will be determined by the senior operational manager responsible for the network at the Maritime Operations Centre. This will be based upon an assessment of long term workload prediction, internal operational needs and the assessment of workload expected in the near future.

In respect of your final point these issues are covered in the document “Supporting Brief - Coastguard Technology Refresh (including technology risk assessment)” available on the MCA website.

52. Question

What is the MCAs policy for Lone Working in respect of Watch Keepers

53. Answer

Your request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The Agency does not have a Lone Working for Watch Keepers or for any other member of staff. A non watch keeping specific policy is currently being drawn up and this will be circulated to all staff via the QMS system within the next few weeks.

53. Question

Could you please answer the following.

1) Question 9 regarding station costings; Figures for London were not included, could you supply these ?

2) Question 15, point 4; London was not included in the list of incidents, could you also supply this figure ?

Question 15, point 5; Again regarding London. Other MRCCs contend with similar environmental complexities and administrative boundary issues, what makes London a special case ?

53. Answer

The MCA has an agreement with the Port of London Authority whereby MCA incurs no accommodation costs. Therefore London Coastguard was not included in the statistics outlined at question 9 of the FOIA answers.

London Coastguard coordinated 56 incidents at weekends during July and August 2009.

London Coastguard was established following the Formal Investigation (FI) of the Marchioness disaster (the Thames Safety Inquiry) chaired by Lord Justice Clarke. As a result of recommendations made in the Clarke Report the Government asked the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), the Port of London Authority (PLA) and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) to work together to set up a dedicated Search and Rescue service for the tidal River Thames.

Consequently HM Coastguard is responsible for the co-ordination of Search and Rescue across a 50 mile section of the tidal River Thames; this is runs from Teddington Lock in the west of London across to Holehaven Creek in the east. HM Coastguard deploys one Coastguard Officer on duty at any time, sharing the facilities of the PLA’s operations centre at Woolwich. The RNLI have set up four lifeboat stations at Gravesend, Tower Pier, Chiswick Pier and Teddington.

The Thames in Central London is one of the most congested stretches of tidal waterway in Europe. At Tower Bridge it has a tidal range that can exceed 7.1 metres and a flow rate that can exceed 5 mph. In addition to this there are significant vessel movements and numerous static visible and hidden obstructions that reduce visibility and cause undercurrents.

The 50 mile operational area of the tidal Thames covered by London Coastguard is divided into three distinct areas:

Lower End – Holehaven Creek to Thames Flood Barrier at Woolwich
Central Area – Woolwich to Battersea
Upper End – Battersea to Teddington Lock

The Lower End is the wider, commercial area of the Thames containing most of the working terminals and wharves. The Central Area is a very congested area of the Thames with significant Class V passenger vessels, private pleasure craft movements and frequent commercial vessel and tug and tow movements. The Upper End is the leisure end of the river, with high levels of private pleasure boat movements, numerous small boat moorings and a high concentration of rowing and canoeing clubs.

The primary stakeholders for London Coastguard are as follows:

Greater London Strategic Authority
London Boroughs of :

Bexley
Barking and Dagenham
Newham
Greenwich
Tower Hamlets
City of London
City of Westminster
Lambeth
Southwark
Lewisham
Hounslow
Richmond
Hammersmith
Wandsworth
Kensington and Chelsea

Metropolitan Police
Essex Police
Kent Police
London Fire Brigade
Essex Fire Authority
Kent Fire Authority
London Ambulance Service
Essex Ambulance Service
Kent Ambulance Service
Port of London Authority

54. Question

Can you please confirm how many uniformed serving Coastguard Officers were involved or assisted in producing the current Consultation Document.

54. Answer

The proposals to modernise HM Coastguard have been developed over a number of years, this has required input at different times from a number of uniformed serving Coastguard Officers.

In respect specifically to the production of the document "Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century" a programme team was established during 2010 to undertake this task which resulted in the publication of the document on 16 December 2010. This team brought together a wide range of skills and experience covering Operational Coastguard, Human Resources, Finance, Communications and Programme/Project Management.

Operational Coastguard experience has been drawn from a team which as included 8 uniformed serving Coastguard Officers. This includes HQ officers who have performed a wide range of operational roles during their careers, current serving Coastal Safety Managers, Watch Officers and Watch Managers.

55. Question

Out of the current Operations Room Officers that you say assisted with the current proposal can you provide the following :

How many were Watch Managers
How many were Watch Officers.
What stations are they currently based at.

55. Answer

I am writing to advise you that the MCA does hold information that is relevant to your request. However, I regret to inform you that we have decided that some of this information cannot be disclosed for the reasons given below. The information that can be released is as follows.

The programme team put together to produce the consultation document “Protecting our Seas and Shores in the 21st Century” was made up of individuals with a range of Operational Coastguard, Human Resources, Finance, and Project Management experience. The team included 8 Coastguard Officers from both Headquarters and the regions who have had experience through their careers of a range of roles:

Watch Officer
Watch Manager
RCCM/DO
Coastal Safety Manager

Of the current operational Coastguard Officers one was a Watch Managers and none were Watch Officers at the time of the publication of the consultation document. Two current serving Coastal Safety Managers were also part of the team.

The information you require relating to the location of serving Coastguard Officers is exempt from release under section 40(2), which provides an exemption for personal information. We consider the exemption is engaged because it relates to living individuals who could be identified from it and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the third parties. To disclose this information would be unfair, breaching the data protection principles as referred to in section 40(3)(b) of the Act.

56. Question

Is it please possible to find out from the past year:

1) The number of times the Coastguard has been called out as a response to a DSC VHF radio alert but where no vessel location can be identified and no may day call has followed verbally using a radio.

2) The number of times the Coastguard has been called out as a response to a DSC VHF radio alert.

2) The cost of sending out a Coastguard Rescue Team from the Coastguard Rescue Service for an hour.

56. Answer

Your request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Following clarifications to your original request dated 28/03/2011 and 29/03/2011 I can confirm the following:

During the calendar year 2010 the Coastguard Rescue Service did not respond to any incidents alerted to HM Coastguard by VHF DSC.

The cost of sending out a Coastguard Rescue Team from the Coastguard Rescue Service is made up of several factors; this will include the nature of the incident and the number of volunteers who are available to attend. It should also be noted that there is a minimum payment for Coastguard Rescue Officers (CROs) of 3 hours pay for any attendance at an incident.

Therefore based on a team of 10 CROs made up of 9 CRO’s and 1 Station Officer, an incident will cost a minimum of £181.44 for an incident up to 3 hours in length then £60.48 per hour after that. This is based on payment rates as follows:

CRO - £5.93
Station Officer - £7.11

57. Question

In respect to the Review team of 12 people as stated by Mr Massey on 6th May 2011.

We would like to know the below answers under FOIA.

Q1 Who are they?

Q2 How were they recruited for this role?

Q3 When was the trawl for interested parties to apply for review team submitted and by what forum?

Q4 What criteria was used in selecting the review team?

57. Answer

Your request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Most of the points raised in your information request have been covered both in Alan Massey’s email dated 6 May 2011 and Peter Dymond’s email dated 19 May 2011; it is my understanding that you would have received these emails.

Membership of the team was made up of staff who, during the consultation period, volunteered to be part of the independent review process, were recommended for this task by their line managers or were selected by the Independent Review Team Leader where original members were not able to attend. The PCS were represented on the team and selected their own members. The team was selected to represent of a cross-section of HM Coastguard in terms of both location and grade.

58. Question

What proposals were a) considered and b) agreed between 5 May 2008 and 5 May 2010 regarding changes to the Coastguard service?

58. Answer

Thank you for your request for information dated 24 June 2011. Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I am writing to advise you that the MCA does hold information that is relevant to your request, but regret to inform you of my decision not to disclose this information.

Since section 36 is a qualified exemption, we have had to consider whether the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in releasing it. TOur conclusion was that, in all the circumstances of this case the public interesting in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Is this information useful? Please let us know by taking a quick survey.