Supplementary memorandum by the Maritime
and Coastguard Agency (SAR 12A)
SEARCH AND RESCUE
Thank you for your letter of 3 March requesting
additional information to inform the Committee's Inquiry into
Search and Rescue in the UK. Please see the responses below.
How many Coastguard Rescue Teams (CRTs) do not
have their full complement of Auxiliary Coastguards?
As at the end of February 2005 the number of
teams which did not have their full complement was 145 out of
a total of around 400. The complement shortage was 241. However,
the number of teams which had more than their full complement
was 47, with a complement excess of 61.
The number of Auxiliary Coastguards in place
was 3,307, a total Shortage of 180. Auxiliary Coastguard shortage
figures are monitored on a monthly basis.
The Agency maintains a flexible approach to
its Auxiliary team numbers which enables it to maintain a risk
assessed operational response. The Sector complements are used
as a total which enables the Agency to mix and match its teams
to provide the best operational response/coverage. Flank stations
are able to work together to ensure that an appropriate response
is sent to each incident allowing teams to run below complement
by augmenting other teams where sufficient volunteers are available.
What effort is the MCA making to recruit additional
Auxiliary Coastguards?
Recruitment is an issue which is being considered
in the Review of the Auxiliary Coastguard Service, as referred
to later in this letter. We will generally recruit sufficient
Auxiliary Coastguards to fulfil current complement. We do not
normally recruit additional Auxiliary Coastguards above complement
except where vacancies are anticipated or where an operational
requirement to recruit above complement has been identified. This
may occur for instance where there is a prevalence of members
in the team whose workplace is away from the coast and response
could take longer, or there are known difficulties with some employers
regarding release of Auxiliary Coastguards to respond.
Is the reticence of employers to release Auxiliary
Coastguards for call-outs a significant barrier to recruitment
or retention of Auxiliary Coastguards? Does it affect their operations
in other ways, for example by requiring Co-ordination Centres
to page more than one CRT in order to secure the response of a
sufficient number of team members?
The reticence of some employers to release volunteer
Auxiliary Coastguards for call-outs is not a barrier to recruitment
or retention. The recruitment campaign for the new Coastguard
Rescue Team (CRT) of 13 members being established in the Lake
District to support our new responsibility for the co-ordination
of civil maritime search and rescue on the lakes has resulted
in 60 applications. Neither does it restrict our ability to respond
to incidents on the coast. Our records show that occasionally
it is prudent to recruit above complement where there are known
difficulties regarding release to respond. As I note in the answer
to your first question, this applies to 47 teams.
Co-ordination centres will assess the response
required to incidents based on the initial information received
and, of course, any supplementary information. Such a response
may include any of our front line SAR resources (ie., SAR helicopter,
RNLI Lifeboat or CRT) either alone or jointly depending on the
circumstances of the incident. This response could therefore include
more than one CRT.
The MCA maintains dialogue with employers to
ensure they are aware of the importance of their employee's involvement
in coastal rescue and the wider implications for the community
and UKSAR. We also highlight the potential benefits that the employee's
training, teamwork, commitment and responsibility as an Auxiliary
Coastguard may bring to the employer and the company.
What is covered by the Agency's internal review
of the Auxiliary Coastguard Service? Are there any emerging findings
at this stage?
Under the guidance of the Steering Group, the
Working Group was established to recommend an appropriate strategic
direction for the Auxiliary Coastguard Service (ACS). The Terms
of Reference of the Working Group are to examine all possible
options for the future of the ACS, and in so doing consider the
following:
— the impact and implications
of existing and potential legislation, regulations and trends
on the UK voluntary sector with particular regard to the ACS;
— the operational inter-dependence
of the ACS and the regular Coastguard Service and the future requirements
for an ACS; and
— the potential for "partnerships"
with other emergency services and their volunteer support organisations
in a UK wide context.
The review is due to report later this year,
and is still deliberating some difficult issues. I would prefer
not to pre-empt its findings. However, I will share its recommendations
with the Committee in due course should the Committee wish.
Are you now able to determine from the statistics
whether MCA intervention is making a difference between life and
death in each Search and Rescue case? What do the statistics show?
Our analysis of the available records has started
to deliver information about the types of maritime activities
that can result in death or injury and where our prevention efforts
might best be focused. We are currently discussing with the Department
the development of a Ministerial Target for 2005-06 based on working
with relevant organisations to reduce the numbers of deaths and
injuries in relation to beach activities, coastal swimming and
recreational diving as a proportion of the numbers of people involved
in those activities. The proposed target is subject to Ministerial
agreement. We want to focus on these types of activities because
our analysis shows that there were 74 fatalities and 121 injuries
between 1997 and 2003 in recreational diving, 73 fatalities and
51 injuries in coastal swimming, and 55 fatalities and 592 injuries
in beach activities.
However, the numbers of death and injuries in
activity areas is only half the story. We also need to know the
numbers of people involved in those activities so that we can
judge the rate of change over time. We are gathering that population
data through a research project that will report to us in April
2005.
I am confident that we are moving in the right
direction and that our prevention activities will impact on the
rates of death and injury in the future. However, it is encouraging
that the underlying number of maritime-related deaths (excluding
suicides) fell in 2004 compared to 2003, it is too early in our
proactive prevention strategy to claim any direct correlation
with certainty between an intervention and the prevention of specific
deaths or injuries.
How is the MCA's work to prevent accidents at
sea co-ordinated with similar work carried out by other organisations,
for example with the RNLI?
We hold quarterly meetings with the RNLI to
share knowledge and information, harmonise messages, and coordinate
prevention opportunities. With the RNLI we lead the Safety on
the Sea working group. We have shared our prevention strategy
with RNLI senior management, and RNLI have participated at our
Prevention Seminar for local Agency staff. Recently, at a local
level in Wales and Cornwall, Coastguards and lifeboat crews have
combined to form area prevention groups.
Both the Agency and RNLI have contributed to
the design, structure and formation of the new National Water
Safety Forum, designed to advance water safety knowledge, share
ideas and to develop and coordinate strategies throughout the
UK.
We work alongside the RNLI in support of our
Sea Smart initiative, a beach safety campaign to promote safety
at the seaside and when boating, and mayday, an interactive educational
resource for children aged 9-12 years which teachers can integrate
into the National Curriculum. Both these initiatives are designed
to spread safety messages with young people and in schools. We
are also involved with the SMARTRISK charitable organisation in
their work to engender a "have fun, but be safe" message
for older teenagers.
March 2005
| 
