Appendix
Introduction
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) provides
one of the best and most efficient search and rescue organisations
in the world and its staff is among the finest and the most professional.
They work hard to promote safety and respond promptly when things
go wrong.
The Government welcomes the Transport Committee's
continued interest in maintaining the high standards of efficacy
and operational capability of the UK Search and Rescue (SAR) services.
These services are kept under continual review, to ensure that
they maintain their effectiveness and continue to meet the demands
placed upon them. There are a number of challenges currently
facing UK search and rescue organisations, including changes in
employment legislation, in public demands on UK SAR services and
in societial trends which may affect the volunteers on whom many
SAR organisations depend. The Committee's report provides an opportunity
to highlight some of the work already being carried out in this
field and to explain what the Government is doing to safeguard
these services for the future.
Conclusion and Recommendation 1
We pay tribute to all those who work in Search
and Rescue. They often take much greater risks than most of the
rest of us, and they do so to save lives and help people in distress.
We admire their dedication and commitment. (Paragraph 1)
The Government is in full agreement with the Transport
Committee. We are proud of the UK Search and Rescue personnel
and of the courageous and frequently difficult jobs they undertake
without hesitation and often at risk to their own lives. Many
in the UK owe their lives to the wholehearted commitment, expertise
and skills of these men and women.
Conclusion and Recommendation 2
As Chairman of the UK SAR Strategic Committee,
the Department for Transport should review the frequency of meetings
of that committee. We agree that there is no point to unnecessary
meetings, but the RNLI and MCA suggest the committee could meet
more often. We hope that the issues raised in this report will
provide some suitable subject matter for discussion at those meetings.
(Paragraph 10)
The frequency of meetings for the UK SAR Strategic
Committee is kept under review - meetings are held as need dictates.
Last year, the Committee met only once. However, there are
currently a number of challenges facing SAR organisations (eg
recruitment and retention of volunteers) that would benefit from
discussion at a more strategic level and, consequently, the frequency
of meetings has been increased. The UK SAR Operators group, whose
members are SAR practitioners from key SAR organisations (people
who are actually "doing the job"), meet more frequently.
This group is the main forum for sharing best practice and resolving
practical issues affecting all aspects of UK SAR capability, and
constantly reviews and revises operational procedures for use
by SAR practitioners.
Conclusion and Recommendation 3
We are grateful for the Minister's indication
that the ODPM will be represented on the UK SAR Strategic Committee
in the future, and suggest that it should also be represented
on the Operators Group. (Paragraph 13)
All of the ODPM's interests are now represented on
the Strategic Committee. ODPM is already represented on the Operators
Group, because of its responsibilities for the Fire Service.
Conclusion and Recommendation 4
The Government and the SAR Strategic Committee
need to be able to forecast future demand for SAR services in
order to assess the ability of SAR services to meet it. The MCA
has commissioned useful research about accident levels around
the coast, but more work is required inland. Data collection does
not need to be particularly onerous, but the Strategic Committee
must determine whether research should be commissioned or further
information be collected by inland operators to better forecast
demand for inland SAR. (Paragraph 18)
This is an important area of research that has already
started to be addressed by a consortium of agencies as part of
the Water Safety Forum's work. With Department for Transport funding,
the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) is setting up the
Inland Water Related Emergency Monitoring database (INREM) database,
to collect and collate data on inland water incidents. This work,
which has been running for 18 months, now has almost 2,000 entries.
RNLI, RoSPA and the other contributors are now working to widen
the group of contributors and to ensure that the information being
received is properly standardised. It is still too early to identify
trends and implications for levels of SAR services, although it
is hoped that this will be possible in the future.
Conclusion and Recommendation 5
We are grateful for Mr Hope's indication that
the ODPM will consider further the problems caused when local
authorities leave the RNLI in the lurch after it has been providing
beach life guarding services. It would be useful for an ODPM Minister
to meet representatives of local authorities and the RNLI to get
to the bottom of the issue. Longer service level agreements between
coastal local authorities and the RNLI might provide greater stability
for the RNLI. (Paragraph 21)
As the Committee recognises, the provision of beach
life guarding is at the discretion of local authorities. In the
autumn, an ODPM minister will invite representatives of the local
authorities and the RNLI to a meeting to give them an opportunity
to discuss with each other issues of concern.
Conclusion and Recommendation 6
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister demonstrated
the seriousness with which it takes the recruitment and retention
challenges facing the retained duty system of the fire and rescue
service by establishing the Retained Review Team, which has just
produced a comprehensive report. The MCA is currently conducting
an internal review of the Auxiliary Coastguard Service which should
address recruitment and retention. The UK SAR Organisation should
draw on the ODPM and MCA reviews, supplementing them as necessary,
to identify the recruitment and retention challenges facing all
the statutory and voluntary sector Search and Rescue bodies which
rely on volunteers. This review must make concrete proposals to
ensure that SAR capacity is not diminished as a result of recruitment
and retention difficulties. (Paragraph 34)
The Government recognises the immense contribution
made to UK SAR by volunteers, both within maritime and inland
operations. We also recognise the challenges that reliance on
volunteers will increasingly pose. The UK SAR Strategic Committee
will set up a group which will build on the work already done
by ODPM and the MCA, by reviewing the possible implications for
future SAR capability. It will report to the Strategic Committee
with its recommendations.
Conclusion and Recommendation 7
The SAR Operators Group should examine whether
further co-operation between voluntary and statutory SAR organisations,
such as the police, could help assemble voluntary teams more quickly
in areas where this is a problem. (Paragraph 38)
The UK SAR Operators group has considered the Committee's
suggestion at their last meeting, drawing particularly on the
experience of the voluntary organisation representatives to highlight
current difficulties and identify potential solutions. Following
on from the Home Office work on the year of the volunteer, UKSAR
Strategic Committee is to establish a volunteer working group
at which suggestions for improvements will be one of the items
discussed along with other potential improvements for volunteer
teams.
Conclusion and Recommendation 8
We agree with the Retained Review Team that further
work is needed on financial and tax incentives for employers who
release their employees for emergency call-outs. A better way
also needs to be found to compensate self-employed volunteers.
The Government must propose new incentives which reward employers
whose employees take time off work to provide SAR services, whether
in the voluntary or statutory sectors. Different treatment for
these particular volunteers is justified because of the combination
of their pivotal role in the UK's emergency and SAR services and
the unpredictability of call-outs. As a starting point, we suggest
that for all such volunteers, the tax incentive offered to employers
under Corporate Challenge should be extended to allow employers
to deduct for tax purposes a much higher proportion of the costs
related to their employment, not just the proportion which relates
to the period for which they are called-out. (Paragraph 43)
The Government believes the current system works
well and is simple for employers to operate. Employers are already
able to claim relief for any employment costs, including salary,
incurred where an employee is seconded or does voluntary work
for a charity. Changes would make the relief significantly more
complex and might act as a disincentive to employers to release
staff for voluntary activities. We therefore do not consider
that the extension of this relief would be an appropriate way
to provide further support.
Conclusion and Recommendation 9
The Government should make funding available to
mountain rescue and lowland search teams via the SAR Operators
Group, rather than allowing individual police authorities and
forces to choose whether to support these services. This will
help to ensure consistent availability of inland SAR services
throughout the UK. (Paragraph 51)
The Government shares the Committee's desire for
a consistent level of provision of inland SAR across the UK. We
are aware that the Scottish Executive has provided funding to
support Scottish Mountain rescue teams and welcome this as a move
to meet demand for Mountain Rescue services in Scotland. However,
responsibility for coordinating local inland SAR operations in
England and Wales lies with local police authorities, who should
have the flexibility to allocate resources to meet local needs.
We have not as yet received significant representations
from some of the more mountainous police authorities in England
& Wales for additional funding for SAR activity. Where there
have been representations from individual police authorities we
have on a number of occasions provided occasional support to these
authorities to meet costs related to the provision of inland search
and rescue. It should also be noted that under current Home Office
funding mountainous police authorities are eligible for extra
funding via the Rural Policing Fund in recognition of their more
widespread populations.
We will continue to remain open to requests from
police authorities and will consider these on an individual basis.
We wish to continue providing Chief Constables with the ability
to allocate resources in response to local needs, but should we
receive significant representations from large numbers of police
authorities we will look at this issue again.
Conclusion and Recommendation 10
We welcome the foresight which the RNLI is showing
by planning ahead to manage changes to its income. Its ability
to plan in this way is probably a function of its size, history
and capacity. Not all the SAR voluntary organisations are as large
as the RNLI, yet shortfalls in their financing would have a direct
impact on SAR services. The SAR Strategic Committee and Operators
Group should encourage voluntary sector SAR operators to build
financial reserves which assure their future operations. Such
support could include the sharing of good practice, courses and
professional advice for treasurers, and seed funding for those
reserves. (Paragraph 52)
The Government shares the Transport Committee's concern
that the voluntary groups involved in UK SAR are able to contribute
fully without concern for their financial future. The volunteer
issues group being set up in the UK SAR organisation will examine
the problems being faced by such groups to suggest beneficial
and practical forms of support which will help them to meet future
financial demands.
Conclusion and Recommendation 11
Encouraging tax-efficient donations is insufficient
on its own to help SAR voluntary organisations make the most of
the money they receive; the RNLI receives most of its income from
legacies, which are already tax-efficient. The Government must
reconsider whether voluntary SAR organisations should be relieved
of the burden of their VAT payments in some way. We suggest that
they should; the service they provide could not be foregone because
of the UK's international obligations; it would have to be financed
by the state if it was not funded by donations. It is not surprising
that SAR voluntary organisations feel under-valued by Government:
they provide essential services cheaply, but a significant proportion
of their fundraising effort services the Exchequer. If there is
a legal problem which prevents the recovery of VAT, the voluntary
organisations could receive an annual grant to off-set their VAT
payments over the previous year; the precise method is less important
than the effect. (Paragraph 59)
The Government has made clear that we will work with
charities to improve the VAT system where possible, but, for the
reasons given to the Select Committee and quoted in its report,
we do not agree that a funding scheme for charities based on irrecoverable
VAT is a practical or affordable way of targeting the Government
support available for charities.
Conclusion and Recommendation 12
Official mountain rescue and lowland search vehicles
operated by trained drivers should be able to use blue lights
and sirens to reach incidents in the same way as RAF mountain
rescue teams. The Government should lay amending Regulations to
correct this anomaly. (Paragraph 61)
The use of blue lights by emergency vehicles is governed
by a number of different pieces of traffic law (eg legislation
governing such things as the ability to exceed speed limits, or
pass through red lights at junctions or pedestrian crossings).
The Government will consider whether it is safe and practical
to remove the Mountain Rescue "anomaly" identified by
the Committee.
Conclusion and Recommendation 13
The Government and the SAR Operators Group should
examine whether the prospect of volunteers taking cases against
voluntary SAR organisations in Employment Tribunals is a significant
drain on resources. If it is, the Government should consider what
legislative changes might be required. Larger voluntary organisations
such as the RNLI might also consider the use of external arbitrators
as part of their grievance procedures. (Paragraph 63)
The Government considers that this issue is one that
the group being set up in UK SAR to examine volunteer issues could
examine initially. However, this is something that potentially
has far-reaching implications, not just for SAR organisations,
and we will need to consider this in the light of wider government
policy on volunteers.
Conclusion and Recommendation 14
The obvious incompatibility of the evidence from
the Public and Commercial Services union and the Maritime and
Coastguard Agency has undermined our confidence in both organisations.
As part of the Government response to this report, we would like
to receive detailed position statements on each of the following
issues: (a) staffing levels in Coastguard operations rooms; (b)
skills of watch staff; (c) "pairing" of co-ordination
centres and any planned closures; and (d) the reliability of the
VISION IT system. We would like these position statements to be
agreed jointly by the MCA and PCS wherever possible, and urge
both parties to seek consensus. If agreement proves impossible,
we invite PCS to submit its own observations to supplement the
Government response. These should be supported by clear, hard
evidence. (Paragraph 68)
The MCA and PCS have been able to reach agreement
on many of the issues raised by the Committee and that joint statement
is attached at Annex A. However the MCA was unable to reach agreement
with the PCS about the future status of Coastguard stations. Throughout
the negotiations on the statement, the PCS maintained their wish
to set an absolute precondition to any discussions about modernising
and restructuring the Coastguard Service that there will be no
station closures. The MCA could not agree to this precondition.
The PCS will, therefore, be making a separate submission in this
regard.
Conclusion and Recommendation 15
The National Coastwatch Institution provides a
helpful service, even if the MCA does not view it as essential.
The NCI and the Agency should patch up any differences in their
relationship and continue to work together to ensure safety around
the coast. We understand the MCA has good reason for refusing
the NCI access to some of its former coastguard stations, but
believe it should review quickly the decisions which have been
made to establish whether further access can be permitted. The
NCI should not need to plead with the Department or the MCA Chief
Executive in order to secure access; these matters should be resolved
with less pain. (Paragraph 73)
The Agency is committed to maintaining a positive
and mutually beneficial working relationship with the NCI. Senior
managers in the MCA have met representatives of the NCI and have
agreed practical solutions to allow greater access to parts of
the MCA estate, for example at Hengistbury Head.
| 
