Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
DR ANTHONY
S G JONES MBE, MS
PENELOPE BROCKMAN,
MR ADRIAN
EDWARDS, MS
MARGARET BENNETT
AND MR
ROBERT BRADLEY
9 FEBRUARY 2005
Q40 Chairman: Is it clear to all the
agencies that the Department for Transport has overall responsibility
for search and rescue?
Dr Jones: At the risk of offending,
may I point out that the Department for Transport has responsibility
for civil aviation and maritime search and rescue, not land search
and rescue and that is indeed one of the joys of the new committee,
because it is bringing together the three sides. However, there
is confusion at times with both, may I dare say, the Home Office
and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Q41 Chairman: Well of course the large
number and the diversity of the organisations that are involved
must affect day to day operations, must it not?
Dr Jones: No, Madam Chairman,
not operations. Ever since we were established our job has been
to go out, solve a problem and provide the search and rescue.
The problems come at a higher level, if we are trying to co-operate.
That has improved so markedly that I would support my colleague,
Mr Riddet, in what he said about the Operators' Group and the
Strategic Group.
Q42 Mrs Ellman: Are you satisfied with
the overall UK system for search and rescue? Do you think it is
a good system?
Dr Jones: "Satisfied"
is a strong word. Content at the moment, but it is developing
and it is changing and I think that our job is to control the
change for the benefit of all concerned, not change for change's
sake.
Q43 Mrs Ellman: What sort of changes
would you like to see?
Dr Jones: We already have the
support of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency for land rescue
with the development of our new radio system. They have been instrumental
in that and have made a huge difference.
Q44 Chairman: Did they recommend the
same system as their own?
Dr Jones: No, the system is specifically
for land search and rescue, but we have built in and are building
in links, so that each side is operationally independent but has
continuing contact to ensure that we are working together.
Q45 Mrs Ellman: And are there any other
changes that you can think of?
Dr Jones: One change we are just
starting is to look at an aspect that was mentioned, training
and particularly training for immediate and emergency care. That
is a new group that we are looking at, developing convergence
and academic, shall we say, equivalence of qualifications and
training right across the board for all SAR forces. That is a
long-term project which we are just talking about, again supported
by the Operators' Group and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
Q46 Mrs Ellman: Is there a need for more
research to make this whole system work more effectively?
Dr Jones: I do not believe so.
I think we provide a very strong operation and therefore quality
of service. Research tends to be a long-term process to get the
validity of results. It is an easy word to use, but a very difficult
thing to carry out, but we are developing, the co-operation is
continuing, in fact getting better, and we meet regularly and
talk.
Q47 Mrs Ellman: Mr Bradley, the evidence
you submitted talks about "vulnerables", people you
describe as "vulnerables" and problems there. Is there
anything you could draw from that which would change policy?
Mr Bradley: In terms of the policy,
it tends to be within the British ethos, as was said earlier,
that there is not a joined-up approach at operational level. We
work together, as we would in any major incident, using the principles
of integrated emergency management. It is up to the SAR Operators'
Group and they have, with the restructuring, brought in land search
and rescue and it is that body which is giving the long-term strategic
viewpoint for all search and rescue to provide that joined-up
service. At an operational level, obviously the nature of a vulnerable
missing person search is very different to a maritime search,
or indeed a mountain rescue incident.
Q48 Mrs Ellman: Is enough information
available under the current system to identify whether a person
missing is in fact vulnerable and might need a different approach?
Mr Bradley: The latest research
was done by the Home Office, by Charlie Hedges, which identified
a system of grading, of low, medium and high risk in terms of
the vulnerability and gave a matrix that could be used by police
officers to gauge the vulnerability of a missing person. That
system has been published for a number of years now. The training
of police officers to use that system is obviously an ongoing
process.
Q49 Chairman: I am sorry, can we identify
Charlie Hedges? We do not seem to have heard of him.
Mr Bradley: The police officer
with Thames Valley Police who carried out a research project with
funding from the Home Office.
Q50 Chairman: Where is that published?
Mr Bradley: It is published by
the Home Office Policing Research Group.
Dr Jones: You asked whether papers
were available. I have to say to you, in terms of search, all
kinds of search, maritime, land, vulnerable persons, that there
are well over 100 references easily available and I have them
myself. There is a lot of information available and it continues
to come out each year.
Q51 Mrs Ellman: What about the role of
voluntary organisations? Are they a help or a hindrance?
Dr Jones: We are all voluntary,
the whole line along this table and therefore we must be biased.
Q52 Mrs Ellman: So you are all a help.
Dr Jones: I would argue with you
that by tradition and formation the voluntary mountain rescue
and lowland search and rescue provide a quality of service that
you could not afford to buy with a professional service, both
in terms of availability, frequency of incidents and keenness
and willingness to work. We feel that we provide as good a service
as you will find anywhere in the world, but I would never claim
to be the best in the world.
Q53 Mrs Ellman: Mr Edwards, were you
trying to come in there?
Mr Edwards: No, I just concur
with what Dr Jones said.
Q54 Mrs Ellman: Do you feel that government
appreciates the work you do?
Dr Jones: No.
Q55 Mrs Ellman: Are there any changes?
Ms Bennett: I personally, and
I think ALSAR staff, feel that we would feel a bit more appreciated
if we were given some of the VAT benefits which are available
to other types of charities and are not available to us. Even
in regard to search and rescue I know that sea rescue charities
have a far greater range of products which they buy which are
VAT exempt, or zero rated.
Q56 Chairman: Can you give us a list?
What are you saying in effect? A lot of the equipment you need?
Do you want to give us a list?
Ms Brockman: May I just come in
here? I have done research on VAT and VAT needs a 100-per-cent-for-business
purpose. A difficulty we have as a charity is, for example, that
we cannot get VAT relief on our waterproofs. That is the difficult
position we are in. Because of the VAT law it is extremely difficult,
unlike other tax, to get relief on a lot of equipment we buy.
Q57 Chairman: Is that because the size
of your budgets normally in a voluntary organisation would not
make you big enough to transfer the tax? Is it a technicality
or is it a matter of policy?
Ms Brockman: Two points. It is
a technicality because of the type and nature of the organisation
registering for VAT and sales, but also policy, because the law
of VAT is very specific, that you cannot claim if there is any
element of personal usage on some of the equipment. That is an
argument we have had with VAT office in many instances.
Q58 Mrs Ellman: Are there any other areas
where a change in government policy could help you?
Dr Jones: May I suggest that indeed,
with respect to the Chancellor, some amelioration of tax against
charitable donations or work is a system used in many countries
which would help encourage volunteers, but there is no such system
that I am aware of in this country.
Q59 Chairman: Anyone else want to come
in on that?
Mr Bradley: The last speaker,
Mr Riddet, identified the valuable nature of volunteers and the
problems in terms of risk assessment. Guidance into how volunteer
emergency services can balance that risk would obviously be very
beneficial to us. We have the same problem as professional organisations
in that sometimes we are considered to be employers of volunteers,
and obviously the nature of that and the potential for prosecution
is a danger.
| 
