Has the RNLI lost the plot?

[Sybarite]

Don't SNSM lumber those rescued with a huge bill?

An alternative model is the Swedish subscription service, which explicitly includes a towing service as well as rescue.

On the other hand, the RNLI seem to be getting by.

There is no charge for rescuing people; there is a charge for towing the boat. Up until now this has been based purely on cost. However, it may well rise in the future because commercial towing firms are attacking the SNSM on the basis of unfair competition ie they are too cheap.

As far as the owner is concerned, in France at least, the towing charge would be recoverable from insurance.

I understand that the RNLI do not charge for towing but then they have received the money in advance..... as witnessed by the importance of their reserves.

 

[dogleg]

Unfortunately that is the link to the 2015 accounts. I don't think they have issued the 2016 accounts yet - unless I have missed it somewhere.

https://rnli.org/about-us/how-the-rnli-is-run/rnli-annual-general-meeting


click on link second appears for draft report and accounts

 

[Angele]

Unlike you I have looked in detail at the two organizations, RNLI and SNSM, over the last ten years.

Yawn!

Sybarite, you are of course entitled to raise this time and time again. But I would like to remind you that the RNLI receives not a penny of public funding. It all comes from donations.

Of course old folk, who may have never have anything to do with the sea and yet leave their life's savings to the RNLI, might want to know that their money has been spent wisely. You appear to think the RNLI squanders it - certainly that is the implication from your posts and the comparison to the SNSM. But yet even you surely cannot claim to be that definitive.

You comment how much has been spent by the RNLI on lifeboats; sometimes it is wastefully large according to you - e.g. the costs of developing the Shannon - now it is too little (e.g. less than 10% of income). Elsewhere you have criticised them for spending too much on lifeboat stations, yet you fail to include the sum spent on those facilities in your calculation of money spent on worthwhile things. Surely a boat house is equally important if you need to keep your valuable asset (the lifeboat) protected from the elements.

I notice from the 2015 accounts that the restricted funds includes £6m for the Jersey lifeboat station, raised from "various donors". As I have pointed out to you in the past, many of the SNSM lifeboats along the adjacent French coast don't have the luxury of a boat house. They just tie them up in a marina. Sadly, however, where those marinas are tidal (take Carteret for example) this means the lifeboat cannot go to a shout when the tide is out.

The RNLI and the SNSM are different organisations. Different priorities. Different business models (e.g. your point about the way the costs of towing are recovered). Different operating environments (e.g. the UK does not have a Med coast). Any comparison is of interest academically. But none of it is conclusive.

Personally I am glad they both exist. And I'm happy about the form in which they do.

 

[lpdsn]

Sadly, however, where those marinas are tidal (take Carteret for example) this means the lifeboat cannot go to a shout when the tide is out.

The RNLI kindly dredged Portpatrick entrance so their lifeboat could get out at all states of tide, to the benefit of everyone else who uses the harbour.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Don't SNSM lumber those rescued with a huge bill?.

Good question? Google turns up this http://stationsnsm-dunkerque.org/do...ntervention d'assistance Version anglaise.pdf so it looks as if, yes, in my case it would cost me between €150 and €345 per hour to have a SNSM lifeboat assist me.

A couple of questions, which I hope Sybarite might be able to answer...

(1) Did you include income from payment of expense in this way in your calculation of the relative cost of SNSM and RNLI services? If so, what proportion of SNSM income came from user payments?

(2) Am I right in interpreting the charge sheet to mean that they don't charge for saving life, only for rescuing property? If so, does that mean that there would be no charge for rescuing the crew of a sunken yacht?

 

[JumbleDuck]

Sybarite, you are of course entitled to raise this time and time again. But I would like to remind you that the RNLI receives not a penny of public funding. It all comes from donations.

And payments from local authorities for beach lifeguarding services, which are not free. And VAT relief. And rates exemption.

 

[Angele]

And payments from local authorities for beach lifeguarding services, which are not free. And VAT relief. And rates exemption.

Fair point, JD, re the lifeguards. I do tend to forget about that when thinking about the RNLI.

As far as VAT is concerned, the RNLI is a charity. So it gets the same VAT benefit that all other charities get and, unlike some, it is demonstrably providing a charitable purpose. So, if successive Governments continue to believe that VAT relief is necessary to perpetuate the charitable sector then "fair game", I say.

Dunno about rates.

 

[Sybarite]

Good question? Google turns up this http://stationsnsm-dunkerque.org/do...ntervention d'assistance Version anglaise.pdf so it looks as if, yes, in my case it would cost me between €150 and €345 per hour to have a SNSM lifeboat assist me.

A couple of questions, which I hope Sybarite might be able to answer...

(1) Did you include income from payment of expense in this way in your calculation of the relative cost of SNSM and RNLI services? If so, what proportion of SNSM income came from user payments?.

I don't think they analyse their income in this way but I will see if I can get more info. The billed charges though I am sure will be included. Incidentally I remember reading a report from a local lifeboat station who commented upon the fact that it was an unreliable source of income (when there was a move to increase the amounts) because of the number of unpaid invoices they had from British boats.....

(2) Am I right in interpreting the charge sheet to mean that they don't charge for saving life, only for rescuing property? If so, does that mean that there would be no charge for rescuing the crew of a sunken yacht?

That's correct.

 

[Sybarite]

Just some quick observations on the accounts :

Total income is up from £186.1m to £194.9m.

Of this income, over 2/3 (66.9%) is due to legacies which increased from £118.5m to £130.5m.

However donations are down by £5m - £56.5m to £51.5m.

This shows that the viability of the RNLI is entirely dependent upon people remembering it in their wills.

Despite the fall in generosity of the public - hard times on the way? - staff numbers are considerably increased (FTEs) 1476 to 1608.

This for me is a major criticism of the RNLI management. 9% reduction in public donations : 9% increase in staff.

Of the sums raised £17.7m was spent on new boats (or £13.7 net after disposal of old boats) or 9% of revenues maintaining the general percentage that has existed over the last decade.

The year showed a deficit on results of £31.8m mainly because a major adjustment for future pension liabilities had to be made. This totalled £91.9m or 5 times the amount spent on boats.

Therefore global funds/reserves did not approach the £800m that I was expecting but fell from £745.3 to £712.6m.

 

[Sybarite]

I have just e-mailed copies of my posts 71 and 89 to the RNLI and have invited them to respond.

I told them that I would unreservedly apologise if I have made any factual errors in my comments.

 

[Angele]

I have just e-mailed copies of my posts 71 and 89 to the RNLI and have invited them to respond.

I told them that I would unreservedly apologise if I have made any factual errors in my comments.

I am sure you, of all people, Sybarite won't have made any factual errors. You may, however, be making some incorrect assumptions and/or failing to notice some important factors.

For example:

Despite the fall in generosity of the public - hard times on the way? - staff numbers are considerably increased (FTEs) 1476 to 1608.

This for me is a major criticism of the RNLI management. 9% reduction in public donations : 9% increase in staff.

Why do you assume there ought to be a direct linkage between the total number of staff and public donations? Not all of their staff are rattling tins. Actually, if you look at the breakdown of staff numbers in note 3 in greater detail, you will see that, in the growth in FTE from 1476 to 1608, the biggest increase is in "lifeboat service" - an increase in 62 FTE. That is almost half of the increase in staff numbers. By contrast, the number of people in "legacies and donations" increased by 19 FTE.

Now, I would be curious to know why the numbers employed in "lifeboat service" grew so much, as I'm sure they haven't expanded their operations by 25%, but I suspect this is a "good thing" and I'm prepared to take it on trust that the senior executives at RNLI have their reasons. Edit: on reading the notes, it appears that some of this is a reclassification of people as between "lifeboat service" and "lifeboats, property and equipment". But, either way, these are operational staff, not tin rattlers.

Whilst public donations did, as you correctly observe, fall by just under 9%, the (much bigger) value of legacies increased by over 10%. In aggregate, total legacies and donations increased by £7m. So it strikes me that those extra 19 FTEs did the institution a lot of good.

 

[rotrax]

Cam we leave it there please.

Please...................................

 

[Angele]

Cam we leave it there please.

Please...................................

Lol.

You know this is a recurrent issue here.

You shouldn't feel compelled to open the thread as you could probably guess what is being said.

 

[Sybarite]

I am sure you, of all people, Sybarite won't have made any factual errors. You may, however, be making some incorrect assumptions and/or failing to notice some important factors.

For example:



Why do you assume there ought to be a direct linkage between the total number of staff and public donations? Not all of their staff are rattling tins. Actually, if you look at the breakdown of staff numbers in note 3 in greater detail, you will see that, in the growth in FTE from 1476 to 1608, the biggest increase is in "lifeboat service" - an increase in 62 FTE. That is almost half of the increase in staff numbers. By contrast, the number of people in "legacies and donations" increased by 19 FTE.

Now, I would be curious to know why the numbers employed in "lifeboat service" grew so much, as I'm sure they haven't expanded their operations by 25%, but I suspect this is a "good thing" and I'm prepared to take it on trust that the senior executives at RNLI have their reasons. Edit: on reading the notes, it appears that some of this is a reclassification of people as between "lifeboat service" and "lifeboats, property and equipment". But, either way, these are operational staff, not tin rattlers.

.

If I were a cynic (perish the thought) the senior executives at RNLI may consider it more politically correct to show a maximum of personnel categorized in lifesaving.

 

[chanelyacht]

Despite the fall in generosity of the public - hard times on the way? - staff numbers are considerably increased (FTEs) 1476 to 1608.

This for me is a major criticism of the RNLI management. 9% reduction in public donations : 9% increase in staff.

This is because you don't understand how the RNLI works.

A significant number of FTE posts relate to the lifeguard service, which is not funded by donations - it is a cost recovering business unit paid for by the contracted services (to local authorities and beach owners) to him it provides a service.

So unrelated to donations.

 

[Sybarite]

This is because you don't understand how the RNLI works.

A significant number of FTE posts relate to the lifeguard service, which is not funded by donations - it is a cost recovering business unit paid for by the contracted services (to local authorities and beach owners) to him it provides a service.

So unrelated to donations.

As usual a little knowledge is dangerous.

The figures I quoted exclude lifeguards.

Next...??

 

[JumbleDuck]

I don't think they analyse their income in this way but I will see if I can get more info. The billed charges though I am sure will be included. Incidentally I remember reading a report from a local lifeboat station who commented upon the fact that it was an unreliable source of income (when there was a move to increase the amounts) because of the number of unpaid invoices they had from British boats.....

Many thanks. I don't think it shows any lack of appreciation for the efforts of RNLI crews to be interested in how similar organisations elsewhere operate.

That's correct.

Thanks. I understand that the USGC only ever save lives; if you need a tow you have to arrange a commercial one and if you don't and they think your abandoned boat is a hazard to navigation they'll sink it with gunfire. I wonder how they'd react to a call from a yachtie who had run out of diesel and didn't want to wait for a breeze.

 

[chanelyacht]

As usual a little knowledge is dangerous.

The figures I quoted exclude lifeguards.

Next...??

A little knowledge may indeed be dangerous, when you're comparing boats as you usually do, feel free to tell us of your experience on Tamars and Shannons.

I said the lifeguard service, not lifeguards. The lifeguards themselves are FTC posts, seasonal dependant upon the area worked. The service does however require full time infrastructure and support services, some of which is shared with the lifeboat service, in which case a cost centre cross charge is made.

There are other factors behind the FTE increase as well, including apprenticeships and unsourced manufacturing.

 

[JumbleDuck]

A little knowledge may indeed be dangerous, when you're comparing boats as you usually do, feel free to tell us of your experience on Tamars and Shannons.

It would be interesting to hear from someone who has spent significant time on both SNSM and RNLI boats. Are you in that happy position?

 

[dogleg]

It would be interesting to hear from someone who has spent significant time on both SNSM and RNLI boats. Are you in that happy position?

I have been on some \French boats albeit not the latest, in my opinion their level of equipment was below that of the Tamar, Shannon and Severn