THE report of the committee set up to review the Marine Search and Rescue Organisation of the United Kingdom has now been published. Its publication was reported briefly in certain newspapers, but had little editorial comment.

The committee, which is under the chairmanship of the Board of Trade, included representations from a number of Government departments, the R.N.L.I, and certain bodies concerned with shipping. Its terms of reference were: 'To review the Marine Search and Rescue Organisation in the United Kingdom, and to make recommendations for any improvements considered to be necessary. To examine the liaison with search and rescue organisations in other countries, and if necessary to make recommendations concerning representations that might be made to these other countries.' In general the committee came to the conclusion that the existing organisation was satisfactory. In its report it stated: 'We considered that the United Kingdom arrangements for marine search and rescue work extremely well, and we have not recommended any drastic changes.' It added: 'We do not think that there is a need to set up in this country any nationalmarine rescue organisation on the lines of the United States Coast Guard to bring together all aspects of marine search and rescue.' With particular reference to the R.N.L.I. and H.M. Coastguard, it stated: 'The Coastguard have no authority in the placing or composition of R.N.L.I.

vessels and can only request, not demand, the assistance of these vessels. We carefully considered how this affects the efficiency of S.A.R. operations.

Whatever may be the theoretical objections to divided command we found that there are none in practice. The R.N.L.I. is an organisation wholly dedi- cated to the single purpose of saving the lives of those who are in danger from any cause on or near the coasts. It seldom refuses a Coastguard request to launch and in the main relies on the Coastguard as its primary com- munication link and for most of its operational information. But the final decision whether a life-boat should launch rests with the local life-boat authority. Within this formal framework the two services work in the closest collaboration, and we can see no virtue in merging them. We stress the need for this collaboration, both in operations and planning, to continue.' THE CONCLUSION The conclusion reached by the committee on the question of whether there should be any form of control over small craft was: 'We hope that the voluntary efforts being made towards improving the safety of small craft at sea and the consideration being given to their equipment by the Board of Trade working group will produce results, and we make no recommendation for further measures of this nature. Nevertheless we recom-mend that the Government make a full study of the arguments for and against the various mandatory proposals mentioned in paragraph 109 so that if the casualty figures for small craft, which should be kept under close review, continue to increase, compulsory controls can be reconsidered.' Other recommendations of some interest to the R.N.L.I. were: (i) 'We would estimate that at least £4 million is spent every year on civil marine search and rescue. Additionally ships incur financial losses as a result of taking part in search and rescue operations. There may be a case for passing some of the burden from the taxpayer to those who benefit more directly from the S.A.R. services. . . .

(ii) 'We consider that the dependence of the United Kingdom Search and Rescue Organisation on military helicopters, without the civil authorities having any control over their location or operation, is unsatisfactory if adequate national coverage is to be given for civil marine search and rescue. We therefore recommend that the Government should examine the possibility of making civil funds available for the operation of S.A.R.

helicopters where there is inadequate coverage by military aircraft deployed for military S.A.R. purposes.

(iii) 'It appears to us ... that the use of shore-based radar to assist search and rescue might be worthwhile. So far there is little practical experience in such use of radar, but experiments are at present being conducted by H.M. Coastguard. We recommend that the experiments be pursued and that, if the results prove satisfactory, the Board of Trade should examine the possibility of installing radar equipment at appropriate Coastguard stations.

(iv) 'As pleasure boating continues to increase the R.N.L.I. and the Coast-guard will have to keep the S.A.R. facilities in local yachting areas con- stantly under review.

(v) 'The existence of the emergency 999 telephone system to contact H.M.

Coastguard is still not sufficiently known, and more publicity should be given to the Coastguard service.'.