Transparency data

Coastguard Rescue Service surveys - 2025 and 2026

Published 29 October 2026

This publication is intended to support transparency of research conducted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) to inform decisions on potential future operating models for the Coastguard Rescue Service (CRS).

Main points

On 14 January 2026, the Court of Appeal found against the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) in the case of the MCA vs Groom. This clarified that by providing modest remuneration, the MCA had inadvertently created a worker relationship with Coastguard Rescue Officers (CROs). MCA was therefore required to act to ensure that it complied with the judgment, either in an unremunerated volunteer model, or in a worker model that was compliant with employment rights as required under UK law.

As part of understanding the potential implications of a change in operating model, MCA undertook two surveys, and asked CROs to provide responses to a set of questions designed to understand how their availability may differ under alternative models to assess the potential operational impact.

On 1 June, it was communicated that the Coastguard Rescue Service would change to an expenses-only volunteer model from September 2026. On 16 July, the Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Decarbonisation confirmed that plans to move to the expenses-only volunteer model in September will not go ahead, and current arrangements will remain in place. Further engagement and scrutiny will take place to inform future decisions on the shape of the Coastguard Rescue Service.

The survey results summarised below formed part of a package of information used to inform decision making regarding the future operating model. The previous decision was taken based on a range of operational, financial and legal advice.

Findings – Survey 1

The first survey was open to all CROs from 16 September to 15 October 2025.

The response rate was 2,002 of 3,018 CROs at the time of the survey (66.3%).

CRS survey 1 responses	Availability under expenses only model	Availability if status changed from volunteer to worker
Continue at current availability	905 (45%)	1,600 (80%)
Continue with reduced availability	804 (40%)	271 (14%)
Unable to continue	293 (15%)	131 (7%)
Total	2,002	2,002

MCA then decided to conduct a second survey, principally due to two key reasons:

• The Court of Appeal’s ruling on the 14 January 2026, provided more information to the MCA and CROs about the legal status of the existing relationship.
• It was identified that further guidance could be provided to respondents on the details of potential revised volunteer and worker models and the potential implications.

As a result, Survey 2 was undertaken to specifically question availability under a worker model, whereas Survey 1 asked about impacts on availability if status was changed from volunteer to worker. More information was provided regarding the status change as it was understood that some CROs likely did not understand ramifications of status change such as impacts on main employment and implications under working time directive, for example, and Survey 2, added more response options to capture further information.

Findings – Survey 2

The second survey was open to all CROs from 17 February to 15 March 2026.

The response rate was 1,990 of 2,992 CROs at the time of the survey (66.5%). 

CRO survey 2 responses	Volunteer Model	Worker Model
Improve availability	5 (0%)	270 (14%)
Continue with current availability	1,008 (51%)	1,069 (54%)
Reduce availability	735 (37%)	326 (16%)
Unable to continue	149 (7%)	160 (8%)
Other	90 (5%)	159 (8%)
Total	1,987	1,984

Of those respondents selecting other they generally responded that more information would be needed before they could form a response against the reducing, increasing or maintaining availability options.

Survey background methodology

Survey format:

• This survey was distributed via CRS online, which is a webpage available to all serving CROs. CROs were informed of the survey via text message and a CRS online post.
• MCA used Microsoft Forms software for response collection.

The questions in Survey 1 posed to CROs regarding their availability under model and worker status change were as follows:

1. If HMCG changed from a remuneration model based on time to that of only out of pocket expenses (e.g. travel, food), how would this impact your ability to volunteer and respond?
2. If HMCG changed your status from volunteer to worker how would this impact your ability to remain in HMCG and respond?

These questions could be responded to with pre-determined responses:

• Continue at current availability;
• Continue with reduced availability;
• Unable to continue.

The questions in Survey 2 posed to CROs regarding their availability under each model were as follows:

1. If the CRS moved to a Volunteer Expense only model, how would that impact you personally in relation to your availability and response?
2. If the CRS moved to a Worker model, how would that impact you personally in relation to your availability and response?

These questions could be responded to with pre-determined responses:

• Improve availability;
• Continue with current availability;
• Reduce availability;
• Unable to continue; and
• Other which allowed respondents to provide a free text response.

Both surveys included other questions to CROs regarding their training specialisms, geographic location and other details which have not been included in this publication.

Data ethics

• CROs were provided with a Privacy Notice. The notice advised CROs that because the survey was collecting opinions, this was their personal data and informed them of their rights under Data Protection Legislations.
• CROs were advised that participation in the survey was voluntary.
• CROs were not required to provide their names, email addresses or volunteer numbers when completing the survey. However, CROs were informed that answers would be grouped together with other respondents in their team and location in order that MCA could understand the potential specific impacts on CRO availability.
• CROs were informed that the survey included free text boxes and were advised not to include personal information or information they were not content to be shared with relevant parties in those fields.
• Results were aggregated before reports were compiled to avoid identification of individuals and free text responses were reviewed by MCA’s Human Resources team before inclusion.
• Publication of free text answers or breakdown of responses by team or region would allow responses to be attributable to individuals and therefore will not be published.

Analysis and assurance

Questionnaire responses were collated by the MCA and summarised against the pre-set answers given to respondents. Where respondents did not select an answer, those responses have been excluded from the total counts against each question. Data cleaning was conducted to identify any duplicate entries and ensure there was no double counting.

Strengths and limitations

• These findings reflect stated intentions of respondents at the time of the surveys and cannot be interpreted as predictions of future behaviour.
• Not all CROs responded to the survey. While the response rate was 66.3% and 66.5% for Surveys 1 and 2 respectively. The responses may not be representative of all CROs. However, within the responses to the survey all CRS operational areas were represented providing a general consensus for the CRS. The response rate of CROs per area ranged from 30-100%.
• The surveys were conducted for operational planning purposes and were not designed as a measure of support for any particular operating model.
• The quality or honesty of responses may have been impacted by CROs being concerned that they would be identifiable from their answers, however, respondents were informed not to include personal information in their responses to mitigate this.
• As we did not record individual information, there is a risk that the surveys could have been responded to multiple times by one individual and could be completed by any individual with a link whether they were a serving CRO or not. This risk is assessed as low and balanced against the fact that recording any individual information may have discouraged survey participation.

Glossary

CRS: Coastguard Rescue Service

CRO: Coastguard Rescue Officer

MCA: Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Worker Model: A model for the CRS whereby CROs can claim remuneration for the time spent undertaking duties for the MCA.

Volunteer Model: A model for the CRS whereby CROs will only be entitled to expenses related to undertaking duties for the MCA.