The RNLI - what’s going on?

[Graham W]

This is going to be controversial.

My late father, who was in shipping, was a great supporter of the RNLI.  We even sang "For those in peril on the sea" at his funeral.  I followed in his footsteps for some 45 years after he died and regularly donated to the charity.

However, as I learned more about the third sector from my association with entirely unrelated African-based charities, I began to have my doubts.  I still have huge admiration for the brave and skilled volunteers (95% of the workforce) who man the lifeboats, save lives and rescue people who sometimes ought to know better.  But I have doubts about the decision-making skills of some of the higher-ups.  Do they have too much money to spend?  And in what appear to be increasingly frequent clashes with their volunteer crews, are very well paid land-based bureaucrats destroying the RNLI's ethos?

On the first point about the money, did you know that in the unlikely event that all contributions to the RNLI ceased tomorrow, it could survive on its cash and investment reserves for at least two years*?  Or that its Chief Executive is paid the same as the Prime Minister** and nine of its executives are paid more than £100k?  You sometimes get the impression that it has so much spare cash that it also spends unwisely on capital items - the HQ and staff college/hotel in Poole being debatable examples. 

Then there are the sometimes vicious HQ clashes with volunteer crews.  St Helier, Arbroath, Whitby and most recently Calshot have all made the news.  And there are the diversions of funds into small but strange projects in the tropics.  Even if some of the press coverage is unfair, it leaves a bad impression.

The RNLI is by no means the worst offender in the charity sector.  There are several well-known bodies that are much more profligate, with ego-driven CEO's on completely bonkers remuneration packages.  It's just very disappointing that in all conscience I can't continue to support a charity that seems to be in need of reform.

* Based on the most recent published accounts (2020).
** No cheap shots please!

[Sea Simon]

Controversial - yes!

Have to say that my personal experience and observation means that I agree GW...maybe more on that later

Nowadays, in this context, I tend to donate to National Coastwatch Institution, as they too provide an excellent maritime-orientated service and don't seem to be plagued by "woke" PC nonsense and top heavy management excesses.

Meanwhile there is another very divisive issue wrt RNLI, at least hereabouts...the "Rescue" of "Economic Migrants" or "Refugees" (choose your preference) who have deliberately put (or maybe perhaps have been "forced"?) to sea from a safe place, in overloaded and unsuitable craft, apparently with the prior expectation of being "rescued".

Having been party to the rescue of Vietnamese "Boat people" in the S China sea many years ago, imo, the situation in the E Channel is not even remotely comparable.

[boomerangben]

This long been a dilemma for me.

First of all, I have huge respect and admiration for the work done by the crews, land support crews and the army of fund raisers. It long has been a well funded organisation and I guess that managing such resources demands expensive talent. If they are competing with the commercial or indeed public sector for talent they need to offer attractive renumeration packages.

I wonder at the press reports a various falling outs between stations and HQ as well as within stations. Are we hearing the whole story?  I have seen some of the Saving Lives at Sea series on telly and am on occasion flabbergasted at the risks being taken (a view mirrored on one occasion by a crew member I know). I suspect the risks being taken by crews are hard for the corporate element of the RNLI to swallow. How that is managed is critical and I wouldn't be surprised if that might be some of the underlying issues?

I'm sure the RNLI isn't alone in this as I gather many of the air ambulances are well funded too. I wonder how much their execs get paid

[Graham W]

The air ambulance charities are split into numerous regions, counties and even types of patient (some are only for children).  There is probably significant opportunity to eliminate service overlaps but I doubt that it will happen unless some of the services run out of money and are forced to merge by the Charity Commission.

The Air Ambulance Charity Kent Surrey Sussex (2021 income £17.4m, expenditure £15.2m) has two leased helicopters and four rapid response land vehicles.  It flew just over 1,700 air missions in 2021, quite a few passing over my house.  Using very crude maths this means that each flight cost it about £8,000. 

Despite operating with an annual surplus for several years, it seems to have managed to avoid some of the worst excesses of the charity sector.  It had two executives in the £60-70k pay bracket in 2021, down from four in 2020, although this may have been partly because of unfilled vacancies.  By contrast Yorkshire Air Ambulance, which is less than half its size, had two executives in the £90-100k pay band in 2021 and five in the £80-90k band. 

However, the Kent Surrey Sussex annual report has become very much glossier and has nearly doubled in length in the past two years, which I think is a bad sign, like having fountains in the forecourt.  Yorkshire's report is spartan - it has fewer than half the number of pages, is monochrome and contains absolutely no photos.

When I see a particularly manipulative and expensive advert for a charity on TV, i look up its reserves and remuneration numbers on the Charity Commission website, which nearly always confirms my worst prejudices.  It's easy to do - see https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk.  Some of the highest impact charities are smaller, make less noise and have senior staff that work for the cause, not for the money.  Unfortunately, the large and more scandal-prone charities bring the whole sector into disrepute.

[Jonathan Stuart]

Within reason, I don't think we should get hung-up on charities' execs' pay. Comparisons with the PM's salary are, I suppose, meant to imply an excessive amount - how can a charity's CEO be paid more than the leader of the country? However, (according to Google) the PM's salary is £160k. The RNLI has an income just shy of £200m p/a, assets apporaching £1bn and more than 35,000 staff (incl. volunteers). Much smaller organisations than the RNLI in the private sector pay more than the PM's salary for their leadership teams.

I'm not saying the RNLI's execs do (or don't) represent good value for money (for me, VFM is the measure, not simply cost), but I do expect them to be capable and there's a far greater risk of employing under-skilled people if an organisation doesn't pay enough. Pay peanuts, employee monkeys? Of course, that's not to say a market salary guarantees competant employees!

Having looked at a few charities' CEO's salaries, some are startlingly high, but for most, given what is required of a successful CEO, I think these salaries are often good value. I am sure many people, if they had the capability to run some of these charities successfully, would choose to take a much higher salary with a commercial organisation.

I also don't understand the relevance of immigrants making boat crossings as a factor in judging the RNLI. The RNLI doesn't - and shouldn't - judge as to why peoples' lives are at risk, they just rescue them. That may be an immigrant in the channel (and a majority of them are later found to be genuine assylum seekers, not illegal) or, say, a thief that's jumped in the Thames to evade capture. We would be a pitiful country if our resuce service made subjective value judgements and didn't rescue people that didn't fit certain criteria. Ironically, the media would probably slaughter the RNLI if it did nothing and people died, and rightly so.

Some elements of the media love to bash some charities, e.g. RNLI and National Trust. No doubt some is justified, but much isn't. I have worked with a large charity and could level many criticisms at it, however most would stem from employing people with a lack of commercial awareness and/or experience. But the people I have worked with act in the best interests of the charity and its supporters; criticisms directed at them are often twisted to make a good media story and/or based on misrepresented information.

[boomerangben]

Thank you for info Graham.

Interesting about the differences between the Kent and Sussex vs the Yorkshire AA. I know the Yorkshire AA employ their own crews and engineers and either own or lease their aircraft direct from a specialist lessor.  I think the K&S contract out the supply of aircraft and crews from Bond or SAS so wonder how that might affect the financial and personnel construct of the those charities. Either way the RNLI are in a different league but I suppose like any charity they need to be exemplary in the way they conduct business