PFD report

David John Haw · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Dec 2024•Dorset

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
8

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
8

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised8

  1. Lack of required pre-journey safety briefings on pleasure vessels
  2. Use of support boats as taxis for event-related social transport
  3. Lack of specific guidance on support-boat responsibilities at sailing events
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable safety arrangements for organised water-sports events
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.5

  1. Action

    Gather evidence with event Organising Authorities to establish support-boat safety trends and identify proportionate responses.

    Stated by Royal Yachting AssociationStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 December 2024.
  2. Action

    Encourage Organising Authorities to use safety management systems and implement event-specific measures to manage identified risks.

    Stated by Royal Yachting AssociationStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 27 December 2024.
  3. Action

    Continue reviewing the evidence base on alcohol limits for recreational mariners.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 27 December 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.9

  1. Position

    Additional regulation is unlikely to have changed the outcome because existing vessel regulations and local speed restrictions were ignored.

    Stated by Royal Yachting AssociationDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of required pre-journey safety briefings on pleasure vessels

Wider context from the report

“Vessels that operate on the water are categorised as either pleasure or commercial vessels under current legislation and the legal requirements governing the design, construction and operation are very different, with commercial vessels being more heavily regulated. The definition of a pleasure vessel is provided under Regulation 2 of The Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 1998 and any vessel that does not meet the definition under regulation 2, is a commercial vessel. I have concerns that pleasure vessels are being used in a manner, and in conditions, that would be very similar to commercial vessels without the same safety mitigation. For example, there is no requirement to have a safety briefing prior to a journey on a pleasure vessel, whereas there is on a commercial vessel, however the risks may be the same, which can include death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Use of support boats as taxis for event-related social transport

Wider context from the report

“Finally, I have concerns about the use of support boats, often RHIBs, at sailing events or regattas, and particularly when they are used outside of the designated sailing time but in a way linked to the event, for example to transport people to and from the organised social events linked to the regattas, where often there is alcohol available. I have concerns that there is a culture of using such support boats as a form of taxi particularly at the social events, albeit not for pecuniary gain. This means they could come under the definition of a pleasure vessel and as those helming these vessels may be in drink, they may not take necessary precautions and safety measures given the lack of regulations. Further the owner and operator of the vessel may not be aware, as was the case in David’s death, of the use of the vessel in this way, or of the identity of those on board which may result in the vessel falling under the commercial vessel definition for the purposes of those journeys with the appropriate regulations not being followed. Under Rules 89 and 90 of the World Sailing Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS20212024Finalwithbookmarks-172255.pdf) (The Rules) there is a requirement for race organisers to issue a “Notice to Race” and “Sailing Instructions” for the race. Under Appendix J to the Rules, at paragraph J2.2, it is stated “Unless included in the notice of race, the sailing instructions shall include those of the following that will apply: …….. (9) restrictions on use of support boats, plastic pools, radios, etc.; on trash disposal; on hauling out; and on outside assistance provided to a boat that is not racing”. The RYA in their guidance recommend a risk statement is used by race organisers for sailing events, however, the RYA guidance does not contain a specific section to deal with the use of support boats. I am concerned there is a lack of guidance to organisers of race events to ensure that the owners, operators and skippers/helms of vessels are aware of the responsibilities around use of support boats during the period of sailing events, which could lead to a future death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of specific guidance on support-boat responsibilities at sailing events

Wider context from the report

“Finally, I have concerns about the use of support boats, often RHIBs, at sailing events or regattas, and particularly when they are used outside of the designated sailing time but in a way linked to the event, for example to transport people to and from the organised social events linked to the regattas, where often there is alcohol available. I have concerns that there is a culture of using such support boats as a form of taxi particularly at the social events, albeit not for pecuniary gain. This means they could come under the definition of a pleasure vessel and as those helming these vessels may be in drink, they may not take necessary precautions and safety measures given the lack of regulations. Further the owner and operator of the vessel may not be aware, as was the case in David’s death, of the use of the vessel in this way, or of the identity of those on board which may result in the vessel falling under the commercial vessel definition for the purposes of those journeys with the appropriate regulations not being followed. Under Rules 89 and 90 of the World Sailing Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS20212024Finalwithbookmarks-172255.pdf) (The Rules) there is a requirement for race organisers to issue a “Notice to Race” and “Sailing Instructions” for the race. Under Appendix J to the Rules, at paragraph J2.2, it is stated “Unless included in the notice of race, the sailing instructions shall include those of the following that will apply: …….. (9) restrictions on use of support boats, plastic pools, radios, etc.; on trash disposal; on hauling out; and on outside assistance provided to a boat that is not racing”. The RYA in their guidance recommend a risk statement is used by race organisers for sailing events, however, the RYA guidance does not contain a specific section to deal with the use of support boats. I am concerned there is a lack of guidance to organisers of race events to ensure that the owners, operators and skippers/helms of vessels are aware of the responsibilities around use of support boats during the period of sailing events, which could lead to a future death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safety arrangements for organised water-sports events.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of legal requirement to wear lifejackets

Wider context from the report

“Further, I have a concern that personal floatation devices, such as lifejackets or buoyancy aids are not legally required to be carried on all vessels, nor is there any legal requirement to wear lifejackets. The current legislation, The Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances and Arrangements) Regulations 2020, only requires pleasure vessels of over 13.7 metres in length to carry lifesaving appliances. I have concern that the lack of life saving appliances on all vessels could lead to future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate lifejacket safety controls for watercraft users.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to require carriage of personal flotation devices on all vessels

Wider context from the report

“Further, I have a concern that personal floatation devices, such as lifejackets or buoyancy aids are not legally required to be carried on all vessels, nor is there any legal requirement to wear lifejackets. The current legislation, The Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances and Arrangements) Regulations 2020, only requires pleasure vessels of over 13.7 metres in length to carry lifesaving appliances. I have concern that the lack of life saving appliances on all vessels could lead to future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate lifejacket safety controls for watercraft users.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure of vessel owners and operators to know support-boat use and passenger identity

Wider context from the report

“Finally, I have concerns about the use of support boats, often RHIBs, at sailing events or regattas, and particularly when they are used outside of the designated sailing time but in a way linked to the event, for example to transport people to and from the organised social events linked to the regattas, where often there is alcohol available. I have concerns that there is a culture of using such support boats as a form of taxi particularly at the social events, albeit not for pecuniary gain. This means they could come under the definition of a pleasure vessel and as those helming these vessels may be in drink, they may not take necessary precautions and safety measures given the lack of regulations. Further the owner and operator of the vessel may not be aware, as was the case in David’s death, of the use of the vessel in this way, or of the identity of those on board which may result in the vessel falling under the commercial vessel definition for the purposes of those journeys with the appropriate regulations not being followed. Under Rules 89 and 90 of the World Sailing Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS20212024Finalwithbookmarks-172255.pdf) (The Rules) there is a requirement for race organisers to issue a “Notice to Race” and “Sailing Instructions” for the race. Under Appendix J to the Rules, at paragraph J2.2, it is stated “Unless included in the notice of race, the sailing instructions shall include those of the following that will apply: …….. (9) restrictions on use of support boats, plastic pools, radios, etc.; on trash disposal; on hauling out; and on outside assistance provided to a boat that is not racing”. The RYA in their guidance recommend a risk statement is used by race organisers for sailing events, however, the RYA guidance does not contain a specific section to deal with the use of support boats. I am concerned there is a lack of guidance to organisers of race events to ensure that the owners, operators and skippers/helms of vessels are aware of the responsibilities around use of support boats during the period of sailing events, which could lead to a future death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safety arrangements for organised water-sports events.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of prohibition on helming pleasure vessels under the influence of alcohol or drugs

Wider context from the report

“Further in relation to pleasure vessels, there is currently no legislation prohibiting the use of alcohol or drugs by those who are helming a vessel for private or pleasure use, whereas for those helming a commercial vessel, there is. The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 was enacted on 10th July 2003. Section 78 & 79 of that Act created an offence for professional mariners to perform their duties if impaired by alcohol, with Section 81 setting a prescribed limit for alcohol consumption. This position is very similar to an offence of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Under Section 80(3) there is a specific offence applicable to non-professional mariners of operating a vessel underway whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs, however it is not currently in force. Accordingly, it is not illegal to helm a pleasure vessel under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Helming a vessel under the influence of alcohol or drugs could lead to a future death given the impact alcohol and drugs has upon perception, control, judgement and decision making. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of equivalent safety mitigation for pleasure vessels used in commercial-like conditions

Wider context from the report

“Vessels that operate on the water are categorised as either pleasure or commercial vessels under current legislation and the legal requirements governing the design, construction and operation are very different, with commercial vessels being more heavily regulated. The definition of a pleasure vessel is provided under Regulation 2 of The Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 1998 and any vessel that does not meet the definition under regulation 2, is a commercial vessel. I have concerns that pleasure vessels are being used in a manner, and in conditions, that would be very similar to commercial vessels without the same safety mitigation. For example, there is no requirement to have a safety briefing prior to a journey on a pleasure vessel, whereas there is on a commercial vessel, however the risks may be the same, which can include death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Gather evidence with event Organising Authorities to establish support-boat safety trends and identify proportionate responses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4) Use of Support Boats The RYA is concerned by any adverse perceptions around particular boating activities. Accordingly, the RYA will be talking to a range of event Organising Authorities to gather evidence around the use of support boats to establish if the perception around a poor culture associated with support boats is accurate, and if so, what steps are proportionate address this.”

Source location

Response from Royal Yachting Association
Page 4 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Encourage Organising Authorities to use safety management systems and implement event-specific measures to manage identified risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While the RYA does not believe it appropriate for an Organising Authority to be required to influence the behaviour of boats in the vicinity of an event, such as boats unconnected with the event or boats used after hours or after the event has finished, the RYA is actively encouraging all Organising Authorities to have safety management systems in place for their activities. A safety management system should include consideration of applicable risks and detail the steps taken to minimise the risks identified. This will vary by event; however, the RYA is aware that some Organising Authorities of events in coastal areas have already considered laying on water taxis between venues or to return crews to competing yachts and therefore reduce the need for private boats to be used for transferring people.”

Source location

Response from Royal Yachting Association
Page 5 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Continue reviewing the evidence base on alcohol limits for recreational mariners.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Turning to recreational mariner alcohol limits, the Railways and Transport Safety Act provides alcohol limits and corresponding offences for professional mariners, however no proscribed limits for alcohol have been set for recreational mariners. As noted above, there is already an offence which can be applied in these circumstances under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. To date, the Department has held three consultations on this issue, the latest a request for evidence to inform a review of the position in 2021. Responses have continued to demonstrate the significant challenges to the introduction of alcohol (and drug) limits for recreational mariners. These noted strong views, both for and against.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Bring forward an updated Sport or Pleasure Vessel Code to improve small commercial vessel safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would like to take this opportunity to reassure you that my officials within the MCA are working hard to bring forward new legislation and an updated Sport or Pleasure Vessel Code as soon as practical to improve small commercial vessel safety. The MCA will continue to work to ensure that pleasure vessel owners and operators take seriously their responsibilities for ensuring the safety of those onboard their vessels.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Continue working with sector partners to improve awareness of the risks of drinking and sailing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“They also highlighted that the number of serious incidents involving recreational mariners where alcohol was a causal factor is, thankfully, extremely low and that statistics alone do not support the introduction of a national limit. We will continue to keep the evidence base under review and to work with partners in the sector focussing on improving awareness of the risks of drinking and sailing.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Additional regulation is unlikely to have changed the outcome because existing vessel regulations and local speed restrictions were ignored.

Verbatim wording from the response

“From a practical perspective, while the RYA notes the tragic circumstances of this case, the RYA questions if increased regulation would have changed the outcome, and notes that existing regulations applicable to the boat, including Section 100 of the Merchant Shipping Act, and a range of local byelaws, including a speed limit were ignored. Accordingly, the benefit of subjecting such vessels to additional regulation would appear to have limited benefit in comparison to raising awareness of the need to operate a boat in a safe and responsible way, irrespective of any underlying regulation.”

Source location

Response from Royal Yachting Association
Page 3 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The MCA and relevant harbour authorities are responsible for regulating recreational and small commercial vessel operations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst the RYA has the authority to determine the standards for its courses and for the conditions under which RYA recognised training centres operate, it does not have the authority to determine or enforce standards for operations within either the recreational sector or small commercial vessel sector. This responsibility falls to the MCA as the UK maritime regulator, and to local harbour authorities who have certain powers within their respective jurisdiction.”

Source location

Response from Royal Yachting Association
Page 1 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Operational standards for recreational and small commercial vessels are outside the respondent’s authority.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst the RYA has the authority to determine the standards for its courses and for the conditions under which RYA recognised training centres operate, it does not have the authority to determine or enforce standards for operations within either the recreational sector or small commercial vessel sector. This responsibility falls to the MCA as the UK maritime regulator, and to local harbour authorities who have certain powers within their respective jurisdiction.”

Source location

Response from Royal Yachting Association
Page 1 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The respondent cannot mandate particular support-boat provisions because each organising authority determines its event requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Racing Rules of Sailing (as set by World Sailing) provide that an Organising Authority should issue a Notice of Race and go on to detail what an Event Organiser should include in that Notice of Race. Accordingly, it is for each Organising Authority to determine what is appropriate for its own event, and the RYA is unable to mandate particular provisions.”

Source location

Response from Royal Yachting Association
Page 4 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Decisions to mandate lifejacket carriage for all vessels belong to the Secretary of State for Transport, not the respondent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Any decision to mandate the carriage of personal flotation devices for all vessels would be a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport and not for the RYA. The practical difficulties of enforcing the carriage of lifejackets are highlighted, given that pleasure vessels are not subject to the same inspection regime as commercial vessels, and it is also noted that the existing legislation applicable to commercial vessels does not mandate the wearing of a lifejacket unless there is an emergency or risk of entering the water, and accordingly applying the commercial standard would not result in a blanket requirement to wear a lifejacket or buoyancy aid. Therefore, the RYA remains of the opinion that the need to wear a lifejacket or buoyancy aid on a pleasure vessel is best communicated via education and training rather than legislation.”

Source location

Response from Royal Yachting Association
Page 4 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Existing legislation and harbour bylaws provide appropriate means to address alcohol-related safety concerns in recreational boating.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The RYA notes that while there is no specific offence relating to the operation of a pleasure vessel while under the influence of alcohol, Section 100 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 imposes an obligation on the owner of a ship to take all reasonable steps to secure that the ship is operated in a safe manner. Accordingly, if a vessel is operated in an unsafe way as a result of alcohol, the owner of that vessel may be prosecuted. Focusing on the impact on safety rather than imposing an arbitrary alcohol limit allows for a more flexible approach to be taken and ultimately would allow action to be taken even if a maximum alcohol limit had not been reached.”

Source location

Response from Royal Yachting Association
Page 3 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Unsafe or impermissible boats near events are matters for the relevant harbour authority, not event organising authorities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The RYA acknowledges that events held in public waters often see a number of boats in the vicinity of the event, but notes that these may be spectator boats or general water users and may not fall within the definition of support boat, or indeed, be part of the event. The RYA wishes to encourage the safety of all water users, and therefore imposing requirements on event Organising Authorities is not felt to be a holistic solution, or indeed effective given an Organising Authority has no jurisdiction over boats outside of their events. If it is believed that boats in the vicinity of an event are operating either unsafely or in breach of the existing definition of pleasure vessel, then this is a matter for the relevant harbour authority and not the Organising Authority.”

Source location

Response from Royal Yachting Association
Page 4 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Mandatory personal flotation device requirements are not introduced because there is insufficient evidence to justify regulatory intervention.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although there is currently no legislation requiring the mandatory wearing of personal flotation devices (PFDs) on any pleasure vessel in the UK, there is not yet sufficient evidence to justify a regulatory intervention to this effect. Some local water authorities, ports and marinas do require this under their by-laws and, of course, voluntary wear is strongly encouraged as publicised by the MCA through Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 599 (M) Amendment 1 “Pleasure vessels – Regulations and Exemptions – Guidance and Best Practice Advice”. This MGN also provides a range of guidance and best practice advice for pleasure vessel owners which includes appropriate training and avoiding consumption of alcohol as well as the wearing of PFDs.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

A national alcohol limit for recreational mariners is not supported because existing offences apply and evidence does not justify introducing one.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst pleasure vessels are not subject to many of the specific regulations that small commercial vessels are, they do remain in scope of the regulatory frameworks set out by Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (MSA), and in particular the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 no. 75). As such, if a pleasure vessel was being operated in such a way that was “dangerously unsafe” there are mechanisms under Section 100 of the MSA to take appropriate action. Likewise, if the consumption of alcohol was a contributing factor and meant the vessel operator was unable to keep a proper lookout, this too would be a prosecutable offence under UK Regulations.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. 1

    Continue raising awareness among members, Organising Authorities and the wider boating community about responsible behaviour on the water.

    Stated by Royal Yachting AssociationStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 27 December 2024.
  2. 2

    Bring forward new legislation to improve small commercial vessel safety.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 27 December 2024.
  3. 3

    Continue working to ensure pleasure vessel owners and operators take seriously their onboard safety responsibilities.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 27 December 2024.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    Ports and other local organisations are best placed to introduce safety laws for particular waters because they understand local circumstances.

    Stated by Department for TransportRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. 2

    Pleasure-vessel owners and users are responsible for taking suitable safety measures, with the MCA regulating as appropriate.

    Stated by Department for TransportRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Continue raising awareness among members, Organising Authorities and the wider boating community about responsible behaviour on the water.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As set out above, the RYA is not a regulator, and accordingly is unable to take direct action either in respect of general recreational boating or under the Racing Rules of Sailing to impose the changes suggested. However, the RYA has the ability to offer advice and guidance and will continue to take steps to highlight the importance of behaving responsibly on the water, together with encouraging Organising Authorities to explore event specific opportunities to promote safety afloat.”

Source location

Response from Royal Yachting Association
Page 5 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Bring forward new legislation to improve small commercial vessel safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would like to take this opportunity to reassure you that my officials within the MCA are working hard to bring forward new legislation and an updated Sport or Pleasure Vessel Code as soon as practical to improve small commercial vessel safety. The MCA will continue to work to ensure that pleasure vessel owners and operators take seriously their responsibilities for ensuring the safety of those onboard their vessels.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Continue working to ensure pleasure vessel owners and operators take seriously their onboard safety responsibilities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would like to take this opportunity to reassure you that my officials within the MCA are working hard to bring forward new legislation and an updated Sport or Pleasure Vessel Code as soon as practical to improve small commercial vessel safety. The MCA will continue to work to ensure that pleasure vessel owners and operators take seriously their responsibilities for ensuring the safety of those onboard their vessels.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Ports and other local organisations are best placed to introduce safety laws for particular waters because they understand local circumstances.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are constantly striving to improve safety for all including the large number of recreational mariners who use our waters. Legislation is already in place to enable those, such as ports, who have responsibility for managing a particular stretch of water or coastline to introduce laws to ensure safety within these areas. We believe these organisations remain best placed to understand what is appropriate for local circumstances given the wide variations in both geography and recreational usage around the country.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Pleasure-vessel owners and users are responsible for taking suitable safety measures, with the MCA regulating as appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is now a greater range of vessels undertaking a wider scope of activities than ever before. In acknowledging the diversity of pleasure vessels and the waters in which they operate, owners and users are entrusted with the responsibility of taking suitable measures to ensure safety, while the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) will always work to ensure proper regulation is applied as appropriate.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 27 December 2024

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026