Skip to content

FISHING INDUSTRY SATISFACTION SURVEY – MARITIME AND COASTGUARD AGENCY (MCA)

Survey Introduction
This survey seeks the views of UK fishing-vessel owners, skippers and industry professionals about their experiences with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).

It covers MCA surveys, certification, registration-related matters, communication, consistency, costs and the practical impact of regulatory decisions.

Responses may be used in anonymised industry briefings and discussions with the MCA and government. Individual respondents and vessels will not be identified without express permission.
Section 1. About the respondent
1.What is your main role?
2.What size of fishing vessel is principally relevant to your answers?
3.In which area is the vessel principally based?
4.Which MCA Marine Office do you principally deal with?
5.During the last five years, which matters have you dealt with? Select all that apply.
Section 2. Overall satisfaction
6.Overall, how satisfied are you with the service you have received from the MCA?
Very disatisfied
Disatisfied
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Exceptional
7.How satisfied are you with:
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Exceptional
Time taken to respond
Time taken to arrange surveys
Time taken to issue certificates
Clarity of information provided
Consistency of advice
Technical knowledge of MCA personnel
Understanding of commercial fishing operations
Professionalism and respect shown
Coordination between MCA departments
Coordination between MCA, UK Ship Register, and Certifying Authorities
Transparency of fees and charges
Handling of complaints or disagreements
8.Compared with five years ago, has the MCA service experienced by you:
9.How much confidence do you currently have in the MCA as a safety regulator for fishing vessels?
Section 3. Most significant recent MCA experience
This section should focus on one case only so that the answers are measurable.
10.What was the main purpose of your most recent contact with the MCA?
11.Approximately how long did it take to receive the first meaningful response?
12.If a vessel attendance was required, how long did you wait for an MCA surveyor?
13.How long did the complete matter take to resolve?
14.At the start of the process, were you clearly told:
Yes
Partly
No
Not applicable
What documents were required?
Which organisation was responsible for each stage?
What work the vessel needed to complete?
The regulatory basis for any requirements?
The expected timescale?
The likely fees?
15.Did one identifiable person take responsibility for progressing the case from start to finish?
16.Did you receive conflicting information from different MCA staff, Marine Offices, or other organisations?
17.If yes, briefly describe the conflicting advice:
18.At any point in resolving this issue, did you have difficulty contacting the MCA?
Section 4. Fairness, consistency and proportionality
19.Please indicated whether you agree with the following statements:
Strongly agree
Agree
Impartial
Disagree
Strongly disagree
The MCA clearly distinguishes legal requirements from recommendations or preferred improvements.
Significant requirements are supported by a clear reference to legislation or the applicable Code.
Similar vessels are treated consistently.
Requirements are applied consistently between surveyors and Marine Offices.
MCA decisions properly consider the vessel’s age, design and operating method.
MCA personnel demonstrate a practical understanding of fishing operations.
The MCA makes appropriate use of exemptions, equivalence and risk-based assessment.
The likely safety benefit of a requirement is proportionate to its cost and operational impact.
Owners are given a reasonable opportunity to resolve deficiencies before their ability to fish is removed.
Owners can challenge a technical decision without fear of delay, deregistration or other disadvantage.
The complaints and escalation process is fair and effective.
20.Have you ever been required to undertake work that you believed:
Strongly agree
Agree
Impartial
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Had no clear regulatory basis
Went beyond the applicable Code
Was disproportionate to the risk
Was impractical for the vessel
Introduced a different operational or safety risk
Duplicated work or evidence already provided
None of the above
21.If applicable, please briefly describe the requirement and why you considered it inappropriate.
Section 5. Registration and certification
22.Have you experienced any of the following?
23.If registration was closed or delayed, did this prevent the vessel from fishing?
24.Approximately how many fishing days were lost?
Section 6. Financial and operational impact
25.What practical effects has an MCA or registration-related matter had on your business? Select all that apply.
26.What was the approximate total financial impact?
27.Did the way the matter was handled:
28.Has your experience affected your willingness to:
Positively
No effect
Negatively
Not applicable
Invest in your present vessel
Purchase another fishing vessel
Bring a vessel onto the UK flag
Make voluntary safety improvements
Continue operating in the fishing industry
Section 7. Priorities for change
29.Which five reforms should receive the highest priority?(Required.)
30.If you could make one immediate change to the MCA’s service to fishing vessels, what would it be?
31.What does the MCA currently do well?
32.Is there anything else you would like the MCA or government to understand about the effect of the present system on your vessel, business, crew or family?
Section 8. Evidence and follow-up
33.Would you be willing to provide supporting evidence, such as correspondence, invoices, timelines or certificates to your local federation?
34.May the survey administrator contact you confidentially about your experience?
35.May your experience be used: