Select Committee on Transport Sixth Report


THE REASONS FOR INTRODUCING THE NEW LICENCE

15. The Government decided to introduce a single, national licence for the masters of vessels on the UK's classified waters. It replaces the old boatmasters' licence which was introduced in 1993, following the Marchioness disaster, and applied only to passenger boats. It introduces a new, national licensing requirement for masters of non-passenger ships that do not go out to sea and it removes a 'patchwork' of local licensing regimes established under various bylaws and other local legislation by exempting a BML-holder from those provisions.[23] Until the new BML was introduced, the UK had no national licence for vessels other than passenger vessels.

16. The Government told us that there were three reasons for introducing the new licence:

a)  to implement the recommendations of the Thames Safety Inquiry and the Marchioness Formal Inquiry, that crewing requirements ought to be introduced for "any vessel capable of causing significant damage either to other vessels or to fixed structures" and that the syllabus for the waterman's and lighterman's licences ought to be reviewed ;[24]

b)  to implement the recommendation put forward by the Freight Study Group, that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) should be charged with establishing vessel and crew standards for industry;[25] and

c)  to implement the requirements of EU Directive 96/50/EC on harmonisation of national boatmasters' certificates.[26]

Improving safety

17. As we have noted, there is no general and persistent problem with safety on the UK's classified waters. That the Marchioness tragedy remains so prominent in the debate on water safety is due in large part to the determination and tenacity of the Marchioness Action Group in their successful campaign to raise standards still higher, but it also reflects the fact that such tragedies are mercifully rare. Nonetheless, the fact that there has been no coherent national licensing scheme for non-passenger vessels is clearly an anomaly. In the case of the Thames, the master of a barge or tug must hold a license if the vessel is worked for hire but other, similar vessels can carry an unlicensed master if they are not worked for hire.[27] It was absurd that there was a national licensing requirement for the masters of passenger vessels, but not for the masters of other types of vessel which might pose a significant hazard to other users of the waterway, to the fabric of the waterway itself and to the local environment. We believe the Government was right to introduce a national licensing requirement for the masters of non-passenger vessels.

The European Directive

18. The Directive was in fact agreed in 1996, but the UK Government believed at the time that it was not required to implement any directives relating to the harmonization of inland waterway standards and the Directive contained a specific exemption for "national waterways not linked to the navigable network of another Member State".[28] Despite advice from the Commission to this effect, the UK was challenged by a Dutch operator who wanted to bring a vessel up the Thames, who was refused because his vessel did not meet UK safety standards.[29] Although the Commission accepted the argument that it would not be reasonable to accept a vessel of a lower standard than the UK's, it said that a transparent legal framework was required in order to allow other EU operators to meet the UK's requirements. Secondly, the terms of the apparent exemption for unconnected waterways still require masters to be issued with a national certificate.[30]

19. Whatever the merits of the Directive or the new Licence, it is regrettable that the UK Government has unexpectedly found itself obliged to implement a measure from which both HMG and the European Commission believed the UK was exempt. The assumption that the UK was exempt will have influenced both Ministers' negotiating position and Parliamentary scrutiny. The European Legislation Committee cleared the Document on 2 November 1994 because it considered that it raised no issues of legal or political significance.[31] Given the subsequent opposition to the Regulations, it is difficult to imagine that the draft Directive would have cleared scrutiny so easily if the Committee had been aware that it would apply to the UK.

20. The lesson for Ministers is clear. In negotiations with their EU counterparts, UK Ministers must take scrupulous care to ensure that any exemption, opt-out or derogation on which they will seek to rely is drafted in the clearest possible terms and is not vulnerable to being overturned by judicial fiat.

21. There is a good case for the harmonisation of boatmasters' licences between those countries with connected inland waterway networks. Since 1992, when the Rhine-Main-Danube canal was opened, there has been a contiguous waterway from Rotterdam, on the North Sea, to the Danube Delta on the Black Sea. It makes perfect sense for the countries through which a large, international inland shipping corridor flows to harmonise their licensing requirements. However, some witnesses argued that the nature of both the UK's inland waterways and the operations carried out on them were fundamentally different from those on the continent and that the UK should not therefore be subject to the same licensing requirements.[32]

MOBILITY OF UK-LICENCED MASTERS

22. The merits of a pan-European licence are further undermined by the fact that the Rhine Commission operates its own licensing scheme, the Rhine Licence, which many witnesses regarded as superior to the UK's BML.[33] The Minister told us that this exemption was because the Rhine flows through Switzerland, outside the EU, and has a long-established regulatory Commission.[34] On the other hand the Danube, which also flows outside the EU, has a derogation from the Directive only in respect of the non-EU reaches.[35]

23. There was widespread concern among witnesses representing UK masters that the implementation of the Directive would not allow them to operate in other EU countries. They argued that the ongoing requirement for a separate Rhine licence would in practice restrict employment opportunities on the continent as holding an EU Master's Certificate would not be enough to qualify a master to operate on the full length of the Europe's principal inland route.[36] The ongoing exemption for the Rhine is in practice a clear obstacle to UK masters who want to work in Europe. The UK Government plans to submit the Tier 1 UK Boatmasters' Licence for recognition on the Rhine and discussions are taking place about how the Rhine might be brought within the scope of the Directive.[37]

24. Neither the fact that the Rhine rises in Switzerland, nor the fact that it has an independent Commission is in our view sufficient to justify its complete exclusion from EU licensing arrangements. The ongoing exclusion of such a major waterway represents an asymmetrical barrier to the free movement of labour. A licensing standard which is good enough for the Thames, which we were consistently told was one of the most difficult waterways in Europe, must surely be capable of providing for the Rhine. We recommend that the Government refuse to proceed further with the implementation of the Directive until the Rhine is brought within its scope.

25. There was also some concern that UK masters might be unfairly discriminated against on the Continent.[38] We put this to the Minister, who told us:

    "I have made a commitment … that if I find that any British mariner is excluded from a European waterway unfairly, having got this new licence, then the Government will report that fact to the Commission and press for that country to be infracted".[39]

The Chief Executive of the MCA also advised us that UK masters would not be subject to any additional language requirements for operating in other EU ports "because the international language of the sea is English".[40] We welcome the Minister's undertaking to intervene with the European Commission on behalf of any UK master who is unfairly excluded from the waterways of another EU Member State. We will look to the Department for Transport to take immediate and firm action if any such discrimination is reported to them.

Promoting freight on the waterways

26. The Freight Study Group's 2002 Report for the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Freight on Water: A New Perspective, identified the shortage of skippers and crew as one of the factors restricting the growth of freight on the inland waterways.[41] It noted that there was no national training standard for the crew of non-passenger vessels. Some larger companies operated their own training schemes, others used commercial training provision designed primarily for merchant seafarers.[42] The Report recommended the establishment of a set of national standards for the masters and crew of inland freight vessels.

27. Nobody is under the illusion that the introduction of the new licence will have a radical impact on the proportion of freight carried on the waterways, but there was a widespread view that it will bring some small benefits for the industry. The Chief Harbour Master of the Port of London argued that the new licence would play a small part in increasing waterborne freight by improving the mobility of the workforce.[43] The Minister thought it unlikely that the new licence would in itself make a major contribution to modal shift, but argued that the safety benefits it would bring would have a positive effect on the industry.[44]

THE COST OF THE LICENCE

28. The two organisations representing inland shipping operators both expressed concerns about the cost of acquiring the new licence. The examination fee for a new licence is £141, plus a £22 fee for issuing the licence. Each examination for an endorsement costs a further £100.[45] This means the total fees payable in respect of a BML with general cargo endorsement (the equivalent of the EU Certificate) is £263, or £363 if a local endorsement is added.

29. However, the cost of training courses and time off work must also be taken into account. The Commercial Boat Operators Association argued that the dispersed nature of the inland shipping industry means that few masters live near to a training provider and many will therefore face additional travel and accommodation costs.[46] The Inland Waterways Association was concerned about the potential training costs faced by its volunteer teams working on restoring and maintaining the inland waterways.[47] Witnesses from the trade unions also expressed some concerns about the possible training cost, noting that there would be a "significant increase" which might act as a barrier to entry.[48]

30. It is too early to say with certainty what the average cost of training courses is likely to be, but we were quoted figures between £600 (for the basic classroom training for a Tier 2 licence) and £7,500.[49] The industry's recruitment difficulties mean that there are few economies of scale enjoyed by those training new entrants, further increasing the cost of training and thereby exacerbating the recruitment problem.[50] Mr Hugman of the Commercial Boat Operators' Association went so far as to suggest that the additional training costs could be enough to destroy the industry outside the Thames.[51] For many operators it is not just the cost of the training itself that is a problem but the cost of associated travel, accommodation and replacement crew cover.

31. The inland shipping industry is facing a recruitment crisis. Long and unsocial hours of hard work in all weathers, combined with rewards that are often not much more than the national minimum wage, do not combine to make this an attractive occupation for a great many young people.[52] An expensive and demanding training regime will make this problem worse. On the other hand, we accept that introducing a new requirement for the licensing of masters of freight vessels was fully justified on safety grounds and is likely to increase confidence in the industry.

32. The new, modular licence attempts to reconcile the competing needs of different groups in the inland shipping industry. It attempts to combine higher training standards for the busier, more difficult waters such as the Thames with a lower standard for smoother, quieter waters where recruitment and training problems are more acute. Whether it will succeed in doing so remains to be seen, but we have noted with concern the views of those operators outside the Thames area who feel that the training costs associated with the licence could be prohibitively high.

33. Although we accept the principle that the industry should meet its own training costs, there are clear external benefits to shifting freight from the roads to the waterways in the form of reduced emissions and road congestion. Furthermore, the Government already provides significant financial assistance for the training of seafarers under the Support for Maritime Training (SMarT) scheme. The Government must monitor the situation closely to see if the cost of training new masters does become a problem. If it becomes apparent that the cost of training new masters is damaging to the industry, we recommend that the Government provide appropriate assistance, for example in the form of subsidised training courses, to protect the health of the industry.



23   Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Regulatory Impact Assessment for the National Boatmasters' Licence. Full details of the new BML are published in Merchant Shipping Notice 1808 (M). Back

24   Thames Safety Inquiry: Final Report by Lord Justice Clarke, Cm 4558 (February 2000), para. 27.12 and Marchioness/Bowbelle: Formal Investigation under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (TSO, February 2001), para. 39.13. Back

25   Freight Study Group, Freight on Water, a New Perspective (DEFRA, February 2002), para. 1.13 (c) and (d). Back

26   Council Directive 96/50/EC of 23 July 1996 on the harmonization of the conditions for obtaining national boatmasters' certificates for the carriage of goods and passengers by inland waterway in the Community (Official Journal L 235 , 17/09/1996). Hereafter, "the Directive". Back

27   Thames Safety Inquiry: Interim Report by Lord Justice Clarke, Cm 4530 (December 1999), paragraph 10.17. Back

28   Article 3.2. The Republic of Ireland has no inland waterways for the purpose of the Directive. Back

29   Q 376 (the Minister) & MCA Regulatory Impact Assessment for the new National Boatmasters' Licence. Back

30   Ibid. Back

31   Twenty-Eighth Report from the European Legislation Committee, Session 1993-94, HC 48-xxviii, page xl. Back

32   Q 15 (Mr Hickman of the Practitioners' Committee); Q 107 (Mr Hugman of the Commercial Boat Operators' Association); Ev 38, para. 3.2 (Association of Inland Shipping Operators). Back

33   For discussion of the Rhine Licence (patente du Rhin), see Qq 34 (Thames Boatmasters), 236-241 (witnesses from the trades unions) and 374-276 (the Minister). Back

34   The Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine was established by the Congress of Vienna and first met in 1816. See www.ccr-zkr.org. Back

35   Q 374 Back

36   For example, the Company of Watermen and Lightermen, Qq 7-9; Mr Baker of the RMT, Qq 236-241. The Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube Axis is one of only two inland waterways designated as part of the Trans-European Transport Network. The other is Seine-Scheldt waterway. See Decision 844/2004/CE. Back

37   MSN 1808 (M), footnote 4, p. 9; Q 376 Back

38   For example, Qq 276-77 Back

39   Q 372. Back

40   Q 401. Back

41   Op. cit, paragraph 3.31. Back

42   ibid, paragraph 6.52 ff. Back

43   Qq 356 & 357. Back

44   Q 368. Back

45   Merchant Shipping (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/3225). Back

46   Ev 37, paragraph 3.4. Back

47   Qq 80 & 81 Back

48   Qq 258-260 Back

49   Q 80 [£616, Dr Roger Squires of the IWA]; Q 156 [£7,500, Capt John Perceval of AISO]. Dr Squires subsequently provided us with a list of course fees from a commercial training provider which included a more detailed breakdown of the cost of the Tier 2 BML course [Ev 35]. Back

50   This concern about costs, we were told, was one of the factors which led to the introduction of a modular licence which would retain a higher standard for the more difficult waters while avoiding placing an undue burden of training and qualification on operators on the smoother waters. See Q 12 [Mr Colin Middlemiss, Clerk of the Company of Watermen and Lightermen]. Back

51   Q 164 Back

52   Several witnesses referred to the arduous nature of masters' work, for example, Qq 75, 157 & 212-218 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 25 May 2007