EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES: GRANT - CLAUSE
4
20. The Pilotage Act 1987 provides that a CHA which
has pilotage requirements in force may issue to the bona fide
Master or First Mate of a ship a Certificate, called a Pilotage
Exemption Certificate (PEC), enabling them to navigate their ships
into the port without having to take a pilot. The CHA must be
satisfied that the applicant's skill, experience and local knowledge
are sufficient for him to be able to pilot the specified ship
safely in the harbour area. Clause 4 of the draft Bill would amend
the Act so that anyone with suitable qualifications and experience—not
just the bona fide Master or First Mate of a ship—can
hold a PEC.
21. Many submissions expressed concern about Clause
4. Port owners and unions alike were concerned about the extension
of the scope of who may hold the PEC for a vessel. The UK Major
Ports Group argued that this change would put additional responsibility
on harbour authorities to establish "the underlying competency
of the applicant rather than relying on the well established,
internationally recognised systems of competency and the International
Safety Management (ISM) Code."[32]
22. One of the Department's arguments for introducing
this provision is that the term "First Mate" is "gradually
ceasing to be used".[33]
The UKHMA said that:
With regard to the demise of the term 'First
Mate', it is our experience that this term remains in widespread
usage. The officer holding the position of First Mate is normally
the person to take command of the vessel if the master is incapacitated
or otherwise unavailable for any reason to take conduct of the
vessel.
There are natural assumptions of appropriate
knowledge, experience and responsibility (i.e. competence and
leadership) expected of a Master or First Mate when they present
themselves for PEC examination. Lower ranks may not have an acceptable
level of ship-handling expertise or local knowledge that would
be required of a PEC holder.[34]
23. Nautilus argued that pilotage required experience,
skills and professional judgement at a level which staff of lower
ranks were unlikely to possess. In their view, the Department's
assertion that the term first mate was gradually ceasing to be
used was wrong. Furthermore, the widening of the eligibility to
use PECs would, they predicted, result in an increase in the use
of 'renting' a PEC, a practice whereby a PEC holder who is not
a bona fide member of the crew of the ship is parachuted
in to conduct the pilotage This was exemplified by the contact
between the Ursine and Pride of Bruges in Hull in
November 2007.[35]
The UK Maritime Pilots Association also feared the 'rent a PEC'
phenomenon, pointing out that the "concept of competitive
pilotage services is one, which the UKMPA together with all the
European pilotage organisations successfully campaigned against
on safety grounds when it was proposed in the EU Port Package
in 2004."[36] The
Minister, however, told us that the contact between the Ursine
and Pride of Bruges had resulted not from a case of 'rent
a PEC' but from the Harbour Authority having issued the wrong
class of PEC.[37]
24. The UKMPA also argued that the removal of the
requirement that the PEC-holder be a bona fide officer
of the ship in question could encourage the creation of private
pilot services, potentially compromising statutory pilotage services
run by CHAs. In their view, this had the potential to destabilise
Harbour Authorities because they would lose control of the number
of pilots required by their port.[38]
The Honourable Company of Master Mariners also opposed the complete
liberalisation of who is qualified to hold a PEC certificate.
Instead, they suggested that PECs should be issued only to navigation
officers holding class 1 or class 2 certificates of competency
for the class of vessel piloted. This, they argued, would provide
greater flexibility than at present, but with a degree of consistency
about the generic qualification required to hold a PEC.[39]
25. We are extremely concerned at the proposal
in Clause 4 to amend the provision for pilotage to extend the
scope of who can hold a PEC. The proposed change would impose
additional burdens on competent harbour authorities and make it
harder to ensure that only appropriately qualified staff carried
out pilotage. This could create unnecessary dangers. If it is
necessary for the references to the Master or First Mate of a
ship to be removed from the 1987 Act, we recommend that the reference
to "bona fide" members of a ship's crew be retained,
for the avoidance of doubt. The Government should specify an appropriate
rank or level of qualification for PEC-holders, following further
consultation with the industry rather than leaving it to individual
CHAs to assess each individual applicant's relevant skills.
EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES: SUSPENSION
AND REVOCATION - CLAUSE 5
26. Clause 5 of the draft Bill would amend the 1987
Act to broaden the circumstances in which a Pilotage Exemption
Certificate could be suspended or revoked. It would also make
the process more flexible, enabling Harbour Authorities to suspend
certificates immediately where they believe the PEC-holder to
be temporarily incapable, for example through drunkenness. The
Clause would also give Harbour Authorities discretion to pay compensation
in cases where a certificate has been wrongly suspended or revoked.
27. Nautilus UK agreed with the principle of compensation
in cases of erroneous suspension or revocation, but was concerned
that it might make CHAs reluctant to carry out necessary suspensions.[40]
The Chamber of Shipping was concerned about fair process and argued
that:
depriving a ship's officer of his PEC, and thus
of part of his livelihood, without giving him an opportunity to
answer any allegations is objectionable. [...] Moreover, for a
CHA to deprive him of his PEC in the event that someone else has
used it, without his knowledge, to avoid the need to take a pilot
[…] offends against a basic principle of justice.[41]
28. The UK Major Ports Group was concerned that the
provision allowing Harbour Authorities to pay compensation needed
"to be expressed in clear terms so there is clarity about
the extent of liability."[42]
We agree with the provision in Clause 5, enabling harbour authorities
to suspend or revoke PECs where a PEC holder is temporarily or
permanently incapable. Piloting a ship is safety-critical work
and it is right that the relevant authority should be able immediately
to stop somebody who appears to be incapable from doing so. It
is also right that a person who has had his PEC wrongly suspended
should be eligible for compensation.
23 Pilotage Act 1987, s. 1 (Meaning of "competent
harbour authority" and "harbour") and s. 2 (General
duties as to provision of pilotage services). Back
24
Q202 Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
and Cameron Clark, Department for Transport Back
25
Q160 Captain Richardson, UKHMA Back
26
See for example Ev 34 [British Ports Association]; Ev 40ff [Nautilus
UK]; Ev 52 [Chamber of Shipping]; Ev 58ff [Chichester Harbour
Conservancy] Back
27
Ev 58 [Chichester Harbour Conservancy] Back
28
Ev 34 [British Ports Association] Back
29
Ev 52 [Chamber of Shipping] Back
30
Q162 Captain Richardson, UKHMA Back
31
Q201 Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Back
32
Ev 35 [UKMPG] Back
33
Cm 7370, p. 10. Back
34
Ev 62 [UKHMA]; see also Q166 Captain Richardson, UKHMA Back
35
Ev 41 [Nautilus UK] ; Marine Accident Investigation Branch
Report No. 10/2008 (May 2008). Back
36
Ev 54 [UK Maritime Pilots Association] Back
37
Q205 Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Back
38
Ev 54 [UK Maritime Pilots Association] Back
39
Ev 56 [Honourable Company of Master Mariners] Back
40
Ev 41 [Nautilus UK] Back
41
Ev 53 [Chamber of Shipping] Back
42
Ev 35 [UKMPG] Back
