Memorandum from the British Ports Association
(BPA) (DMNB 01)
This submission is made on behalf of the BPA
which represents 86 port authorities throughout the UK. All have
significant navigational safety responsibilities through legislation
and the Port Marine Safety Code and therefore have a crucial interest
in the future of the draft Bill.
1. BACKGROUND
Marine Navigational Safety policy is underpinned
by the Port Marine Safety Code which was published in 2000. The
Code had a long gestation and is unique amongst EU member states.
As the introduction to the Code says, "Our ports and harbours
generally have a good safety record and serious incidents are
rare. This is a tribute to the professionalism of those who undertake
and oversee port operations."
The Code was preceded by a review of the Pilotage
Act which itself recommended that the Code should be produced,
setting out a national safety standard. In parallel a Guide
to Good Practice, advising on implementation, should be prepared;
this was issued in 2002. The Code itself was the result of some
intense consultation between the then Department of the Environment,
Transport and the Regions and a representative industry group,
including port authorities, shipping interests, unions and others.
Although the Code is non-statutory, it makes
clear that its adoption is "not optional" and applies
to every harbour; it requires each harbour authority to produce
and consult on statements setting out their safety policies; requires
harbour authorities to hold themselves publicly accountable to
the duties they have and creates the role of the "duty holder"
and the "designated person". The board members of each
harbour authority are regarded as the collective duty holder and
these are advised independently by a designated person.
Since the Code was introduced the Maritime Coastguard
Agency (MCA) has carried out a compliance exercise requiring each
harbour authority to indicate at a senior level its compliance
with the provisions of the Code; there is likely to be a similar
exercise later this year.
The Code has received unequivocal support from
the industry. A permanent Port Marine Safety Code Steering Group
chaired by the MCA brings together the main interests, keeps the
Code under review and updates and refreshes the Guide to Good
Practice. Bearing in mind the diversity of the safety challenges
presented to port authorities, their very varied locations and
types of user, we believe that the principles that the Code enshrines
have delivered a successful and flexible system.
2. DRAFT MARINE
NAVIGATIONAL BILL:
GENERAL COMMENTS
As far as the proposals in the Bill go, they
are ones which we can largely support. However, we have some fundamental
problems which the Bill does not address. Firstly, the speed at
which change is being delivered. Many proposals were first consulted
on in 1999. These include all the pilotage provisions and the
possibility of a new power to the Secretary of State to issue
directions to a harbour authority. It therefore will have taken
(assuming the legislation is successful) 10 years from first proposal
to actual delivery. It is unacceptable for both the industry and
indeed the government to have such long delays before reform can
be achieved.
Another issue is the level to which government
should be involved in the detail of pilotage management. In Section
3.1.1 of the consultation document there is reference to the general
approach taken by government towards ports, namely "that
responsibility for management is devolved to the relevant harbour
authorities and government's role is to facilitate that management
without imposing requirements from the centre". Yet at the
same time the proposals include, for example, length of suspension
of Pilot Exemption Certificates following an incident and compensation
procedures. We believe that this level of government involvement
in the fine detail of how a port manages its pilotage service
is entirely inappropriate. Such issues should be left to the industry
to decide on a case by case basis as part of its overall management
of harbour safety.
We believe that the government's aim should
be to complete the process begun by the 1987 Pilotage Act and
devolve all pilotage powers to harbour authorities.
On a connected point, safety in harbours is
to some extent delivered by harbour byelaws. Although the availability
of a new power of general direction will solve some problems,
the speed with which the Department for Transport is able to process
applications either for complete overhauls of byelaws or individual
changes represents a significant bar on progress. There are examples
where byelaw changes have been lodged with the Department for
several years without resolution. There have been attempts recently
to break this logjam, but the problem appears to be a lack of
resources within the DfT to deal with some wanted changes. Under
the terms of the Marine Bill, we assume the responsibility for
byelaws will pass to a Marine Management Organisation; whatever
the future is, we believe that byelaws are a neglected part of
the safety network and a re-think is needed about their delivery.
3. DETAILED PROPOSALS
Notwithstanding the important concerns set out
above, our comments on the main provisions of the Bill are as
follows:
(a) New Power to confer the ability to make
general directions on harbour authorities
We support this proposal which would provide
harbour authorities with new powers currently only available through
Harbour Revision Orders.
(b) Removal of unwanted pilotage powers
We agree with this proposal. The request for
removal of such powers should come from the harbour authority
itself; we agree that there should be a facility to reinstate
CHA status where appropriate.
(c) Pilotage exemption proposals
We agree that these are all sensible proposals,
deregulatory in nature, but should be matters for individual harbours
and not public legislation of this type.
(d) New Secretary of State powers to direct
harbour authorities
We support this proposal in as much as it underpins
the effectiveness of the Port Marine Safety Code; we see this
new power and the continuation of a non statutory Code as fundamentally
connected. The British Ports Association does not support harbour
authorities which consistently deviate from the Port Marine Safety
Code, although we would expect that before the Secretary of State
was moved to issue a direction, there would be intense consultation
between the Secretary of State and the harbour authority concerned.
We would only expect powers to be used, if ever, on very rare
occasions.
(e) Powers to prescribe occupational standards
for harbour masters and pilots
This is a power that might be used in the future
if, in the government's view, the industry has not taken sufficient
measures to formalise standards and qualifications. The industry's
Port Skills and Safety Unit has prime responsibility for this
area of policy under the direction of the BPA and the UK Major
Ports Group. Standards and qualifications are a high priority,
working with the MCA and through a sub-committee of the Port Safety
Panel which represents all sides of the industry. Our view is
that harbour authorities are employing appropriately qualified
and trained staff and we would be interested to know what evidence
the government might have (it is not set out in the consultation)
of deficiencies. The issue is as much providing a formal demonstration
of standards.
(f) Powers to close harbours
Current arrangements for harbour closures are
inadequate and neither in the interests of the industry nor users.
These arrangements involve promoting a Private Bill which would
normally be beyond the resources of a harbour which had to close
because it had no commercial future.
The consultation document refers to the possibility
of closure orders where, in the opinion of the Secretary of State,
the harbour authority "is not likely to object to the making
of such an order". It is important that this provision does
not simply provide government with extra powers to make unilateral
decisions about the future of certain ports.
(g) Extending GLA powers
We agree that the GLAs represent an asset which
should be used in the most efficient and cost effective way, but
it is important that the GLAs demonstrate that in taking on this
work they are doing so on a commercial basis and do not use their
GLF funded activities to subsidise their costs.
The proposal to give directions to Local Lighthouse
Authorities (LLAs), which in most cases are ports, raises the
issue of powers of LLAs to themselves give directions to third
parties which very often have prime responsibility; the proposals
do not address this.
May 2008
| 
