Memorandum from Nautilus UK (DMNB 06)
INTRODUCTION
Nautilus UK is the trade union and professional
organisation representing more than 18,000 seagoing and shore-based
staff in the national and international maritime sectors. Membership
includes shipmasters, officers, marine pilots, harbour masters
and vessel traffic services officers.
Nautilus UK has, for many years, had considerable
concerns about aspects of the safety of ships and personnel in
harbours and pilotage areas.
Whilst the draft Bill is a potentially significant
piece of legislation and gives the appearance of addressing some
of these concerns, Nautilus UK considers it to be a missed opportunity
that delivers "favours" and not "fairness".
The proposals are of clear and direct relevance
to our members, and consequently our response concentrates particularly
upon the issues we perceive to be of the greatest potential impact
on the maritime professionals that we represent, the public with
whose safety they are entrusted, and the protection of the marine
environment.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Nautilus UK has worked hard over many years
to highlight maritime safety issues and to press for more effective
national, regional and international regulation to govern a highly
globalised and intensively competitive industry. The maritime
sector is of immense economic and strategic importance to the
country. The UK continues to depend on shipping to carry around
95% of its international trade by volume and 90% by value, and
each year many millions of passengers arrive and depart on ships
using British ports. In addition, there is growing recognition
of the environmental credentials of shipping and its potential
to relieve congested and over-stretched land-based modes of transport.
It is therefore essential that we have safe, efficient and technically
advanced ports as part of a national integrated transport policy.
However, a key problem that has been identified
not just by Nautilus UK but also in successive House of Commons
Transport Committee reports, is the fragmented and disparate nature
of the UK ports sector. The existence of some 600 ports and harbours
around the country, with widely differing size and characteristics,
presents substantial and inherent regulatory challenges for the
government. In addition, there are significant differences in
the nature of port ownership and operation, and we believe these
factors all serve to emphasise the critical importance of the
government developing an over-arching ports policy strategy, in
which safety is a fundamental cornerstone.
Nautilus UK is therefore disappointed that,
in general tone and approach, the draft Marine Navigation Bill
appears almost apologetic to industry interests and is characterised
by a "softly, softly" approach in which mandatory application
of safety principles seems to be anathema. Similarly, there is
a marked absence of broader vision for the UK's ports and their
wider role in the national transport infrastructure. No ports
policy equates to no transport policy; to pretend otherwise is
an illusion.
Given that Parliamentary time to discuss maritime
issues is extremely limited, and that marine-related legislation
is rare, it is of further disappointment to us that the opportunity
has not been taken to address other important, substantive and
long-standing issues affecting merchant shipping and seafarers—not
least the ratification of ILO Convention 185 on Seafarers' Identity
Documents and amending Section 59 of the Merchant Shipping Act
1995, which has been subjected to the scrutiny of the ILO Standards
Committee (current wording amounts to the acceptance of bonded
labour).
DETAILED COMMENTS
3.1 Port Safety Measures
As outlined above, Nautilus UK has had long-standing
and distinct concerns about many aspects of safety in UK waters.
At a time of increased seaborne trade, resulting in additional
shipping movements of increasingly larger vessels in confined
and often adverse sea conditions, these concerns have taken on
an increased emphasis. The concerns are also heightened by the
acknowledged, and growing, shortfalls in maritime skills and experience.
The consultation document details how the existing
Port Marine Safety Code was developed in response to the recommendations
arising from the investigation into the 1996 Sea Empress accident.
Nautilus UK believes it is deeply disappointing that the Code
was not given mandatory status, and we believe that as a consequence
it has manifestly failed to deliver the hoped for adoption of
national standards and `best practice' operations. We acknowledge
that UK port safety statistics have improved in recent years,
but it remains an inherently unsafe working environment. The consultation
document reflects the fact that there continues to be demonstrable
failures in PMSC compliance.
Nautilus UK supports the principle behind the
proposed new power to give harbour authorities the ability to
issue general directions to shipping; many already do. It is entirely
appropriate that such directions should be available, particularly
with respect to ships that present specific safety concerns, such
as those on port state control "blacklists".
The targeting and proposed level of fine is
a cause for deep concern, however. In many cases it is totally
inappropriate to single out a ship's master for failure to follow
directions, but more realistically to include owners, managers
and other parties with direct responsibility for ship operations
within the scope of the penalties. The fine level is grossly disproportionate
for an individual, notably when compared with the proposed similar
scale for corporate bodies set out elsewhere in the draft bill.
The proposed penalty for bodies corporate is more of an incentive
not to comply.
3.1.1 Removal of Unwanted Pilotage Powers—Clause
1
Nautilus UK is in broad agreement with the proposals
as set out here, and is supportive of the proposed procedures
for making such orders.
3.1.2 Pilotage Exemption—Clauses 3,
4 & 5
Nautilus UK welcomes the recognition by the
draft Bill that measures are required to better enable CHAs to
control the use of PECs, and to act in cases of misuse. There
are some operations—such as regular ferry services—where
PECs make good sense and work well. However, there are other trades—such
as shortsea/coastal shipping—in which their use can exacerbate
problems such as excessive workloads, stress and fatigue routinely
suffered by reduced crews running ships on intensive schedules
and with little time in port. The recent Marine Accident Investigation
Branch report on the collision between the ferries Ursine and
Pride of Bruges demonstrates the potential for abuse of the PEC
system. These proposals seek to legitimise a dangerous practice,
handing pilotage to an inexperienced individual.
We do not believe the proposals as set out here
do provide sufficient checks and balances to permit the safe and
efficient navigation of vessels in harbours. We believe it is
entirely appropriate that PECs are limited to masters and chief
mates, since pilotage by its nature requires experience, skills
and professional judgement that are far less likely to be found
among lower ranks. The attempt to justify the removal of the restrictions
on the grounds that `the term first mate is gradually ceasing
to be used' is groundless. The document suggests this would assist
shipping companies to ensure that properly qualified personnel
are available to pilot ships. However, we do not believe the proposal
will assist seafarers—it will increase the pressure on seafarers
to conduct their own pilotage, rather than having the work done
by dedicated marine pilots. Worse still, we believe it could encourage
the use of "rent a PEC" as in the case of the Ursine
and Pride of Bruges. We do not believe the proposal would ease
the problems of fatigue and stress on many ships, because their
manning levels are such that often there are only a maximum of
two potential PEC holders onboard.
However, it is correct that measures should
be available in response to cases of wrongful reliance on PECs.
Nautilus UK would point out that the consultation document's focus
has an over-emphasis on ship-based misconduct, with the master
and the officer being singled out, and fails to reflect many documented
cases of bad practice by shore-based management (for instance,
demanding that seafarers be available to answer phones and emails
at all times and particularly in coastal areas). We therefore
believe it is important that some form of sanction or penalty
is available to be targeted at such operators.
Whilst the principle of compensation in the
event of wrongful suspension of a certificate is correct, Nautilus
is concerned at the potential for this to act as a disincentive
to rightful suspension. It is therefore important to make some
distinction between the penalty for a company as opposed to the
potential suspension of a PEC holder.
3.1.3 Secretary of State's Power to Direct
Harbour Authorities—Clause 7
The consultation paper is right to identify
the lack of consistent safety standards between harbours. Nautilus
UK welcomed the introduction of the Port Marine Safety Code and
provided practical support for its development. However, we continue
to contend that it has failed to achieve its objectives because
of a lack of effective enforcement and we have consistently argued
the case for the government to give ministers powers to give directions
to harbour authorities that fail to exercise their PMSC responsibilities.
Because the PMSC is a voluntary document, the
lack of statutory sanction permits some ports to operate unsafely
and, in so doing, undermine the competitiveness of those that
abide by the standards. Nautilus is also concerned at the lack
of adequate resources to enforce the provisions of the Code, and
believes that the consultation document has failed to identify
the necessary staffing and funding that will enable effective
policing procedures to be put in place.
Nautilus does agree with the power being taken
as proposed by the draft Bill, and believes this is appropriate.
However, the proposed penalty of £2,500 is woefully inadequate
for a corporate body (particularly when the same scale of penalty
is proposed for individual shipmasters who fail to follow directions)
and it will not act as a disincentive to operating a port in an
unsafe manner. Clearly, business interests are being placed above
safety considerations.
3.1.4 National Occupational Standards—Clauses
2, 8 & 17
There is a vast body of evidence to demonstrate
the critical importance of human factors in the safety of shipping
and port operations. Various studies have shown the high proportion
of marine casualties that occur in pilotage waters, and the role
of the human element in around 80-90% of accidents at sea. The
issues have also been highlighted in a number of Marine Accident
Investigation Branch reports, which have demonstrated the dangers
of reliance upon people without adequate training and experience
in such safety-critical positions. It is therefore essential that
the government does require harbour authorities to employ suitably
experienced and qualified personnel in the posts of harbour masters
and pilots, and to proscribe the standards of competence to be
achieved to gain such qualifications. The consultation document
is correct to highlight the way in which the national and international
shortage of skilled and experienced maritime professionals makes
this proposal all the more important, because of the pressures
faced by many operators in finding suitable staff. There is a
growing weight of evidence to indicate that such shortages will
increase over the next decade, and it is important that commercial
pressures to short-circuit or over-ride skills and competence
requirements are resisted.
However, Nautilus believes it is deeply disappointing
that the draft Bill proposes that this regulation-making power
should only be used if the industry continues to fail to adopt
non-legislative standards. This seems to suggest that the government
is reluctant to take proactive measures to ensure safety in UK
ports, particularly when the industry has already had some considerable
period since the introduction of the PMSC in which to put its
house in order. We also consider that the proposed maximum fine
of £5,000 is derisory, given the importance of the regulations
being put forward here. Once again, business interests are being
placed above safety considerations.
3.1.5 Closure of Harbours—Clause 9
A number of harbour authorities already have
the power of `closure' in certain circumstances. Nautilus believes
it was never the intention of the Harbours Docks & Piers Closures
Act of 1847 that a port should remain open in situations when
the safety of the port is endangered, but rather that ports would
be free and open to all users apart from those that jeopardise
safety. As the consultation document points out, many local acts
of parliament have given such powers to individual ports and one
example is the Port of Dover, which—in order to ensure the
safety of the port, shipping and passengers—can close to
ferries in conditions where the wind speeds are in excess of 55
knots.
Nautilus UK believes there should also be a
general provision to enable the exclusion of a vessel, or vessels,
of a particular flag or company (as is the case in civil aviation)
in order to ensure the safety of a port and other users.
We also believe that the Secretary of State
should have powers to close a port not only in circumstances where
a harbour authority is not existent but also where it is unwilling
to implement safety measures. Whilst the proposal is not so relevant
for major ports, it may certainly be of importance in the case
of isolated wharves and smaller harbours.
3.2 General Lighthouse Authority Measures
Nautilus UK considers it to be entirely appropriate
for GLAs to be given powers outside the 12nm limit, and believes
that this should be extended to the median line of the UKCS. Such
a proposal reflects the realities of maritime operations and the
potential need to respond to incidents outside the territorial
sea limit.
We also consider that it is appropriate for
GLAs to be able to conduct commercial work, particularly given
the expertise of the three constituent bodies and the knowledge
and skills that can be utilised to the benefit of other organisations,
such as ports and harbour authorities, with respect to navigational
aids.
3.2.1 General Lighthouse Authority Pensions—Clause
14
Nautilus UK welcomes the commitment indicated
within the consultation document to enable the GLAs to continue
to make payments to an external funded pension scheme, such as
the MNOPF. We believe it is essential that this facility continues.
Nautilus UK notes the proposals to move from
a "pay as you go" basis to a funded basis for pensions.
We believe that this might increase the security that members
of the pension fund will have, given the lack of legal certainty
of the backing from the Department of Transport. This will also
enable the fund to be governed by trustees. Nautilus would expect
that 50% of these trustees would be member-nominated. However,
we are concerned at the statement in 3.2.2 [c] that "making
provision for a separately funded pension scheme would allow the
closure to new members of the current final salary scheme".
Nautilus would oppose any move to close a final salary scheme
to new members, and to introduce a defined contribution scheme
in its place, as this would reduce the value of members' benefits
accrued thereafter. It appears that this is the intention of these
proposals.
We note the concept of seeking to control the
actuarial deficit recorded against the GLF, but believe further
details of the associated measures and additional safeguards are
required—particularly in terms of the "flexibility"
that might be provided in changes to pension arrangements in the
future.
3.2.2 Enforcement of General Lighthouse Authority
Inspections: Clauses 10 and 1
Nautilus UK supports the principles behind these
proposals, given the safety-critical nature of aids to navigation.
However, we believe that this is another case in which the proposed
maximum level of the fine is totally inadequate.
3.3 Removal of Wrecks
Nautilus UK fully endorses these proposals,
and believes that ratification, effective implementation and enforcement
of the Wrecks Convention should do much to assist in dealing with
the problems posed by substandard shipping.
CONCLUSION
Nautilus UK believes the draft Marine Navigation
Bill represents a missed opportunity to address considerable concerns
about aspects of the safety of ships and personnel in harbours
and pilotage areas. It continues the government's "light
touch" approach to regulation and direction of the ports
and maritime sector, despite proven failings in the "non-mandatory"
application of safety initiatives. The proposals need to be significantly
strengthened if they are to achieve the desired improvements in
the safety of shipping, the protection of the marine environment,
and the lives of passengers and crew.
June 2008
| 
