Memorandum from the Honourable Company
of Master Mariners (DMNB 11)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Honourable Company welcomes the
committee's interest in this area. Navigation in the areas around
ports and the UK coast is of vital importance to ensuring safety
of life and the environment as well as ensuring our economic well
being. It is in no one's interest for ships and cargoes to be
lost, ports to be closed without good reason and for unqualified
people to be in charge of ships.
1.2 Where our competence allows we will
use the questions outlined in the draft bill as the basis of our
response to this call for evidence.
2. QUESTIONS
FROM DRAFT
BILL
3.1.1 General Directions by Harbour Authorities
Clause 6.
2.1. Is the proposal properly targeted, with
proportionate enforcement provisions?
Yes
2.2 Do you agree that there should be a power
to confer the ability to make General Directions on Harbour Authorities?
Yes. The power would be handed to those who
are best able to implement it based upon their underpinning knowledge.
2.3 Do you agree that it is preferable to
confer the ability upon application, rather than providing that
the power is conferred on all Harbour Authorities automatically?
Yes. Provided that the application can be processed
quickly, we see this as the most appropriate means of conferring
the power. Such should be monitored to ensure that there are no
undue delays in conferring this power.
2.4 Do you agree with the scope and procedures
for the General Directions power which harbour authorities would
have?
Yes.
2.5 Are you content with the proposed level
of fine?
Yes.
3.1.2 Removal of Unwanted Pilotage Powers Clause
1.
2.6 Are further safeguards necessary for this
provision?
None are apparent.
2.7 Do you agree that there should be power
to remove CHA status by order as proposed?
Yes.
2.8 Do you agree with the procedure proposed
for making such an order?
Yes.
3.1.3 Pilotage Exemption Clauses 3, 4 and 5.
2.9 Do these proposals provide sufficient
checks and balances to permit efficient and safe navigation of
vessels in harbours whilst protecting the rights of individuals?
No. Whilst agreeing in principle that a Navigation
Officer other than a Master or 1st Mate may be examined for a
PEC we are of the opinion that any PEC is only issued to a Navigation
Officer holding a class 1 or class 2 certificate of competency
for the class of vessel piloted. This gives greater flexibility
than at present based on a consistent qualification.
With regard to the compensation for the wrongful
suspension of the PEC, we strongly endorse such a move. A PEC
is often an essential requirement for Masters in certain trades
and so any suspension of a PEC can have a significant effect upon
the individual.
3.1.4 Secretary of State's Power to Direct Harbour
Authorities Clause 7.
2.10 Do you agree with the power being taken,
and the approach described as to the circumstances in which it
would be exercised? Is the proposed penalty adequate?
We agree with the power being taken. Vessels
are regulated by the Merchant Shipping Act, Statutory Instruments,
Merchant Shipping Notices and harbour directions. Harbour authorities
should be equally accountable in legislation. However, the proposed
penalty should be raised to level 5—£5,000.
3.1.5 National Occupational Standards Clauses
2, 8 & 17.
2.11 On the understanding that this power
would only be exercised in the absence of agreement by the industry
to adopt non-legislative standards, is the power properly targeted
in relation to its aims?
We believe that this should become a statutory
provision. By making the Port Marine Safety Code a statutory requirement
at this stage, all CHAs would then be operating from the same
statutory basis. If the PMSC sets out good quality standards,
then they should be enforced across the board.
2.12 Do you agree that it is necessary to
take powers for a mandatory occupational standards system?
Yes.
2.13 Do you agree that it is appropriate to
give harbour authorities a further opportunity to adopt the non-statutory
standards before introducing a mandatory system?
No. As stated, if this is a good system, then
it should be rolled out across the board.
2.14 Do you agree with the offence and the
level of fine proposed?
Yes.
3.1.6 Closure of Harbours Clause 9.
2.15 Does the power to close harbours address
the problem adequately?
We believe so.
2.16 Do you agree that there is a need for
a power to close harbours by order?
Yes.
2.17 Do you agree that the scope of this power
is appropriately narrow?
Yes.
2.18 Are you content with proposals to apply
a modified version of the procedure applicable for Harbour Revision
Orders to closure orders?
Yes.
2.19 Are any further modifications appropriate?
Not to our knowledge.
3.2 General Lighthouse Authority Measures.
3.2.1 Powers of General Lighthouse Authorities
Clauses 12 and 13
2.20 Comments on the breadth of this provision
and its implications for the General Lighthouse Fund would be
welcome
We have some concerns about this area. The concern
centres on the level of knowledge and experience that these non-commercial
organisations have in working in bidding for commercial work.
We have some concerns that through a lack of experience, bids
may not be economical and may result in losses to the GLF. However,
we do believe that making commercial use of the incredible depth
and breadth of knowledge and experience that the GLAs possess
would be a good idea, but it should be closely monitored.
3.2.2 General Lighthouse Authority Pensions Clause
14
2.21 We welcome views on whether the proposals
for GLA staff provide adequate protection for existing payments
made in relation to pensions, and future payments, whilst providing
flexibility to make changes to such pensions in the future
We are not pension experts, but any losses incurred
though bidding for commercial work should not be made up from
funds in any pension pot.
3.2.3 Enforcement of General Lighthouse Authority
Inspections Clauses 10 & 11.
2.22 Are the proposals proportionate to the
issue being addressed, with appropriate penalties for non-compliance?
Yes.
2.23 Do you consider that daily fines for
non-compliance would be appropriate as an additional penalty?
Yes.
3.3 Removal of Wrecks.
3.3.1 Marking wrecks with beacons Clause 16.
2.24 Does this measure meet all present and
foreseeable requirements?
No. We have a significant concern regarding
the marking of wrecks dangerous to navigation being undertaken
by electronic means. In the first instance it is important to
pass information about dangerous wrecks in the fastest means possible.
We would envisage that this should be undertaken by electronic
means. However, we would advise that not all ships are fitted
with the most up-to-date equipment and that the physical marking
of wrecks must be continued. Further, it is an important aspect
that navigators should not be reliant upon electronic data as
their sole means of information on safety matters and that they
should be actively encouraged to look up from their data screens
and look out of the window at the real world. The marking of wrecks
by electronic means will obviously mean an up front cost saving
to the GLA. However, the cost of a ship running aground on an
unmarked wreck would be far higher for the wider economy.
May 2008
| 
