Further supplementary memorandum from
the Department of Transport (DMNB 14B)
1. This Supplementary Memorandum provides
additional information on three areas that were of interest to
the Committee in the evidence session on 25 June 2008:
— The statistics on maritime incidents
and deaths, in particular on the distribution between those that
occurred within the jurisdiction of harbour authorities and those
elsewhere.
— The General Lighthouse Authorities'
liability for payments to the Merchant Navy Officers' Pension
Fund.
— The appeals mechanism in respect
of the suspension or revocation of Pilotage Exemption Certificates.
STATISTICS ON
MARITIME INCIDENTS
AND DEATHS
2. Safety is a key priority in the large,
highly competitive and growing port industry. Although the record
in the UK has been improving, marine accidents are still a source
of injury, pollution and delay in UK ports. Statistics for incidents
in ports are not collected separately from those relating to shipping
generally in UK waters but both the dangers and potential impact
of incidents increase nearer to shore and in the busier shipping
lanes close to and within ports.
3. In the most recent five years for which
figures are available (2002-06—some 2006 figures are provisional)
in the whole of the UK Search and Rescue Region, the MCA recorded
540 deaths from maritime accidents. MCA data deals with incidents
reported to HM Coastguard and it is probable that only a small
proportion of port and harbour incidents reach them because they
are resolved often by port authorities and other emergency services.
Thus the figures quoted cannot be regarded as comprehensive. The
following table provides an estimate of the extent to which the
recorded incidents relate to the jurisdiction of harbour authorities.
NUMBER OF
DEATHS RECORDED
BY HM COASTGUARD
| 2002 |
2003 | 2004 | 2005
| 2006
provisional | Total
|
| Maritime deaths within the UK Search and Rescue (SAR) region
| 110 | 105 | 100
| 101 | 124 | 540
|
| Of which: maritime deaths occurring in port limits or approaches
| 11 | 6 | 15 |
22 | 21 | 75 |
Notes:
Data source: Coastguard database. Estimate provided by MCA, 1
July 2008.
The figures are as accurate as possible—see paragraph 3
above. No trend should be read into the figures.
4. We will be looking at the current data sources and
plans for improving statistics on maritime incidents, including
the use of the database of accidents in UK waters which the National
Water Safety Forum is setting up, with a view to ensuring that
there are adequate ways to assess the effectiveness of the measures
in the Bill.
5. It should be noted that the aims of the draft Marine
Navigation Bill are wider than improving port safety and reducing
fatalities. The reduction of deaths from maritime accidents is
not therefore necessarily the only, or best, measure of the Bill's
success. We hope that such outcomes would occur but further work
is being done to develop performance measures to assist with the
post-legislative scrutiny of the Bill; for example, additional
safety measures such as injury data, near miss data (hazardous
occurrences), and compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code,
as well as the efficiency of the GLAs' operations and dealing
with shipwrecks.
INFORMATION ON
THE MERCHANT
NAVY OFFICERS'
PENSION FUND
6. The GLAs are Participating Employers of the Merchant
Navy Officers' Pension Fund (MNOPF) which is a defined benefit
scheme providing benefits based on final pensionable salary. The
MNOPF is a funded multi-employer scheme but the GLAs are unable
to identify their share of the underlying assets and liabilities.
Liabilities to the MNOPF arise in three ways: employers' contributions,
deficit contributions and statutory debt.
Employers' contributions
7. Only the Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB) has Active
Members ie officers who are employed and also members of the MNOPF.
Employer's contributions to the scheme (11.9% of pensionable salaries)
are paid by NLB to MNOPF on their behalf. These amounted to £11,000
in Financial Year 2007-08.
Deficit contributions
8. The rules of the MNOPF state that Participating Employers
may be called to make lump sum payments to make up deficits in
the Fund. With effect from 8 June 2000 the rules were amended
to state that an employer will not be regarded as ceasing to be
a Participating Employer as a result of ceasing to employ active
members or other eligible employees. Following a Court ruling
on 22 March 2005, all three GLAs meet the definition of "Participating
Employers" and will have a liability to make additional payments
required by the MNOPF Trustees in order to meet the MNOPF's deficit.
9. In Financial Year 2007-08 the GLAs paid £172,661
in deficit contributions. £24,272 represented further contributions
to the deficit in the 2003 valuation and £148,389 was a contribution
to the deficit arising from the 2006 valuation. The details are
shown in the following table:
| Northern
Lighthouse Board
|
Trinity House | Commissioners of
Irish Lights
|
Total |
| 2003 Valuation | £12,441
| £5,542 | £6,289 |
£24,272 |
| 2006 Valuation | £88,125
| £28,456 | £31,808
| £148,389 |
| |
| | |
Statutory Debt
10. Under Section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 (as amended)
a Statutory Debt will be triggered when a participating employer
ceases to employ active members. This will only apply to NLB.
This debt means that NLB will be liable to pay a proportion of
the MNOPF deficit calculated on the statutory basis. A broad estimate
of NLB's liability if that debt was triggered now is £600,000.
In this case the participating employer remains liable to pay
a share of any future deficit but after taking account of the
payment of the Statutory Debt.
APPEALS MECHANISM
FOR THE
SUSPENSION OR
REVOCATION OF
PILOTAGE EXEMPTION
CERTIFICATES
11. The Pilotage Act 1987 provides in section 3 for the
authorisation of people to act as pilots in individual ports and
their approaches and in section 8 for the issue of Pilotage Exemption
Certificates (PECs) to qualified people who meet a specified set
of criteria. The responsibility for determining and examining
the qualifications in respect of age, physical fitness, time of
service, local knowledge, skill, character and otherwise to be
required from persons applying for authorisation as pilots lies
with the competent harbour authority for that port. The competent
harbour authority also determines the skill, experience and local
knowledge that must be demonstrated by applicants for a PEC by
means of an examination or other reasonable requirements.
12. The Act already permits a competent harbour authority
to suspend or revoke a pilot's authorisation if it appears that
the authorised person has been guilty of any incompetence or misconduct
affecting his capability as a pilot or has ceased to have the
required qualifications or has failed to provide evidence that
he continues to have those qualifications. Similarly it may suspend
or revoke a PEC if it appears that the holder has been guilty
of any incompetence or misconduct affecting his capability to
pilot the ship.
13. The Minister was asked whether there will be an appeals
mechanism for the proposals in the draft Marine Navigation Bill
dealing with the suspension or revocation of PECs (Q229). No appeal
process is provided for in the Pilotage Act for the existing powers
to suspend or revoke either a pilot's authorisation or a PEC;
no requirement for one has been demonstrated. However, as the
competent harbour authority is undertaking a public function,
its actions are susceptible to judicial review so there is always
an opportunity for an aggrieved party to seek a judicial review
of such an action. The Department considers this to be a sufficient
safeguard for the rights of the individuals concerned.
14. The proposals in the draft Bill are an extension
of the existing powers of competent harbour authorities to suspend
PECs which deal with potential loopholes in the current legislation
and the Department considers, as set out in section 3.1.3 of the
Consultation Document, that the opportunity to challenge by way
of judicial review against an authority's decision to suspend
a PEC under the new or existing powers will continue to provide
a sufficient opportunity for the decision to be scrutinised by
the courts. We will consider how to update and improve the details
of the advice on the suspension or revocation of a PEC in the
Guide to Good Practice on Port Marine Operations to include
the possibility of such a challenge against a decision by a competent
harbour authority to suspend or revoke a pilot's authorisation
or a PEC and the circumstances in which compensation might be
appropriate.
July 2008
| 
