Pilotage Standards: “Unrealistic & Unworkable”!!

December 23rd, 2009 by JCB
Posted in Articles, Technical and Training | No Comments »

As reported in the July issue, the DfT and MCA have effectively handed full control of pilot training and standards to the port run body : Port Skills & Safety (PSS).

The formal integration into the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) of the National Occupational Standards (NOS) for pilots that were produced nearly 10 years ago continues to be stalled by the ports and ship owner interests who “fail to see the need” for formalising any pilot standards!

It is therefore of great concern to the UKMPA that PSS has been handed responsibility for pilot training and standards. This concern has been enhanced by the departure of two key figures in the MCA  (ex Dover pilot, Geoff Stokes) and DfT (James Weedon) who recognised the importance of incorporating the NOS document into the PMSC.

When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, Steve Ladyman, the most pro-active shipping minister in recent years, was given the boot and replaced by the

almost invisible Jim Fitzpatrick, so most of you will probably be unaware that in June he was moved to DEFRA and replaced by Paul Clark in a low key reshuffle. Paul Clark is the MP for Gillingham and Rainham and was previously parliamentary private secretary to Ed Balls at the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Having been concerned that the Government was devolving too much power to the CHA’s (a concern enhanced by the recruitment and training policies of two CHA’s in particular), ex Liverpool pilot and solicitor Barrie Youde entered into correspondence with Paul Clark, bringing his attention to the Sea Empress case where Mr Justice Steel made the following observation:

“The significance of these matters is all the greater in the context of a scheme of compulsory pilotage. Shipowners and masters must needs engage a pilot. They have to take the training, experience and expertise of the pilot provided at face value. While the master remains nominally in command, it has to be recognised that the pilot had the ‘con’ and a master can only intervene when a situation of danger has clearly arisen. The port authority imposes a charge for pilotage but in the same breath has the added advantage of the pilot being treated for the purposes of civil liability as an employee of the shipowner. All this calls for the highest possible standards on the part of the port authority.”

This observation clearly places a legal obligation upon any harbour authority to maintain the highest possible standards in a compulsory pilotage area.

However, the reply from Paul Clark’s office was quite astounding in that it declared that “The Department does not accept that there is a legal requirement for all Competent Harbour Authorities to provide this service [i.e. pilotage] to ‘the highest possible standard’…………..”

Even more alarming is that the letter goes on to state “Such an interpretation would, I suspect, be unrealistic and unworkable. It would also leave no scope for the port authority in question to use their discretion or consider what factors they

consider to be most pertinent for the pilotage needs of their harbour, as

provided for in section 3 of the Act. Given that Competent Harbour

Authorities have the discretion to consider whether pilotage services are in

fact required at all or whether they need to be compulsory, it is a logical

consequence that they should be able to determine the skills, experience

and qualifications that they consider necessary to carry out such services”.

Subsequent exchanges go even further suggesting that the Government  considers that it no longer has  responsibility for a CHA’s policies with respect to pilotage!

At the time of writing, the exchanges are on-going with Barrie writing again to the Minister explaining the fact that by delegating powers to CHAs, under the 1987 Pilotage Act, Parliament couldn’t legally cede its own power of central oversight by ministers.

We await the outcome with interest. Watch this space!

JCB