118th Conference 2005

January 15th, 2006 by JCB
Posted in Features | No Comments »

Conference 2005

The 118^th Annual conference was hosted jointly by London and the Medway districts at the Village Hotel, Maidstone on the 11^th -12^th November. As usual there was a packed agenda to fill the two days and for those who were unable to attend the following is a brief resume of the proceedings. The full minutes are available for members upon request to the London office.

 

 

PNPF:

Richard Williamson, Boston

Following the now standard practice of holding a pre-conference pensions session Richard provided delegates with an overview of the PNPF activities since the 2004 conference. The primary change had been that there was now a requirement for trustees to be formally trained and this training requirement was being enhanced all the time.

The rest of Richard’s report was mainly based on the written report circulated to delegates and he covered the following topics:

PNPF Trust Company

Changes to Personnel

Membership: There had been a large reduction in retirements following a tightening of the ill health retirement rules which had brought them into line with industry norms. This had benefited the fund.

Review of the Equity Market

Investments and returns

Fund Value

Triennial Valuation

Having explained all the above with respect to the fund, Richard explained that although under the old Minimum Funding Requirement (MFR) the fund was fully funded, the triennial valuation now used a range of different parameters and this had indicated an on-going deficit. The PNPF was addressing this by:

Raising the retirement age from 60-65 (rather than raise contributions).

Adjusting the investment strategy which had resulted in 10% of the fund being invested in a “Hedge” fund managed by Goldman Sachs.

Had held discussions with the fund’s “Participating Bodies” and the UKMPA as to how to deal with the deficit.

Richard concluded his report by providing delegates with an explanation of Hedge funds and reassured the delegates that he was personally convinced that the fund would continue to provide on-going pensions to members.

OPENING SPEECH:

Michael Grey, Lloyd’s List

UKMPA Chairman Les Cate formally opened the conference and delegates observed one minute’s silence in memory of EMPA President Gianfranco Gasperini, IMPA President Hein Merhkens and past UKMPA president Sir James Callaghan, all of whom had died during the past year.  Michael Grey then opened the conference and in a lively speech explained how he used the many fora where he was invited to speak to explain the key role that pilots played in ensuring the safety of ships in port approaches. In particular he always reminded ship owners that if their vessel does suffer damage then they should compare the cost of pilotage to the cost of “lawyerage”!

Michael went on to express the concern that over zealous officials, the blame culture and the lack of respect shown to professionals such as Masters and pilots was causing young recruits to abandon a career at sea in an industry already suffering from an acute shortage of skilled professionals. He personally felt that the hope that technology would provide a solution was misguided since there was no alternative to “hands-on” experienced professionals although it was essential that pilots adopted and were trained in the use of any technology that would enhance safety.

Michael then formally opened the conference to warm applause from the delegates.

BUDGET REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT:

Treasurer: John Pretswell (Forth)

John opened by detailing the membership which currently stood at 486.

These figures represented a reduction of 7 since 2004. He then detailed the income and expenditure items for 2005 from which he had drawn up the budget proposals for 2006. Questions were asked about the legal expenditure which were passed to the Chairman who explained which elements had been funded by the T&G and which matters were being dealt with by the UKMPA through Blake Lapthorn Linnel (BLL) and Barrie Youde and he also explained the reason why the three different legal teams were engaged on the issues currently being dealt with.

DfT:

Phil Carey, Head of Ports Division

Phil provided a Power point presentation to the delegates whereby he explained the relationship between the MCA (executive agency of the DfT) and the DfT and how they worked together on matters such as maritime safety, navigation policy and the PMSC. This co-operation also included other bodies such as the General Lighthouse Authorities (GLAs).

EU DIRECTIVE: The UK Government had not welcomed the return of this Directive since in many ways it was a worse document than the earlier version that had been rejected in 2003.

PORTS POLICY REVIEW: This would be

getting under way early in 2006. The last policy review in 2000 acknowledged the principle of a market led port industry with the Government as regulator but the DfT needed to respond to new developments such as the reclassification of trust ports and the large increase in container movements. Small ports could be supported as part of local regeneration or, if no longer handling trade could be better used for redevelopment. The review would not commence until the outstanding container terminal planning applications had been dealt with early in 2006. Once the review commenced the UKMPA would be fully involved with the consultation in particular with respect to safety and security issues.  SECURITY: This was a separate issue with which the department was involved by ensuring that ports were up to date with security issues.

SAFETY: The UK had a good record on this but the review would be ensuring standards were implemented and this would require primary legislation. The Safer Ports Initiative where the DfT has been supported by the H&SE has achieved positive results above Government targets but there was no place for complacency.  PMSC: The MAIB had recommended that the DfT review the provision of powers necessary for the MCA to effectively monitor implementation and compliance with the Code and the DfT are currently complying with this recommendation.

INCIDENT MANAGEMENT: This was

another area of policy which was being dealt with by the Department following MAIB reports and procedures were being drawn up based on MAIB recommendations.

CHIRP: The DfT had confirmed funding for CHIRP for a further three years.

PILOTAGE: Two general items were outstanding and these were pilot boarding and the Working Time Directive.

NOS: The new shipping Minister, Dr.  Stephen Ladyman was actively supporting the maritime sector and promoting standards for shipping and the skills agenda.

PORT SAFETY BILL: Further to this the DfT were continuing to press for Parliamentary time to amend the Pilotage Act and to underpin the PMSC.

During the subsequent Q&A session Phil was able to clarify the many issues raised by his presentation.

MCA, MAIB & IMO:

Don Cockrill (London)

Don expressed frustration that after all the work on the PMSC, the only action taken in support of the Code by the DfT and MCA had been to produce the requirement for the CHA’s to submit a “Statement of Compliance” and it remained to be seen as to whether or not even this would result in improved compliance. From the experience of the areas in which he wasm involved Don was of the opinion that there was a deliberate policy of excluding pilots from the policy discussions by the ports and shipping industries.

Due to a shortage of time Don referred delegates to the written reports contained within the delegates conference pack.

LEGAL:

Fergus Whitty, Legal Director T&G

The theme for this year’s address to conference by Fergus Whitty was Age Discrimination, which was to be subject of the “Employment Equality Regulations” to be implemented in October 2006. After October 2006 any discrimination based on age would only be acceptable if it was justified and certain criteria and case histories for this were explained to the delegates.

Employers would in future have to specify a “Normal Retirement Age” (NRA) and there were procedures to be followed by both employers and employees with respect to this. The employer had to explain to an employee that they had the right to request to continue working after the NRA and once the new legislation was implemented the employee would have a right to “request” to stay on after the NRA and the employer would have a legal “duty to consider” such requests.

Q&A: In the ensuing Q&A session Fergus defined NRA as that determined by the employers pension fund. Also the legislation would not normally affect those pilots who were self employed unless they were operating under a contract to supply the service where advice would need to be sought.

Fergus also provided clarification over specifying age limits for certain jobs which used to be a common factor of pilotage.

This would be very difficult and if felt

necessary then the policy would need to

comply with the “justification”

requirements.

A point was made by Chris Hughes

(Europilots) concerning the fact that although self employed the conditions of his authorisation by Trinity House stated a maximum age of 67. How would the legislation affect this?

Fergus agreed that this was a very valid point which he would seek to clarify since the legislation would not appear to cover such an anomaly.

IMPA:

Nick Cutmore (Secretary IMPA)

Nick presented the report on behalf of Geoff Taylor who was unable to present the report in person due to illness.

Geoff’s report opened by paying tribute to Hein Mehrkens who had sadly died during 2005. As Senior Vice President Geoff had been nominated as Acting President to serve out the remaining term of Hein’s Presidency to November 2006 and he had been honoured to accept this.  Two key issues which IMPA were currently involved in were the EU Ports directive and also the ESMARALDA project which once again meant that arguments previously used in questioning bodies such as IALA over “Remote pilotage” would need to be revived to challenge the new phraseology of “remote access”. Denmark were seeking to make the Great Belt a compulsory pilotage area. The Danish Maritime Administration had requested support for the proposal for compulsory pilotage at IMO and had detailed the costs of pilotage against an exact breakdown of costs of a grounding of a tanker.

The matter of compulsory pilotage in the Torres Straits had caused some dilemma for IMPA in that the administration of the proposed pilotage service would be using competitive pilotage services which was against IMPA principles. Negotiations with Australia over this issue had been constructive and IMPA had finally agreed to support the motion.

IMPA had achieved a success in formally removing references to shore based pilotage from the IALA VTS manual. Geoff was pleased to report that IMPA membership was continuing to grow and it now had over 8,000 members. The finances were in good order but costs were high and pilots should all recognise that especially at IMO the IMPA representatives were dealing with many from the highest level of member Governments and were often pitched against other vested interests with very large budgets!

During the last year IMPA had had meetings with three different P&I Clubs and these had been very constructive for both sides. The Congress of Canadian pilots had been well attended by many influential international representatives.  Deep Sea pilotage was suffering on-going problems resulting from the competition between the groups. The report reminded all pilots that the next IMPA Congress would be in Cuba (November 2006) and it was to be hoped that as many members as possible would attend. The report was accepted by warm applause in recognition of the valuable work by Geoff in his absence.

TECHNICAL & TRAINING, ECTS,

MarNIS

An updated report is on p.9

PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS:

Lord Tony Berkeley

President Lord Tony Berkeley opened his speech by apologising for not having been able to attend day 1 of the conference. This had been due to his attendance at the Bilbao conference on ports, shipping and containerisation, followed by a visit to Brussels for a meeting with the Transport Commission to present a paper on future transport policy. This meeting had mainly dealt with maritime security. At present the way in which different sectors dealt with security was random and not always effective. Another point raised in the meeting was the expansion in growth in maritime trade. On the continent there was growing impetus to move traffic off the road and rail networks onto canals. In Lord Berkeley’s own field of rail transport discussions were taking place over the interdependency of transport and energy policies, in particular over coal. The result is that imports from deep sea were likely to remain steady or increase despite other sources of energy coming on line. There was a need for a Government led ports policy in order to ensure that the UK remained a base hub for shipping rather than become a feeder outpost from Europe.  The House of Lords had been attempting for several years to introduce an amendment to the Harbours Act to bring the planning procedures in line with those of roads. So far the attempts had been rejected by the commons but it was hoped that this time (3^rd) it may be allowed to go through. Lord Berkeley concluded by paying tribute to the hard work and dedication by Les Cate and the Section Committee and pledged his continuing support of the UKMPA in highlighting the essential safety role played by pilots.

LEGAL:

Mark Foden, Blake Lapthorn Linnell (BLL)

Mark detailed the work undertaken by BLL on behalf of pilots during 2005. This included reviewing contracts for both employed and self employed pilots, unfair dismissal and with the London pilots advising on the proposed new arrangement for Local Navigation Certificates for watermen.

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

Section 22(1) of the 1987 Pilotage Act had provided valuable protection for pilots and had thus kept the number of claims against them low. This legal protection was now being challenged and Mark was of the opinion that it was only a matter of time before a test case claim was made against an individual pilot. This section of the Act just covers civil liability for negligence but not criminal misconduct which is covered under Section 21.

In the case of a negligence claim against a pilot although 22(1) provides a maximum personal financial liability of £1000 the pilot would also be likely to have his authorisation suspended or removed and he would then be responsible for his own legal defence costs in fighting the suspension and potentially the costs of the claimant. The limitation also only applies when a pilot is undertaking his duties as a pilot. It does NOT apply to criminal cases which may be brought following an incident under the other Acts such as the Water Resources Act or if manslaughter charges are brought following a fatality in which a pilot may be implicated. It was for this reason that Mark was of the opinion that pilots needed to ensure that they had adequate insurance cover.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 1987 PILOTAGE ACT:

Joe Wilson (Tees), Barrie Youde,

(Solicitor, Hill Dickinson)

James Weedon (DfT)

Joe detailed the proposed amendments and new Sections that it was hoped could be included in a new Pilotage Act. The document provoked considerable discussion amongst the delegates and James Weedon (DfT) was able to clarify some of the points on procedure and Barrie Youde was able to clarify some of the legal phraseology and explain the legal reasoning behind some of the proposed amendments.  Following the discussion it was agreed that SC members would hold a meeting with the DfT on procedures and that the document would be placed on the members’ only section of the UKMPA website for members to consult and comment.

CHIRP:

Mike Powell (Director)

CHIRP had been subjected to several reviews by various departments during 2005 and this had delayed work on some investigations. The good news was that funding had been approved for a further three years. Since its inception, CHIRP had received 221 reports and about 100 of these had been progressed into action. About 70% were from the commercial merchant sector and the other 30% fishing and leisure. The “Maritime Feedback” newsletter now has a circulation of 140,000 and there was increasing interest from abroad where around 30,000 were currently sent to 47 countries. Mike detailed the many areas where CHIRP had been involved and he explained the processes which had resulted in changes being implemented by (sometimes reluctant) management. With respect to reports from pilots, reports concerning PEC issues had reduced but there were increasing reports concerning VTS. There had also been reports concerning the unfamiliarity and complexity of some new bridge equipment along with poor bridge team management problems and there had also been reports concerning fatigue induced by pilots’ rosters. During the subsequent discussion many different points were covered and Mike was able to clarify specific aspects of the CHIRP process to delegates.

MAIB:

Stephen Mayer (Chief Executive)

The MAIB investigated any accident involving a British registered vessel world wide and any accidents involving any vessel in UK waters. It was a totally independent body which meant that it was independent of the MCA, DfT, lawyers and vested interests within the maritime industry. The sole aim is to investigate the root cause of an accident and it was not the role of the MAIB to establish and apportion any blame. The outcome of investigations was to provide “lessons learned” in the hope that similar accidents can be avoided in the future.

The MAIB operates under the Merchant Shipping Act and the investigators have considerable powers which exceed those of the police and they can interview anyone, board vessels, enter property and seize documents in connection with an enquiry.  There is no right to silence and lawyers may be excluded. In return for these powers there is a strict confidentiality placed upon the investigation.

The MAIB is now receiving around 2500 accident reports per year and it decides which accidents should be investigated although the Secretary of State may request an investigation into an incident which the MAIB had decided not to. The benefits of an MAIB investigation over an internal HA or P&I investigation was that there was no vested interest in the outcome and therefore the recommendations were valuable in determining the effectiveness of existing legislation and helped to underpin proposed legislation and also identifying areas of concern which may currently lack legislation. The key areas of concern at the moment are:

Fishing: Statistically now the most dangerous profession and existing legislation is largely ineffective Leisure: Is unregulated

Commercial: Fatigue

This area of fatigue has been of great concern to the MAIB especially on the 2 watch system using the Master & Mate used on the short sea trade. The awareness campaign by the MAIB has resulted in the matter now being formally tabled for inclusion at IMO in 2006. The MAIB recommendation is for a minimum of 2 watch keepers in addition to the Master. Although there was widespread support for this there was a small group of opponents but the MAIB will not let the matter be sidelined.  This positive action was applauded by the delegates. In addition to fatigue the second key area of concern was complacency and the MAIB found it regrettable that there were still far too many accidents resulting from complacent attitudes by Masters.  Stephen concluded his presentation by explaining that accidents usually resulted from a failure of more than one element of safety and provided some graphic examples which revealed such failures which could have been avoided by an awareness of risk through formal risk assessments by the bridge team.

INSURANCES:

Paul Haysom, Ken Pound, Drew Smith

Following the withdrawal of cover by Navigators & General in 2004, Paul Haysom had arranged for a provisional policy with Royal & Sun Alliance (RSA) to cover members during 2005. A change in rules by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) meant that the UKMPA could no longer provide a ‘group’ policy but a similar policy with extended provisions had been arranged with RSA which offered a discount on premiums for members but in future each individual would be individually named. For this reason and also for the convenience of submitting the premium for tax relief it had been decided to separate the insurance premiums from the general subscription.

The topic of insurances generated considerable debate amongst the delegates and the Drew Smith (Circle Insurance) and Ken Pound (Ropners) were able to answer the main points. The new policy now covers a member from the commencement of the pilotage act until the completion and also provides cover against pollution incidents. Two cover options are available for £250,000 and £500,000 and individual members are free to choose whichever cover they prefer.

In answer to the question as to whether or not the RSA policy was necessary, the Section Committee had examined and discussed this in detail, in particular with respect to employed pilots, prior to recommending it for a conference vote. The argument that an employed pilot was covered by his HA’s insurance had been proven not to be the case and with the growing ‘blame culture’ and evidence that the validity of £1000 limitation of liability under the Pilotage Act may be subjected to a legal challenge the Section Committee were in agreement that additional cover was essential for all pilots. Following the discussion the adoption of the new policy and the separation of the insurance premiums from the general subscription was put to a vote where the proposal was carried by 45 votes in favour, 10 abstentions and no votes against.

Since the conference it has been confirmed that all members will receive an individual policy and tax receipt for their premium payment.

BELFAST:

Liam Magee

Liam updated the delegates on the latest news of the Belfast pilots’ dispute with the Belfast Harbour management. He thanked the UKMPA and T&G for the valuable assistance which had been offered so far and explained that he had been a member of NUMAST for many years and having only recently become a UKMPA member could appreciate the considerable benefits of UKMPA membership for pilots over NUMAST.

KRISTIAN PEDERSON:

Dave Devey

Dave explained to delegates the arguments that ABP had used to dismiss Kristian for “gross misconduct”. At a preliminary hearing the T&G lawyer had managed to provide the all the relevant facts in support of Kristian and the outcome was that the adjudicator had referred the case to a full tribunal hearing. Having been involved in the Humber, Belfast and SE Wales cases Dave had noted that these disputes were all inter related and warned delegates that it was necessary for all UKMPA members to fully support those affected.

HUMBER:

Dave Devey

The Humber issue was still very much “alive” and the Misfeasance in Public Office case was proceeding with the support of Hill Dickenson and a top QC.  Developments in this case were expected during 2006.

Parliamentary Questions

Lord Tony Berkeley has asked two Parliamentary questions. The First concerned NOS for pilots and the reply from Lord Davies of Oldham had stated that NOS had been adopted by many CHAs but he went on to add that the MCA “has been actively engaged in work on translating the NOS into an underpinning national qualification with Port Skills and Safety Ltd. (PSSL) and anticipate completing a port marine foundation degree framework in Spring 2006”.

The NOS agenda is seemingly being driven by PSSL and other bodies which have excluded the UKMPA from participating and I am seeking clarification from the DfT over the policy and explaining the necessity of pilots to be involved in matters which directly affected them.

The second question asked was a result of the situation at Belfast whereby a consultant had arranged for the South Tyneside Maritime College to create a simulation of Belfast, in order to train up PEC holders to operate as pilots should the existing pilots decide to take industrial action over their current dispute with management over a change in their working agreement.

Lord Berkeley asked: “Whether the use

of a simulator at South Shields Maritime College to train marine pilots to operate in Belfast will enable them to become fully qualified to pilot ships there and, if not, for how long these pilots will be required to train in Belfast in order to gain the statutory local knowledge required by the Pilotage Act 1987 and to comply with the requirements of the PMSC and the recommendations of IMO resolution A960.”

Lord Davies replied: “It is for the CHA

to determine the qualifications and experience required of maritime pilots in Belfast, including the local knowledge component required by the Act, Code and IMO Resolution. The MCA has received a statement of compliance with the PMSC from the Belfast Harbour Commission and this assurance includes pilotage matters.”

Whilst the answer had been predictable this PMQ had been tabled in order to ensure that ports were aware that their compliance with the 1987 Act, PMSC and IMO 960 was being monitored at Government level.

1987 Pilotage Act

The UKMPA’s proposed amendments to the Act have been submitted to James Weedon (Policy Advisor Ports Division) of the DfT.  A “scoping paper” would now be presented to the Ports Division and if accepted would form a new Port Safety Bill.  The UKMPA team working on the amendments are: Joe Wilson, Dave Devey and Barrie Youde.

Legal

Blake Lapthorn Lovell was representing several pilotage districts. The cost of up to two hours for each district has been met by the T&G but any time over that is charged to the UKMPA and during the past year those legal costs had been considerable.

Europe

The Ports Directive was finally rejected on 18^th January by a vote of MEPs by the following voting:

532 against – 120 for – 25 abstentions In the plenary there were calls for starting from scratch with a new white paper on Ports. Alternatively, the Services Directive that will be discussed next month in the parliament could call for Transport to be included in it. It will not go away it would seem.

I am pleased to tell you that the ESMERALDA document has not been accepted by the EU. Rumour has it that a new Ports document has surfaced called EFFORT written by a Professor from a Technical College in Hamburg that will be presented to the EU. When we are able to locate a copy it will be circulated to the Districts.

Thanks to those pilots who contacted their MEPs. Pilotage was mentioned by MEPs from the NW, Tees, London and Southampton. All sang from the same hymn sheet namely: competition in a safety service such as pilotage was dangerous.

Les Cate