18 JUNE 2003  

MR NICK STARLING, MR GRAEME HENDERSON, MR TIM GALLOWAY, MR RON WEBB AND MR PETER LANDLES

  Q400  Mr Stevenson: So a review of this refinement, which seems to be an important issue, is ongoing.

  Mr Galloway: Indeed.

  Q401  Mr Stevenson: We are advised that Modern Ports outlining the dock regulations of 1988 and the code of practice which emanates from those regulations described docks as being potentially hazardous places for employees and others. Would you accept that?

  Mr Galloway: I would.

  Q402  Mr Stevenson: Having accepted that, do you find it strange that statistics are still rather vague in the sense that you have described to us?

  Mr Starling: I recall when I appeared before your predecessor committee two years ago, that there was quite a lot of discussion about the statistics and I said at that point that we knew that there were a lot of problems on how you collected them. We equally knew that they would have to be very far out for us not to be aware that ports are extremely hazardous places and the accident record was a poor one. No matter how you defined it or how closely you looked at the situation and looked at categories here and there, there was a problem there. Clearly we do what we can to the final statistics so we can burrow down into them to act on areas where we know the difficulties, but we do know; even with a statistical background which is perhaps not as good as it might be, we have a much better understanding now of where the problems are and how we can address them. If I may make a general comment, in the last two years, since we appeared before the Committee, these issues have been grasped much more effectively by the industry in general, things like the Port Safety and Skills Committee has been set up which is a big step forward. There is much more evidence of top level involvement in safety issues, a recognition that no matter how you measure them, how the statistics work, if you are getting it wrong it is a cost to your business and a business risk to you. We are encouraged in this more general level that the industry is starting to take this much more seriously and is taking action accordingly.

  Q403  Mr Stevenson: That is very encouraging. How long has your organisation been looking at the robustness of these statistics and seeking to refine them?

  Mr Starling: We are an organisation which believes in continuous improvement. Ever since we were set up, we have gone through our statistics. At the moment, since HSE relaunched our revitalising initiative four years ago one of the crucial components of that was getting our information much improved; not only in terms of statistics themselves but in evaluating how we can improve.

  Q404  Mr Stevenson: Would it be fair of me to deduce from that answer that you have been looking at this particular issue for four years?

  Mr Starling: Not in that sense. What I am saying is that in the last four years in particular, we are very conscious of the way we collect our data and the use we make of it.

  Q405  Mr Stevenson: I accept all that, but you see how important the question is to us because we are here to try to get a better understanding. I am not trying to trick anybody; I just want to know, if I can, how long your organisation has been looking to refine your statistical base in this particularly very important regard. We accept that they are very hazardous places. Has your organisation been seeking to refine the statistics for four years, two years, five years, what?

  Mr Galloway: It would be fairer to say that we have been aware of some of the issues with our statistics since the revitalising initiative and as part of that we have looked at it. I would not want to put a date on it. It is not as though at one point one of us sat down and said as of that moment we are going to be looking at our statistics.

  Mr Henderson: As you know, the Health and Safety Executive covers a very wide range of different industries and we do work with standard industrial classifications which is the basis for all government statistics. That is the fundamental problem we have. We are actually looking to redefine those SICs, indeed DfT have been doing some work on that and we have contributed to that. What that should mean is that in the future, to come into effect hopefully over the next two years or so, the SICs, the standard industrial classifications, will be a lot tighter and a lot more specific, for example, to the ports industry and the aviation industry.

  Q406  Mr Stevenson: I accept all that. The thrust of my question, and I shall keep pushing until Mrs Dunwoody stops me, is: how long have you been looking at this, where is the sense of urgency? That is what I am after. If your organisation has a sense of urgency about this, because of the hazardous nature of working in docks, then will you talk of government? Has government had a sense of urgency about this? If this has been looked at for four years, I personally would want to worry about the sense of urgency. If it is still being looked at and it is going to be another two years, then that is what I am trying to get at. Would it be fair of me to describe the situation as I have described it, or would you want to refine what I have said?

  Mr Henderson: The only thing I would add is that DfT, indeed government as a whole, are looking at SICs, looking at defining them much more precisely and the Health and Safety Executive has played a part in that particular role. Certainly DfT are very much in the lead on this on ports, so they are the people who will have the up-to-date knowledge on when they are due to report on this. That process is taking place.

  Q407  Mr Stevenson: May I ask one more question on a different issue which has already been raised and that is non-permanent employees, casualisation? I understand that the voluntary code of practice came into force in October 2000. Has it had any effect?

  Mr Webb: No.

  Q408  Chairman: Does someone want to comment on the safety aspects? Has it improved the safety? Okay, it is a voluntary code of practice, but has it improved the safety?

  Mr Galloway: Certainly what I have seen from inspectors' reports is that as you go through the years an increasing number of inspectors make reference to the passport scheme and a particular port having a passport scheme. Our trade union colleagues indicated that it is not universal and I would accept that entirely, but I would hope that at the major ports we are not getting untrained people of any description working. I hope in that way it has improved things. I know there are steps to improve the passport scheme still further. I would want to see that passport scheme extended beyond the membership of PSS. I would want to see it extended beyond just non-permanent employees to include all dock workers, indeed I would want to see a scheme which enabled anyone to tell whether a dock worker was able to drive a gantry crane, whether that was something they had been trained and were competent to do. That would be a good step forward and would build confidence. I would want to see dock workers being in a position that they could claim to have professional qualifications such as NVQs.

  Q409  Tom Brake: You said that the passport scheme is a voluntary scheme. Is a date built into that programme beyond which it is no longer a voluntary scheme and therefore people have to opt into it? Could you just set out the range of things it covers in terms of safety training, basic equipment training? A passport suggests that it is something someone can use to turn up at another dock and demonstrate there and then their competence. Is that the idea, or does it require topping up with special skills when one moves to a port with a different type of environment?

  Mr Galloway: On the second point, it may be better if PSS filled in the detail, because it is a scheme which they administer and they have set down the code.

  Q410  Chairman: Do not worry, we shall ask them.

  Mr Galloway: Certainly, as I understand it, there is no presumption on our part to bring forward any form of legislation or otherwise which would make the scheme mandatory.

  Q411  Chairman: Whoa, whoa. HSE were in the middle, were they not, of updating legislation to reflect changes in the industry? That is what you said in evidence to us.

  Mr Henderson: Indeed. May I comment on that?

  Q412  Chairman: Please do, because if you do not, we will.

  Mr Henderson: We are actually reviewing the Docks Regulations 1988 and the associated approved code of practice and guidance and that work is well under way and it is certainly our intention that it should be completed in the spring of next year.

  Q413  Chairman: You are being a little careful in the way you do it, are you not? No one could accuse you of indecent haste.

  Mr Henderson: We are certainly making very good progress with it. What I would say in relation to the passport scheme is that our legislation on training and on general standards of competency is extremely comprehensive. We have a wide raft of legislation from the Health and Safety at Work Act to the Management Regulations. Passport schemes are not in themselves intended to be statutory codes or become statutory codes. What they are supposed to demonstrate is a certain level of competency by which an industry or individuals actually demonstrate they have been trained to a certain level. As Mr Galloway said earlier, really the passport scheme at present deals with only a fairly basic level of training. What we want to see is that extended as a result of the port industry's initiative in terms of addressing the health and safety stance of the industry and expanding it into those areas where, for example, crane drivers could actually have a passport which could be interchangeable throughout the industry. When the inspectors actually visit sites, they will take that passport as a prima facie evidence that the individual has had some basic health and safety training, no more. If a person does not have that passport then the inspector should actually enquire much more closely as to what training they have and what other health and safety arrangements exist within the company where they work.

  Q414  Mrs Ellman: Have there been any reductions or changes in the Health and Safety Executive staff in relation to port safety?

  Mr Starling: May I make a general comment to start with? In the last five years we have had quite an increase in inspectors; it has gone up 15%. From 1998 to 2003 there was an increase of 214 inspectors in our complement, so there has been growth in the last few years and quite a lot of people coming in to join our inspector complement. Overall, there has been a general increase.

  Mr Galloway: As we have said before to the Committee, we do not have inspectors who are dedicated to docks and only docks.

  Q415  Chairman: We do know that, Mr Galloway. You have a general classification.

  Mr Galloway: We do. However, the number of inspectors dealing with docks, who cover docks as part of their responsibilities, has remained relatively stable at about 25 or so. Indeed just in the last few weeks we have had a training course for inspectors who have come to docks for the first time, so we now have some people who have recently been trained to deal with docks. I am comfortable that the number of people dealing with docks has remained stable.

  Q416  Mrs Ellman: Do you have any problems in retaining staff or recruiting?

  Mr Starling: Not at the moment. There has been an increase in the last few years and I am not aware of any particular problems. We have had a lot of new inspectors coming in. They have been trained and they are coming on stream.

  Q417  Mrs Ellman: What are the problems posed by self handling at ports?

  Mr Henderson: In relation to the Port Services Directive, we do believe we have succeeded in introducing into the draft directive some important saving clauses in respect of occupational health and safety. The original European Commission draft made no reference to occupational health and safety, whereas not only are there now a number of references to it and the importance of it in the overall structure of the directive, but also occupational health and safety is one of the important issues that ports could actually authorise on. In other words, ports could potentially vet self-handlers, that is either seafarers or indeed regular shore-based personnel, on the basis of health and safety considerations. That is a very considerable improvement to the directive. The other thing I should say is the course of the directive is in conciliation and DfT will undoubtedly talk about that later. The final version of that directive has not yet been agreed, but certainly in terms of the common position which was agreed, there is a power on ports to authorise self-handlers on the basis of their occupational health and safety competency.

  Q418  Mrs Ellman: What is actually happening in practice? You say ports have the potential to do this. What is actually happening on the ground?

  Mr Henderson: At present the directive is not in force, so current arrangements continue. It would be fair to say that at present there is relatively little self handling, certainly by seafarers, and most ports have their own stevedores, although some of those functions are contracted out. At present dock work is conducted in very much the same way as it has been for some time.

  Mr Webb: With reference to the directive, first and foremost it will be noted that it brought the employers and the workers in the industry, trade unions, together with one voice on our concerns as to what this will do to standards and safety and the viability of the ports business. Notwithstanding that, I have to disagree with the view on a form of words which was put in, it is true, and I know that the UK minister was influential in ensuring this, but what do they mean in essence? What they mean is that a seafarer, for instance, can arrive in a port and, providing they can establish that they have the same qualifications, they can self-handle. What are those qualifications, the point you were referring to? What are those qualifications? That you should have a fork-lift certificate, that you should have a certificate of competency to drive a crane? There is no measured standard to judge their standards on. While it is a small step in the right direction, I believe it is an absolute nonsense to say that they will give workers in the industry the protection they need against self handling.

  Mr Landles: The facts are—and people should know, because I work in the industry every day—that most of the crews are third world country crews and cannot even speak English. How they are going to have basic health and safety training I do not know.

  Q419  Mrs Ellman: Whose job is it to see what is actually happening on the ground?

  Mr Landles: Within a port?