42. Even though recent statistics are lacking, it is clear that the port industry has been shedding labour for the last half-century. The overall decline in the levels of employment within the port industry is in no way related to a decline in the demand for port services. The core factor has been the changes in maritime technology combined with fundamental restructuring of working arrangements.

Employment Practices

43. One of the central characteristics of the port industry is the irregular arrival of vessels and, as a result, extremely variable levels of demand for labour. The traditional response to this was casual employment, the result of which was a casual attitude on the part of management to labour, a reciprocal casual attitude on the part of labour and ensuing insecurity because of uncertain earnings.

44. The National Dock Labour Scheme, established in 1947 following the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946 was an attempt to deal with these problems. The Scheme was a radical change for dock labourers. Registered Dockers were on a permanent basis, employed by operating companies. National and Local Dock Labour Boards were instituted on which employers and unions were equally represented. Uniquely the unions had rights to participate in recruitment, dismissal and disciplinary procedures. The aim of registration was to provide a stable supply of experienced labour for employers and regular employment for dockworkers, in addition to medical welfare services and training through a financial levy on port employers. 76 ports were required to employ registered labour for the purpose of carrying out dock work. The scheme was abolished in 1989.

45. In ports to which the scheme applied, dock workers were permanently employed and had access to benefits such as training, rather than being the casual day labour they had been before. But even in the days of the Dock Work scheme, the introduction of new technology in the form of unitisation and containerisation meant that the industry experienced a prolonged decline in employment. Shippers were also able to move much of their work from the docks to other sites where containers and other units could be filled and emptied, but where the scheme did not apply. The rapidity of these changes created an increasing number of workers who were termed 'surplus to requirements'. This became a particular problem for the industry as a number of registered dock workers could only be adjusted under a voluntary severance agreement known as the Aldington Jones Agreements.[35] Even so, the total number of registered dockworkers, which stood at 65,128 in 1965, contracted to 12,193 two decades later (1985) and immediately prior to the scheme's abolition in 1989 the total was only 9,390, a decline of 86 percent over the 20 year period.

46. The ending of the dock work scheme was seen by some as an important way of increasing customer service. For example, the Department of Employment Gazette asserted: "Abolition of the National Dock Labour Scheme was one of the most momentous changes ever seen in the port transport industry. The evidence is clear that considerable achievements in customer service are now been achieved through a variety of innovations and flexible work systems".[36]

47. Nevertheless, even with the introduction of new technology which requires skilled workers, labour demand still fluctuates to such extent that many employers prefer to engage a core labour force of highly skilled regular workers, supplemented by temporary or casual workers from a labour pool to cater for any upturn in demand. It has been argued that this return to unregulated casual workers within the industry has recreated many of the labour problems and economic inefficiencies of the past.[37]

Safety and Training

48. Modern ports are hazardous; they contain a wide variety of highly sophisticated equipment and dockworkers are constantly exposed to many technical risks stemming from the operations undertaken in working a ship's cargo and using highly mechanised and dangerous equipment. It is the overriding duty of the employer to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees.[38]

49. There are obvious difficulties in ensuring adequate training if a large part of an industry's workforce is casual. But training is essential not only to ensure that a person possesses the knowledge and experience required to perform a specific task but to ensure that it is done as safely as possible. If ports are to be operated safety and efficiently, there needs to be high-quality training, and since the equipment used in the industry evolves rapidly, that training must be kept up-to-date. The modernisation process has meant that dock work has become increasingly sophisticated since modern vessels are complex and expensive pieces of capital equipment.

Accidents and Injury Figures

50. As the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions itself pointed out: "There are no precise statistics available on accidents occurring at ports".[39] However, even with the poor statistics available, the Health and Safety Executive considered that port work:

"is the most dangerous land-based industry in the United Kingdom with a rate of nearly 3,000 accidents per 100,000 workers, the exact figure is 2,933. If I can use one or two comparators, that figure is higher than coal mining and quarrying, which is 2,732; it is higher than construction which, as you are probably aware, is an area of major concern to HSE, where the figure is 1,290. The provisional figures for last year showed that there were three deaths, there were 115 major accidents and 591 three-day accidents. I believe, subject to correction, there has already been one death this year."[40]

Health and Safety Improvements

51. The Government has national targets to improve health and safety. The targets are as follows:

• "to reduce the number of working days lost from work-related injuries and ill-health by 30 per cent by 2010;
• to reduce the incidence of people suffering from work-related ill-health by 20 per cent by 2010;
• to reduce the rate of fatal and major injury accidents by 10 per cent by 2010; and
• achieve half of each improvement by 2004."[41]

However, there are no such clear targets for dock work, even though its danger is clearly recognised.

52. We expect the Government to set identifiable national targets on health and safety in ports, together with a timetable for their implementation.

Regulations

53. The HSE were at pains to stress that they were not responsible for safety but for regulating safety. Their aspirations are limited; as they state: "It is fair to say, we have to say, across all industry there is a degree of under reporting."[42]

54. Currently risks are regulated under the Dock Regulations 1988, and associated codes of practice. When Modern Ports: A UK Policy was published in 2000 it announced a review of these regulations and said that the Health and Safety Commission was "determined to use this opportunity to do something about the unacceptable accident rate in docks."[43] Progress has been slow; in July this year HSE told us:

"we are actually reviewing the Docks Regulations 1998 and the associated codes of practice and guidance and that work is well underway and it is certainly our intention that it should be completed in the Spring of next year."[44]

55. The current review of Dock Regulations 1988 has taken an inordinate time. The revised codes must give clear and practical guidance including an explicit definition of the term 'adequate training'.

56. However good the guidance, safety needs enforcement. The HSE intends to deploy more inspectors at docks, but there are currently only a limited number, and no inspectors are dedicated to dock work. In June this year we were told:

"we do not have inspectors who are dedicated to docks and only docks" and "the number of inspectors dealing with docks, who cover docks as part of their responsibilities, has remained relatively stable at about 25 or so."[45]

We do not consider 25 inspectors enough to deal with such a dangerous industry, particularly since none of these is dedicated to dock work.[46]

57. There is an acute shortage of dedicated port inspectors to fulfil the obligations of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). We expect the HSE to set a timetable for the recruitment of a sufficient number of inspectors together with the provision of an effective training programme.

Port Skills and Safety Organisation

58. Safety and skills go together. When this inquiry opened the industry possessed two individual and distinct organisations dealing with safety and training. These developed following the break up of the British Port Federation. The Port Safety Organisation (PSO) was established in 1992 to represent ports and assist in the improvement of safety matters. The training function was taken by the British Port Industry Training Organisation (BPIT) also established in 1992. These organisations represented some 78 per cent of the industry with varying membership bases. The primary aim of BPIT was to develop what was termed 'job competency', this being its accredited function for which it was in receipt of Government grants. Such funding ceased when the Government changed its policy with regard to the National Training Organisation (NTO) in the Spring of 2002.

59. During the initial phase of this inquiry, it was strongly suggested not only by the Committee, but also from other quarters that safety and training should be dealt with by a single organisation. As a consequence, in 2002 PSO and BPIT were replaced by the new Port Skills and Safety Limited (PSSL). Although it is not a training provider, this organisation combines the core functions of its two predecessors. PSSL sees its role as representing the industry to Government, its departments and the relevant European and international bodies. It does not cover the whole industry, but about 70 per cent of medium to large ports are involved. "Our members cover about 19,000 employees in the ports industry and the statistics we gather represent some 15,500 to 16,000 of those employees. We estimate the total number within the industry is 25,500. Our statistics are not fully representative of the whole of the industry, they are representative of the majority of our membership."[47]

60. The PSSL has set an initial target for accident reduction, which is considerably more ambitious that that of the Department, "We certainly do want to reduce the figures: the major injuries and fatalities by 10 per cent by the end of 2005 and the other reportable three-day accidents by 20 per cent by the end of 2005."[48] The question must arise as to how this target will be achieved and confirmed, given the limitations of the organisation's membership and the general lack of adequate statistics.

Training

61. Training leading to recognised qualifications will necessarily have an impact on the supply of labour and the turnover of those already working in the industry. It also serves to prepare the workforce for the many technological, managerial and organisational changes currently taking place and likely in the future. There is not only an essential requirement for basic training but also the need for a higher level of training for those personnel required to be versatile and familiar with modern and sophisticated management techniques.

62. The present training arrangements for port workers reflect the complex structure of the industry. There is a recognised programme of training for different grades of work, but this does not appear to follow any standard pattern. Apart from a few relatively short courses, much training is not compulsory.

63. It is essential that the syllabuses for training of dockworkers and testing their competency include sections on safety. Witnesses suggested that the practice of leaving new entrants to the industry to pick up their knowledge and skills from those already employed is still widespread. But it is by no means certain that some experienced workers will not pass on malpractice or careless and dangerous working habits. A systematic scheme of on the job training, supplementing the present induction scheme, should be introduced to ensure that all initial training is carried out by experienced workers who are proficient themselves and have the capability to teach others.

64. Port employers have adapted a variety of attitudes towards training, some of which are very negative. Indeed "some companies seem unaware of the training obligations."[49] Such obvious delinquency should not be tolerated by the Department for Transport and is totally unacceptable to this committee. Positive action must be taken to ensure that such offending employers conform to the law. We expect the HSE to take immediate action against employers who fail to fulfil their training obligations.

The Passport Scheme

65. The PSSL is encouraging the development of a voluntary code of practice, introduced by their predecessor the PSO and administered under what has been termed the Safe Ports Initiative. The aim is to have a document which actually demonstrates an individual level of competency. Initially it is targeted specifically at non-permanent employees but it is expected that it will eventually involve everybody employed in cargo handling. Associated British Ports (ABP) has been in the vanguard of developing this into a broader 'passport scheme' and expects all stevedoring companies operating within its facilities to adhere to the scheme. At present, where the scheme is operational, it appears to function mostly for casual workers.

"The voluntary code is in widespread use for induction training for non-permanent employees; that is in widespread use and there is a card associated with that to say that the non-permanent employee has adequate induction training. Above and beyond that, the ABP type passport system is for all employees within its ports and that scheme is about to be introduced and will be available to other port operators to tap into it if they so wish. We have not fully discussed the implications of that within PSSL because it is something which is just being evolved."[50]

66. The Passport Scheme is encouraging, but we are concerned that even though the Code of Practice was introduced in 2000, its adoption appears to be limited to particular ports. We are convinced that high-quality training is particularly important to the port industry. Because of the massive amounts of capital invested in the industry it is essential it employs high-quality personnel to run it as safely and efficiently as possible. Further, as the industry becomes even more sophisticated and capital intensive so the quality of the training will become of increasing importance. Mr Galloway of the HSE told us:

"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."[51]

The HSE, the Department for Transport and Port Skills and Safety Limited (PSSL) must monitor levels of safety and training for port employees to ensure adequacy. Particular regard should be given to safe working practices in this most hazardous of United Kingdom industries. The Port Passport is a voluntary scheme to demonstrate the attainment of basic dockworker skills. We recommend that this scheme be energetically pursued and used as the basis for a standard and rigorous training programme. A high level of professional training in all port related activities is essential to maintain safety in the "most dangerous land-based industry in the United Kingdom."

International Safety Regulation

67. There are two international agreements which may impact on safety in ports. The first is the ILO Convention 152; the second is the EU Market Access to Port Services Directive, which is currently being negotiated.

ILO Convention 152

68. ILO Convention 152 requires national laws to ensure the safety and health of dockworkers. The HSE agreed that a major part of UK dock regulation was based on ILO criteria. When it first appeared before the Transport Sub-committee, the Health and Safety Executive told us "the previous administration had decided, for a variety of reasons, not to ratify that Convention. The current Government is very keen we should actually demonstrate our commitment to international issues concerning health and safety and we should consequently ratify the Convention where possible."[52]

69. Two years later we were told:

"The Health and Safety Executive is committed to report to the Health and Safety Commission and to Ministers later this year, recommending whether the UK is in a position to ratify this Convention. However, this work is not currently a high priority because, although we recognise the value of being seen to support the aims of the Convention, ratifying it would not contribute to improving health and safety in dockwork in UK ports. We are therefore concentrating our efforts in those areas where we believe there will be a greater return in terms of improving health and safety in ports."[53]

70. The HSE explained that difficulties had arisen because the ILO did not consider that some of the detail of UK law conformed to the Convention, although the HSE believed that it offered equivalent protection. Even so, ratification of the Convention sends an important message, and dialogue with the ILO might resolve these difficulties.[54] We are astonished that it has taken two years to do so little. ILO Convention 152 is concerned with the health and safety of dockworkers. We were disturbed by the changing and ambivalent attitude to this important convention and strongly recommend that it be ratified by the Government as soon as possible.

Market Access to Port Services Directive

71. As originally drafted, the Market Access to Port Services Directive would require self handling to be allowed in the ports to which it applies. This describes a situation where the port user, generally a ship owner or operator provides for themselves one or more categories of port services. Most commonly, it is a situation in which members of the ship's crew are involved in loading and unloading the vessel. The original directive was extremely broad in its definition: "'self handling' means a situation in which a port user provides for itself one or more port services and where normally no contract of any description with a third party is concluded for the provision of such services."[55]

72. A substantial section of the industry, that is ferries and ro-ros (roll on-roll off) vessels are self handling as part of their normal system of operation, and self handling is not an issue for such operations. However self handling in break bulk vessels that convey differing parcels of cargo and in the container trades is more contentious. Opponents fear that the crews will not be competent or safe, particularly in their ability to use modern equipment such as cranes and fork lift trucks.[56] There is also the question of the different languages used by the crew, which can sometimes make communication with port workers extremely difficult if not impossible.[57]

73. A further complication with such activities is that the regulatory authority within the dock system is HSE but in the case of self handling by crews on board the vessel, the regulatory body is the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), whose basic function is somewhat different. It should be noted that anecdotal evidence suggests that approximately 30 per cent of accidents take place on board ship with the remaining 70 per cent within the dock area.

74. The Minister was aware that this is a highly contentious issue when he stated: "What we have to say is that what is most important is that we maintain safety, some amount of self handling should be permitted, where it is clear that those people who are doing the handling meet all the safety standards laid down by the port, but if there is a free-for-all in this area, that is an area where I would be very concerned."[58]

75. During the evolution of the draft Directive on Market Access to Port Services it has been made clear that "professional qualifications and environmental matters might be among the criteria to authorise self-handling."[59] We strongly support this. We believe that these issues must be among the criteria to authorise self handling.

36   See P Turnbull and S Watson, British Ports Industry (Part 1 and 2), Maritime Policy and Management, Volume 20, Numbers 2 and 3, 1993, part 2, p. 181.  Back

37   HC (2000-01) 244 i-iv, p. 233 Back

38   Modern Ports: A UK Policy, para 4.1.2. Back

39   HC (2000-01) 244 i-iv, p. 200 Back

40   HC (2000-01) 244 i-iv, Q 488 Back

41   Modern Ports: A UK Policy, para 4.1.7, November 2000. Back

42   HC (2000-01) 244 i-iv , Q 500 Back

43   Modern Ports,: A UK Policy, para. 4.1.2. There has been a revision of the Port Marine Safety Code. Back

44   Q 412, 18 June 2003 Back

45   Qq 414-5, 18 June 2003 Back

46   See Q 414, 18 June 2003 Back

47   Q 427, 18 June 2003 Back

48   Q 432, 18 June 2003 Back

49   Modern Ports: A UK Policy, para 4.3.1. Back

50   Q 469, 18 June 2003 Back

51   Q 408, 18 June 2003 Back

52   HC (2000-01) 244 i-iv, Q 512 Back

53   POR 06B Back

54   POR 06B Back

55   2001\0047 (COD). Back

56   Q 418, 18 June 2003 Back

57   Q 420, 18 June 2003 Back

58   Q 489,18 June 2003 Back

59   Com 2003/0208 Final. Back