National occupational standards - Clauses 2, 8 and 17

29. There are currently no legislative constraints upon harbour authorities as to whom they may choose to employ as Harbour Masters, and powers to authorise pilots involve a wide discretion on the part of harbour authorities. The Government's intention is to take a power to enable the Secretary of State to require harbour authorities to employ only qualified persons as Harbour Masters and pilots, and to prescribe the required standards of competence to achieve such qualifications, by means of "qualification regulations". However, the Government says it would only make use of this power if the industry continues to fail to adopt the non-legislative standards set out in the Port Marine Safety Code.

30. Written submissions divided broadly into industry interests who believed these powers were unnecessary, and Unions and professional bodies who tended to believe standards of qualifications should be made compulsory. The British Ports Association told us that the industry's Port Skills and Safety Unit had prime responsibility for this area of policy under the direction of the BPA and the UK Major Ports Group. Standards and qualifications, they told us, were a high priority, working with the MCA and through a sub-committee of the Port Safety Panel which represents all sides of the industry.[43] The UK Major Ports Group pointed to the need for flexibility and noted that "this is a complex task as the roles of harbourmasters and pilots vary depending on port circumstances and there are practical problems converting the standards into useable training packages."[44]

31. With particular reference to the qualification of Harbour Masters, the Broads Authority pointed to their unusual status:

for the purposes of the Broads the harbour master is the Navigation Officer and, while there is a degree of similarity between the qualifications required to run a major port and overseeing the Broads navigation, clearly there is a difference in scale and nature and it is argued that the "qualification regulations" proposed in the Draft Bill will need to be able to accommodate those different requirements."[45]

The issue of flexibility was also picked up by the Chichester Harbour Conservancy who argued that, because harbours varied widely in size, purpose, type and level of traffic, the number of employees and range of skills available, a 'one size fits all' approach to occupational standards would lead to over- and under-qualified harbour masters.[46]

32. The draft Bill does provide for qualification regulations in respect of both pilots and harbour masters to:

(a) […]make provision generally or only for specified classes of case, [and]

(b) […] make different provision for different classes of case.[47]

This means, in practice, that the qualification regulations could specify different competencies for the appropriate staff in different types of port or harbour.

33. We accept that there is significant variation in the skills and experience required of harbour masters and pilots, because of the wide variation in the circumstances at different ports. It would be absurd, for example, to argue that the Harbour Master of a small harbour such as Chichester requires the same skills that would be necessary to manage a large port such as Felixstowe or Liverpool. But this does not preclude the establishment of a national set of essential competencies, and the draft Bill provides for qualification regulations to make different provision for different types of harbour. We welcome the draft Bill's provisions introducing national, mandatory standards of competence for pilots and harbour masters. We recommend that the new powers be exercised with sensitivity to the vast diversity of ports and harbours in the UK, should these provisions be implemented.

IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL STANDARDS

34. Nautilus expressed deep regret that whilst the Bill put professional qualification requirements on a statutory footing, the Government had no intention of implementing these provisions unless Harbour Authorities resisted implementation of existing voluntary standards. It argued that a range of Marine Accident Investigation Branch reports had demonstrated the dangers inherent in relying on people without adequate training and experience in safety-critical roles. In their view, it was essential that harbour authorities were required to employ only suitably experienced and qualified personnel as harbour masters and pilots. It was incumbent on the Government to prescribe the standards of competence to be achieved to gain such qualifications.[48] Mr Graveson of Nautilus told us that:

We would not accept a voluntary scheme for doctors. A doctor might have one body, maybe more, on his hands at any one time. Pilots can have the responsibility of hundreds […] of lives at any one time. Therefore, I suggest it should not be voluntary.[49]

35. We regret that the Government has no current plans to implement clauses 2, 8 and 17, making occupational standards mandatory, unless Harbour Authorities continue to fail to implement existing voluntary standards. Professional standards in safety-critical professions such as harbour masters and marine pilots should never be voluntary, and we therefore recommend that the Government implement these provisions as soon as possible after the draft Bill reaches the statute book.

44   Ev 35-36 [UKMPG]  Back

45   Ev 39 [Broads Authority] Back

46   Ev 58 [Chichester Harbour Conservancy]  Back

47   New section 3B (6) proposed to be inserted in the 1987 Act by Clause 2 (Qualifications required by pilots ) and new section 42B(6) proposed to be inserted in the Harbours Act 1964 by Clause 8 (Qualifications required by harbour masters). Back

48   Ev 41-42 [Nautilus UK] Back

49   Q175 [Mr Graveson, Nautilus] Back