Introduction

1.  We welcome the opportunity to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill in draft. We are pleased that the Government has taken account of our concerns about the timing of the publication of last year's draft Local Transport Bill, publishing this Bill well in advance of the summer recess. (Paragraph 2)

2.  We welcome the undertaking from officials to identify more detailed criteria which we or our successor committee might use at the appropriate point in the future to formulate benchmarks for post-legislative scrutiny of any Act resulting from the draft Bill. Although it is important to reduce accidents, we acknowledge the difficulty in formulating precise outcome measures in relation to something as inherently unpredictable as marine accidents. We look forward to seeing a revised Impact Assessment when the Bill is presented. (Paragraph 7)

3.  We accept that the mortality figures provided in the Evidence Base are accurate overall, but they do not specify the accident figures for harbour authority waters. If the Government is to conduct effective assessments of the need for, and effectiveness of, additional port safety measures, they must be based on a clear understanding of the scale of the problem and robust figures that will allow meaningful comparisons to be made over time. (Paragraph 9)

Voluntary or mandatory port safety standards?

4.  We are disappointed that the Government has failed to recognise the need for the Port Marine Safety Code to be made mandatory. Although we believe the powers in Clause 7, which would enable the Secretary of State to issue safety directions to ports, are a step in the right direction, we reiterate our 2007 recommendation that the Code be made mandatory, and that a safety inspectorate for ports be established. (Paragraph 14)

Pilotage

5.  Clause 1 of the draft Bill is a modest but sensible measure which would make it easier to remove pilotage responsibilities from ports and harbours which no longer need them, primarily those which have long since abandoned any actual pilotage requirements. The Government must ensure that robust risk-assessments are carried out before any order is made under the provision, and be prepared to reinstate competent harbour authority status where necessary. (Paragraph 18)

6.  We are extremely concerned at the proposal in Clause 4 to amend the provision for pilotage to extend the scope of who can hold a PEC. The proposed change would impose additional burdens on competent harbour authorities and make it harder to ensure that only appropriately qualified staff carried out pilotage. This could create unnecessary dangers. If it is necessary for the references to the Master or First Mate of a ship to be removed from the 1987 Act, we recommend that the reference to "bona fide" members of a ship's crew be retained, for the avoidance of doubt. The Government should specify an appropriate rank or level of qualification for PEC-holders, following further consultation with the industry rather than leaving it to individual CHAs to assess each individual applicant's relevant skills. (Paragraph 25)

7.  We agree with the provision in Clause 5, enabling harbour authorities to suspend or revoke PECs where a PEC holder is temporarily or permanently incapable. Piloting a ship is safety-critical work and it is right that the relevant authority should be able immediately to stop somebody who appears to be incapable from doing so. It is also right that a person who has had his PEC wrongly suspended should be eligible for compensation. (Paragraph 28)

National occupational standards

8.  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. (Paragraph 33)

9.  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. (Paragraph 35)

Harbour authorities

10.  We support the provision in Clause 6 for harbour authorities to be able to issue general directions. However, we see no reason why this power cannot be extended to all competent harbour authorities, creating a uniformity of powers and avoiding bureaucracy. (Paragraph 39)

11.  We accept the need occasionally to close a harbour which is no longer used, and agree with the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Clause 9 of the draft Bill. It is important that this power is exercised with caution, allowing the closure of a port only where it is genuinely no longer needed, and where there is no prospect of a revival. The Secretary of State must consult potential users of a port before agreeing to its closure. (Paragraph 42)

General and Local Lighthouse Authorities

12.  The lack of any penalty or sanction for failing to comply with the General Lighthouse Authorities' inspection and enforcement regime is an anomaly in the Merchant Shipping Act. We welcome the proposals in the draft Bill to create new criminal penalties for those who refuse to co-operate with GLA inspections, or fail to follow directions about the deployment of navigational aids. (Paragraph 46)

13.  Restricting criminal liability for failure to comply with an inspection or a direction to local lighthouse authorities has the potential to make the provision both unjust and ineffective. Nor is there anything to be gained by providing for a chain of costly legal actions in which the GLA pursues the local lighthouse authority, which in turn pursues a recalcitrant third party. We recommend that the Bill be amended so as to provide for the GLAs' inspection and control powers under sections 198 and 199 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to apply to all providers of aids to navigation in their areas. Criminal liability for failure to comply with the inspection and enforcement regime should be extended accordingly. (Paragraph 48)

14.  An ongoing daily fine for failing to remedy a fault when ordered to do so by a General Lighthouse Authority would in our view provide a more compelling incentive for responsible parties to ensure that deficiencies in the provision of aids to navigation are remedied quickly. It might not be appropriate in every case, but we recommend that the Bill be amended so as to give the court this option in the most serious cases. (Paragraph 50)

15.  We welcome the clarification of the territorial extent of the General Lighthouse Authorities' operations offered in Clause 12. The GLAs carry out vital work for the safety of shipping in the UK's territorial waters and beyond. No legal uncertainty which could in principle jeopardise their ability to carry out essential operations beyond the 12-mile limit should be allowed to persist. The Government is right to include this provision in the Bill. (Paragraph 54)

16.  We welcome the provisions in Clause 13 of the Bill, which will allow the General Lighthouse Authorities to make more effective use of their spare capacity, including the very considerable expertise of their staff. The requirement for the Secretary of State to approve any new commercial ventures is, in our view, an appropriate safeguard which appears to have worked well since 1997. It will be important to ensure that robust accounting arrangements remain in place so that the GLAs can demonstrate beyond doubt that their commercial activities are subsidising the General Lighthouse Fund, and not vice versa. (Paragraph 57)

17.  We are not persuaded that there is any compelling or urgent need to create a new pension scheme for the General Lighthouse Authorities. The obvious attraction of doing so, in the very long run, is that it would remove ongoing pension liabilities from the General Lighthouse Fund and protect against the possibility of a situation in which light dues were being collected for the sole purpose of meeting the GLF's pension commitments. But this would be at the expense of a significantly worse deal for new GLA staff. There may be benefits to taking the statutory power to create a new, funded pension scheme now, before any potential problems do arise, but we would not expect them to be exercised unless a more pressing need to do so arises. We further recommend that a statutory duty to consult interested parties before the power is exercised be included on the face of the Bill (Paragraph 66)

18.  We welcome the proposal to ring-fence the pensions element of the General Lighthouse Fund. Though there is no threat to employees' pension contributions at the moment, nor any foreseeable threat in the future, it is a matter of principle that they should be protected in this way. (Paragraph 67)

19.  It is sensible to use the opportunity presented by this Bill to regularise the practice of the General Lighthouse Fund making employer's contributions to the Merchant Navy Officers' Pension Fund. However, as we have already noted, we do not see any compelling case for extending the use of this power beyond clarifying the legality of this specific, long-established practice (Paragraph 69)

Wrecks

20.  We welcome the International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks and support the UK's ratification of it and the provisions for its implementation contained in the draft Bill. The Government should do what it can to encourage other States to sign the Convention in order that it might be brought into force as soon as possible (Paragraph 73)

21.  The proposed powers for the Secretary of State to direct authorities to locate, mark and remove wrecks appear to be necessary in order that these activities are undertaken on behalf of the State, as required by the Wreck Removal Convention. These new powers for the Secretary of State to direct General Lighthouse Authorities to deal with wrecks should not be used in circumstances where the removal of the wreck would previously have been carried out by SOSREP or some other agency. If authorities are not properly equipped to remove large wrecks, for example, they should not be directed to do so if this would simply require them to contract a third party to undertake the work (Paragraph 78)

22.  It is crucial that, through discussion with the authorities, the Government ensures that their existing ability to mark wrecks quickly is not compromised by confusion over where responsibility for decisions lies. There must be no doubt that a General Lighthouse Authority or other responsible body, may continue to deal with wrecks which it believes constitute a hazard to navigation, whether or not they are directed to do so by the Secretary of State (Paragraph 79)

23.  If more ships are insured against the costs of dealing with wrecks, then the risk of such costs eventually being met by the General Lighthouse Fund will fall. However, if the General Lighthouse Authorities were to be directed, under new powers in the Bill, to undertake activities other than those which they would have undertaken in the past, there is a possibility that the liability of the General Lighthouse Fund for unrecoverable costs could increase. This legislation should not be used by the Government to transfer further the financial risk resulting from uninsured ships to other shippers through the General Lighthouse Fund (Paragraph 82)

24.  We welcome the provision for the electronic marking of wrecks in the Bill. This is a sensible move which will allow those who are responsible for dealing with wrecks to respond more quickly by taking advantage of modern technology. However, electronic marking should not be used as a substitute for physical marking where the latter is required. (Paragraph 85)