National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers
RMT response to the MCA consultation on Revocation of four Maritime Safety Regulations
Introduction
The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) organises seafarer ratings working in the domestic short sea shipping sector, predominantly passenger and freight ferries and offshore supply vessels but also including the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, passenger cruise ships and marine research vessels. We represent over 5,000 UK seafarers working at sea today as catering, on board service, engine and deck ratings.
As the largest seafarer ratings union, RMT welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Maritime Coastguard Agency (MCA) consultation on plans to revoke four pieces of maritime safety legislation that were introduced as a result of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster on 6th March 1987 which claimed the lives of 193 passengers and crew, including 33 seafarers who were members of our predecessor union the National Union of Seamen.
Key points
RMT’s submission commences with general observations and is then sub-divided under each regulation proposed for revocation. The union makes the following key points:
· RMT members are strongly opposed to all four revocations and the union has deep concerns that these proposals will undermine the safety of the workplace in ports and onboard ships, with the passenger ferry tragedy off the South Korean coast on 16th April this year providing further distressing evidence of the need for retaining these regulations.
· The proposed revocations are motivated by cost savings and the proximity of the next General Election. As such, they represent a threat to passenger, seafarer and docker safety, particularly in the short sea ro-ro ferry industry.
· These proposals have never been raised by industry with the maritime unions and are evidence that the close working relationship between the MCA and the maritime industry is having a negative effect on the regulator’s ability to discharge its statutory duties on maritime safety.
· The legal requirement on shipowners to provide and maintain emergency equipment lockers on the open deck has not been superseded by post-1988 regulations and the proposal to revoke is a clear diminution of maritime safety standards.
· The removal of the requirement for the use of weighbridge’s in recording the load on passenger ferries will have a disproportionate effect on Scottish Ferries, where 6 out of the 12 UK ports found by the MCA to operate weighbridges are located.
· The regulations on weighing goods vehicles and cargo should be retained in light of the MCA’s efforts at the IMO to amend the SOLAS Convention’s provisions on verification of vessel loads.
· The proposal to remove the regulation applying weighing requirements to non-UK ferries operating from UK ports actively lowers international maritime safety standards. As of May 2013, there were 95 non-UK and 20 non-EU ferries licensed to operate in the UK ferry industry and removing this regulation is a threat to the safety of seafarers and passengers working and travelling on them respectively.
General comments
In response to a request for views on this consultation, RMT seafarers stated vehement opposition to these proposals, referring to the horrific tragedy in April this year off the south coast of South Korea involving the MV Sewol ro-pax ferry which resulted in over 300 deaths as clear and irrefutable evidence of the need to retain these regulations.
In the unanimous view of RMT seafarers and the union as a whole, the latest maritime tragedy involving a passenger ferry should serve as a solemn reminder to all maritime safety authorities of the need to enforce existing maritime safety regulations.
For RMT members in Dover, the home port for Herald of Free Enterprise seafarers and their families, these proposals are particularly distressing. Shipping companies operating passenger ferries from Dover such as P&O and DFDS have not expressed any dissatisfaction with the four regulations proposed for revocation, either to the RMT or the public. It is, therefore, concerning that the industry has sought these changes without consultation with the maritime trade unions.
This reinforces our view that these proposals are a sop to the shipping and ports industry lobby who are demanding cuts to regulations that will save companies a roughly estimated £3.09m over a ten year period and those introduced after the Herald of Free Enterprise have been deemed expendable because of the passage of time more than anything else.
The union is, therefore, very concerned that the planned revocation of these four regulations is the result of industry’s political pressure through the Red Tape Challenge and on the MCA directly through the Maritime Roundtable and the development of the DfT’s Shipping Strategic Partnership Plan (SSPP) which details the Government’s maritime policy objectives.
We note the SSPP’s section on ‘Proportionate Regulation’[1] which aims, amongst other things to deliver a regulatory framework for the maritime sector that is both the result of engagement between Government and Industry and ‘less burdensome’ on industry. The Government’s maritime strategy also seeks to ensure:
“....that domestic and international technical standards for ships support cost effective trade while maintaining and enhancing safety through:
• Consistent application of better regulation principles.
• Proportionate and consistent application.
• Using goal-based standards.” – Box 3.1
RMT also question whether the ‘flexibility’ that the Government and the MCA claim that the proposed revocations will provide employers, on the provision of weighbridges and emergency equipment lockers for example, will achieve the consistency of application and the better regulation, let alone the maintenance and enhancement of maritime safety that are the Government’s stated policy aims and the regulator’s legal duty.
We also believe that the close working relationship between the shipping industry and the MCA, coupled with severe cuts to the MCA’s budget is having a negative impact on the regulator’s ability to discharge its statutory duties to develop, promote and enforce high standards of maritime safety.
The MCA’s finances and resources are important in this context. As a result of year on year cuts to the MCA’s budget since 2010-11, the regulator is contending with a 13.5% cut in permanent and contracted staff between 1st April 2010 and 31st March 2014. For the first time for over a decade, headcount at the MCA has fallen below 1,000, yet the regulator has acquired more responsibilities, for enforcement of the Maritime Labour Convention for example and will also be responsible for enforcing the new sulphur dioxide emission limits for vessels operating in the emission control areas from 1st January next year.
It is therefore a serious concern to the RMT when deregulatory proposals in the area of maritime safety are not backed by clear evidence of the need for their removal. We are not persuaded by references in the consultation documents to other regulations on the weighing of vessel loads, particularly in response to the 1994 MS Estonia tragedy and there is no direct evidence that the current requirement to stock and maintain emergency equipment lockers has been overtaken by subsequent legislation.
We repeat our deeply held concern that these proposals result from the Government’s political need to cut costs for the ports and shipping industry through the Maritime Red Tape Challenge, rather than a balanced and proportionate approach to maritime safety regulation.
The Red Tape Challenge in the maritime sector resulted in plans to revoke 30 and ‘improve’ a further 93 regulations.[2] Whilst RMT does not oppose the scrapping of legislation that has clearly been superseded by the introduction of the Maritime Labour Convention (accommodation standards, hours of work etc), we are strongly opposed to the cutting of maritime safety regulations through this highly politicised process which is clearly being conducted with one eye on the 2015 General Election.
For these reasons, RMT oppose the revocations proposed in the consultation document. The union’s particular objections to the revocation of each regulation are detailed below.
The Merchant Shipping (Emergency Equipment Lockers for Ro/Ro Passenger Ships) Regs 1988
RMT opposes the revocation of this regulation. Provision on either side of the open deck of a locker containing axes, rope ladders, lifting gear, crow bars and other emergency equipment is essential and clearly improves the chances of survival for passenger and crew should an emergency situation develop at sea. It is also the case that these emergency equipment lockers can be useful in preserving and protecting lives at sea in emergency situations other than capsize.
We point out that some ro-ro passenger ferries operating in the UK sector may have more than the statutory minimum of two emergency equipment lockers and it is disappointing that the Impact Assessment did not seek to establish the extent of this provision.
The Impact Assessment estimates that shipowners will save up to £6,400 per year from the revocation of this regulation and a number of unacceptable assumptions are made in the Impact Assessment, including:
“...it is assumed that no emergency equipment lockers would be removed from existing ships under [the proposed revocation]....However, it should be noted that this is subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, it is assumed that emergency equipment lockers would only be removed from existing ships if the benefits were greater than the costs.” – 5.3.1, Pg 10
The assumption that emergency equipment lockers, in the event of revocation, will remain on vessels is curious, as is the MCA’s acknowledgement (at 5.4.6) that, as long as they are there, emergency equipment lockers will continue to be surveyed as part of the statutory annual survey the MCA undertake certificate ro-ro passenger ferries. Whilst this should prevent emergency equipment lockers from being unreliable in the event of an emergency, it is concerning that the MCA should agree to the removal of the regulation requiring the provision and maintenance of such emergency equipment lockers.
We also seek clarification from the MCA on the status of emergency equipment lockers within the statutory survey, should the regulation be revoked. If an emergency equipment locker is found to be faulty, lacking in equipment or not adequately maintained, will this constitute an infringement by the shipowner?
RMT does not argue for the mandatory removal of emergency equipment lockers should the regulation be revoked but instead repeat our position that they and the regulation requiring them should be maintained and enforced by the MCA.
Neither do we agree with the MCA’s claim that other regulations have superseded this regulation. That there has not been a major incident in the UK ferry sector since the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster is neither sufficient nor valid justification for removing this regulation and borders on the offensive.
The Merchant Shipping (Weighing of Goods Vehicles and other Cargo) Regs 1988 The Merchant Shipping (Weighing of Goods Vehicles and other Cargo) (Amendment) Regs 1989
We are opposed to the revocation of the 1988 regulation and the 1989 amending regulation, largely because it remains the case that the provision of information on the weight of the cargo must continue to be provided to the master under statute. We are not convinced that the regulations listed in the consultation document are satisfactory substitutes.
RMT is especially concerned at the attempt to portray weighbridges as out of date and inaccurate methods of weighing all road vehicles (apart from buses) and non-vehicular cargo 7.5 tonnes and over. Weighbridges are in use more widely than the Impact Assessment’s suggestion that only 12 ports in the UK use them. Stornoway and Ullapool, for example are two other ports using weighbridges and also serve to illustrate the reliance on weighbridges in ports on the Scottish ferry network, from the mainland to the Western Isles and from the north east coast of Scotland to the Northern Isles.
Given the lifeline nature of the service and the rougher seas that vessels encounter off the West Coast and on the North Sea, we are especially concerned at the consequences for seafarer and passenger safety on Scottish ferries of revoking these regulations.
The Impact Assessment states that ports and shipping companies could save thousands of pounds from the removal of the statutory requirements in these regulations to use and maintain weighbridges but it would seem from the small number of ports using weighbridges that the existing regulations are not being properly enforced by the MCA. We would welcome clarification of this point from the MCA.
We also note that the MCA is seeking to amend the IMO Convention on Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Chapter VI on Carriage of Goods in order to tighten up load verification laws on container vessels. Whilst this change would not apply to international short sea or domestic voyages, the MCA acknowledge in the consultation document that the discussions at the IMO will influence the behaviour of port owners should the weighbridge regulations be revoked:
“...it is potentially unlikely that ports would remove all weighbridges entirely due to the ongoing discussions in the IMO.” Para 5.3.2
Coupled with the MCA’s additional claim that weighbridges would continue to be used in UK ports for establishing vessel loads, this is further evidence that revocation would again lead to an uneven regulatory framework that RMT believe could undermine safety standards in ports and shipping operations.
The Merchant Shipping (Weighing of Goods Vehicles and other Cargo) (Application to non-UK Ships) Regs 1989
RMT opposes the revocation of this regulation, as this again represents a reduction in safety standards in the maritime industry and will have wider international implications.
The MCA state in the Impact Assessment that their analysis of the effect of revoking this regulation is “…based on UK registered ships as the number of non-UK ships is difficult to quantify.” (para 5.2.)
This is not the case. Written Answers in the House of Commons in May 2013 easily established the number of non-UK and non-EU vessels licensed to operate in the UK passenger ferry sector from UK ports:
[3]Karl Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vessels with valid licences to operate in the UK ferry sector are registered under (a) non-UK and (b) non-EU flags.
Stephen Hammond: The number of individual vessels currently operating in the UK ferry sector is as follows: