UK minister weighs in on pilotage standards
Sandra Speares, Lloyds List- Wednesday 29 July 2009
HARBOUR authorities have no legal requirement to provide pilotage services to the “highest possible standard” at all times, according to UK shipping minister Paul Clark, writes Sandra Speares .
Responding to concerns raised on the issue of safe pilotage by Barrie Youde of solicitors RA Wilkinson & Co, Mr Clark said the Department for Transport “does not accept that there is a legal requirement for all competent harbour authorities — a harbour authority that runs a pilotage services — to provide this service to the highest possible standard at all time, with no exemptions or scope for compromise”.
The minister made his remarks in a letter to shadow shipping minister Julian Brazier.
The phrase “highest possible standard” was used by Mr Justice David Steel in his judgment in the Sea Empress trial in Cardiff Crown Court in 1999.
The minister said that given the context, it “seems unlikely” that the phrase was “intended to set a common law precedent for all harbour authorities, in the way that Mr Youde suggests”.
In his 1999 judgment, Mr Justice Steel identified a particular obligation to compulsory pilotage, Mr Youde said in his reply to Mr Clark’s letter.
The judge said: “The significance of these matters is all the greater in the context of a scheme of compulsory pilotage. Shipowners and masters must engage a pilot. They have to take the training, experience and expertise of the pilot provided at face value.
“While the master remains nominally in command, it has to be recognised that the pilot had the ‘con’ and a master can only intervene when a situation of danger has clearly arisen. The port authority imposes a charge for pilotage but in the same breath has the added advantage of the pilot being treated for the purposes of civil liability as an employee of the shipowner.
“All this calls for the highest possible standards on the part of the port authority.”
According to Mr Youde, breach of the obligation was identified by the judge as “the primary aggravating factor in assessing the penalty, as a matter of strict liability, in the criminal prosecution of the port authority”.
Milford Haven Port Authority was fined £4m ($6.6m) after the Sea Empress spill, although this amount was reduced on appeal.
Mr Youde maintains the judge’s observations “identified a general rule of common law, in specific terms and with reasons fully and clearly explained. It obviously cannot be said that the same principle should not apply with equal effect in other pilotage areas.”
In his letter, the minister said that while maintaining high standards should be the goal of all harbour authorities, “these can only be determined given the variety of the ports that employ pilots on a case-by-case basis”.