| From the surrender by parliament of national control follows loss of local control, jobs, health and safety, qualifications, skills, professionalism, standards and pay. And if MPs bothered to see how, they just need to look out of their own windows... |
Sold down the river: the attack on skill and standards on the Thames
WORKERS, APR 2007 ISSUE
Thames Watermen and Lightermen (now known collectively as boatmasters) are among many groups of workers under attack from the EU Services Directive. In every case the underlying issue is loss of sovereignty. From the surrender by parliament of national control follows loss of local control, jobs, health and safety, qualifications, skills, professionalism, standards and pay.
The Marchioness disaster on the Thames in 1989 illustrates what is at stake. It resulted in the loss of fifty-one young lives, and the Clarke report that followed gave an unequivocal account of the dangers of the Thames, making 44 recommendations, with the result that the five-year watermen's apprenticeships were upgraded. As well as stringent medical tests, they included mandatory college courses (held at the North West Kent College's sea school at Denton) with qualifications based on intimate local knowledge and experience of the complexities of the Tidal Thames (the 67 miles below Teddington).
450 years of history
Around 60 young people apply each year. They often (but not exclusively) used to come from families of watermen going back 450 years, and had to be certified by five separate masters as being able to manage a variety of craft under different conditions. They also underwent continuous assessment to demonstrate their understanding of Thames bridges and moorings, its powerful currents and twice-daily 8-metre tides, as well as the weather and the frequently erratic behaviour of private vessels. They learned respect for the river and for each other and, says watermen's leader Alex Hickman, they understood the limitations of each other's craft. Not any longer.
On 1 January this year, despite a public outcry, including Livery Company and trade union (T&GWU, RMT) campaigns throughout 2006, the government's Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) introduced a new nationally applicable generic Boatmaster Licence, reducing the training time on inland waterways to two years, to "harmonise" with the EU (Directive 96/50/EC).
In fact the Directive states "national navigable waterways not linked to the navigable network of another Member State are not subject to international competition and it is therefore not necessary to make compulsory on those waterways the common provisions for the granting of boatmasters' certificates...".
So even though the directive allows for higher standards on the Thames and other tidal rivers, this servile government decided to remove the requirement for college-based training, making it easier for less safe visiting European craft to enter British waterways. The legislation was hurried through over the Christmas period, during which time the relevant computer crashed, and there was no opportunity to register objections.
Regulations relaxed
Exams were reduced from four (practical, oral and written) to a less rigorous all-in-one exam; Thames-specific knowledge was reduced in scope (Woolwich to Putney only), and qualifying service time (QST) to acquire it cut from two years to six months. In addition, the regulations have been relaxed so that any European "believed" to be competent by the boatmaster in charge, is now permitted to navigate. That, says the RMT, means that a vessel the size of the dredger Bowbelle (80 metres) which cut across the bows of the Marchioness, could be navigated unsupervised by a 16-year-old who has not even undergone tests to detect poor eyesight, colour blindness, epilepsy, or other medical conditions.
The European Transport Workers Federation provides a telling comparison with the Rhine, where a person has to be at least 21 years old, with a total minimum of six years' training and work experience. The German government has not downgraded that qualification, even though the Rhine runs through different countries, and there is less passenger traffic. An exception is likewise made for the Danube, and was fought for by the Austrian government.
The new UK licence does require holders to be certified in fire fighting, first aid, and personal survival, and this has been welcomed. But it destroys the profession of watermen and lightermen by introducing a low basic standard with optional endorsements to suit different types of operator or employer.
Around half of Thames watermen already hold a large-passenger-vessel (250 passengers) endorsement, which includes passenger management. Pressing for a raising of standards rather than a reduction, the RMT argue that the age requirement for endorsements should be 21 years, and 24 for large passenger vessels.
The union wants a higher-standard basic licence and endorsements guaranteeing a structured approach to the acquiring of knowledge and skills. This, they say, "will lead to an ethos that ensures that maturity and experience are valued attributes in what can be an extremely dangerous working environment" (2006 Submission to the MCA).
In 2001 the Port of London Authority (PLA) commissioned the Baxter Eadie study into training on the Tidal Thames. This stated: "There should be no reduction in the classroom time. Indeed, this may need to increase..." The study also observed that a decrease in college shore-based courses and a move to 'hands on time' would result in too narrow a training, with boatmasters failing to develop a 'professional ethos'. Maturity and experience should be demonstrated before taking on more responsible operations on the Thames. At the time, Baxter Eadie further commented that the PLA were proposing to extend the licensing area to the "seaward limit". Local knowledge would therefore extend to the whole of the Tidal Thames.
The PLA revisited the issue of training in 2002 and a second Baxter Eadie study identified around 500 different skills, which would be impossible to examine in a single test. The study also pointed out that, whereas for larger seagoing vessels and tankers, international (IMO) standards of training certification and watchkeeping (STCW) apply, these are not applicable inshore.
In fact the STCW only covers 41 per cent of the skills required for the Thames and only 3 per cent of those identified cover local knowledge. All the more reason, says the RMT, why an additional upgraded Boatmaster Licence is needed on all UK inland waterways.
Ignored
The Thames: a dangerous river that requires skill and experience from those who work on it.
In the event however, the PLA ignored Baxter Eadie and carried out a limited risk assessment, which was contested by many parties in subsequent discussions. This gave government the excuse they were looking for since at least 2001 to play poodle to the EU with British waterways.
Lightermen engaged in freight and towing operations are also covered by PLA byelaws. The qualifying time for towing was 9 years, now reduced to 30 months. Guidelines for levels of experience for motor barge skippers were 5 years, now also reduced to 30 months. But many tugs and workboats remain unregulated under the new Licence. A single tug can tow three barges. Each barge can carry up to 600 tonnes of freight, so total capacity is up to 2,000 tonnes. Waterman Alex Hickman urged government to envisage the boatmanship required for such a vessel negotiating a 5-knot tide in difficult waters under a series of bridges.
The RMT is calling for a "Qualified Boatmaster on the Bridge", rather than just in command, at all times the vessel is being navigated. The union also wants to see an extension of the Licence to commercial fishing vessels entering Britain's inland rivers and lakes, and a number of other improvements: an increase in the qualifying time to be extended to those operating on Britain's lakes; a "transparent and auditable" minimum QST (rather than at MCA examiners' discretion); a progressive licence to be introduced based on tonnage; the introduction of a towing endorsement for tugs; the development of competency standards for crew (in addition to new standards for boatmasters); and for the UK Domestic Safety Management Code (now statutory for passenger vessels) to be extended to other commercial vessels on inland waterways, with rigorous enforcement.
On 10 January, however, despite this mountain of evidence and expert advice – as with so many working-class causes down the years – the watermen's case fetched up once again on the treacherous reef of parliament.
A glance at Hansard shows that the debate that day attracted an uncommonly large audience who had done their homework and were united in opposition to the legislation. Of course a few shamelessly opportunist MPs exploited the tragedy of the Marchioness to draw attention to themselves and their party with the usual time-wasting interruptions to the flow of the main speaker, and there was much needless repetition. With time running out, Transport Secretary Stephen Ladyman, who had been rebuked for his ignorant and disparaging reference to the boatmasters as a "cosy club", with suggestions of a medieval closed shop, made a statement which showed explicitly that the EU and big business were calling the tune.
He cited a series of consultations, especially with powerful vested interests such as Associated British Ports, the UK Major Ports Group, the PLA and the MCA – all arms of government – but omitted to mention the concerns of the many smaller specialist users of inland waterways consulted at the time. The new training standards were, he said, an improvement on the original EU minimum! He had clearly taken those proposals as his base line, rather than existing Thames criteria.
Terrified of criticism
Ladyman was terrified that he would be criticised in Europe: "We...will have to defend it to some of our colleagues in Europe, because it will look to them as though we are gold-plating the proposals to restrict them." He simply could not see that there was any reduction in safety standards. He was right, and everyone else, including relatives of the Marchioness victims, was wrong.
Ladyman was insistent that no test of local knowledge was necessary downstream of the Thames Barrier. Yet that area below Woolwich is where 95 per cent of the 56 million tonnes of annual cargo is handled, and where yachts use the estuary, with its shifting sandbanks and sunken vessels.
There has been a gradual revitalisation of Thames traffic in recent years, with increasing freight tonnage and an increase in passenger numbers of 44 per cent since 1999. Commuter use leapt up by an astonishing 80 per cent in just the last year. The six hundred boatmasters on the Thames alone account for more than the total number in the rest of Britain. There are now warnings that passenger vessels might be restricted to the stretch between Westminster and Tower piers, and would be unable to respond to a repeat of 7 July 2005, when they helped evacuate 100,000 people from central London to Canary Wharf. Not to mention the 2012 Olympics and their hoped-for legacy, with increased river traffic before, during, and after the Games, including on such tributaries as the River Lea.
A Marchioness mother added her voice to union and backbench demands: "There is absolutely no logic, rhyme or reason for a Labour government to renege on the improvements in safety on the Thames...It took our campaign 17 years to get a multi-agency emergency exercise to take place on the Thames, but if these changes are not stopped we could be seeing the real thing all too soon". Like that mother, many people are unable to fathom the government's motives. But dig a little deeper, and it makes perfect sense to an unelected power – the EU – hell-bent on erasing national boundaries, and for a UK government that has long since abandoned any attempt at ruling in the national interest.
A further investigation by the Transport Select Committee will be concluded shortly. The Company of Watermen & Lightermen, the RMT and the T&GWU hope that the passion and support aroused by their campaign will have persuaded the government to re-establish training criteria to British standards in the interest of public safety. If not, they will have no alternative but to step up their struggle, in particular for recognition of the importance of local knowledge, college training, and experience.