News Analysis: Safety on the River Thames
WORKERS, SEPT 2007 ISSUE
A Parliamentary Select Committee set up to head off protests about implementing an EU Directive reducing safety standards on the River Thames has let the government off the hook. The key issue is whether or not a new "harmonised" licence will be brought in for captains on the Thames.
In its report The Boatmasters' Revolt, published on 25 May, the committee concedes that it would be foolish to change a well-proven system of licensing and local knowledge requirements unless people can be completely confident that safety would not be compromised. Following publication, ministers recommended suspension of the new licence until government "has resolved problems with the scope of the EU Directive on harmonisation, potential damage to the inland shipping industry by increased training costs, and concerns about safety on the Tidal Thames".
On the face of it, this all sounds quite positive and, as watermen's leader Alex Hickman of the T&G says, there must now be a push for these key points to be taken up from the report. A closer look at the report, however, reveals that the committee has handed the government a number of excuses to retain the disputed Licence. This is only a temporary suspension.
The excuse of the EU
It is not true to say, for example, that government "unexpectedly found itself obliged" to implement the EU ruling. The right to insist on UK standards was cleared with the EU in 1994 and any government can put up a fight if it wants to – in fact both the German and the Austrian governments supported the boatmasters of the Rhine and the Danube respectively – but our ministers (including four union MPs) have simply rolled over. In the absence of a real revolt, the EC can go back on its word at any time. A legal challenge from just one individual operator – in this case from a Dutch master wishing to sail up the Thames without meeting UK safety standards – is all it takes.
There are also too many reservations expressed in the report about the cost of training, as well as insinuations about lack of access to a career on the river due to the high professional standards and experience required from the outset. From the crude capitalist viewpoint, the cost of investment and training to high standards eats into profits – hence the drive is to ever-lower qualifications and pay.
Nor is a comparison with the pre-industrial watermen of 1641 helpful in 2007, when unions are arguing for a modern integrated transport system with passenger boats under the regulation of a unitary authority (TfL).
Most cynical of all is the suggestion in the report that the even higher standards of boatmasters on the Rhine should be lowered to enable access by their Thames counterparts, and that this piece of horse-trading might render the new licence acceptable. This should warn all workers that politicians (and trade union leaders) will only put up a principled fight for standards if they are forced from the grass roots. Support for workers abroad fighting for high national standards is vital in strengthening the case at home – just as the fight for sovereignty at home is key to international solidarity.
It is no coincidence that this dispute is happening just as the government has abandoned an inland waterways freight policy and is preparing to sell off British Waterways to the highest bidder.