I beg to move Amendment 1, page 2, line 5, leave out Clause 2.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 2, page 2, line 7, leave out

‘a member of the crew’ and insert

‘master, first mate or senior navigating officer’.

Government amendment 12 , line 7, leave out ‘member of the crew’ and insert ‘deck officer’.

Government amendment 13, line 8, leave out

‘omit “of which he is master or first mate”’ and insert

‘for “master or first mate” substitute “a deck officer”’.

Amendment 3, line 8, leave out

‘of which he is master or first mate’ and insert

‘master, first mate or senior navigating officer’.

Amendment 4, line 9, leave out

‘a member of the crew of the ship’ and insert

‘master, first mate or senior navigating officer’.

Government amendment 14, line 10, leave out ‘member of the crew’ and insert ‘deck officer’.

Government amendment 15, line 12, leave out ‘person’ and insert ‘deck officer’.

Amendment 5,  line 12, leave out ‘person’ and insert

‘master, first mate or senior navigating officer’.

Government amendment 16,  line 12, at end insert—

‘( ) In section 31(1) (interpretation) at the appropriate place insert—

“deck officer”, in relation to a ship, includes the master and first mate;”.’.

I am delighted to be here this morning. This is the third time we have had to debate Clause 2. On Second Reading, we raised concerns about clause 2 and the pilotage exemption certificates, and in Committee we debated amendments that detailed some of our concerns. The Minister undertook to consider those and gave us some assurances. Those assurances were accepted, and we withdrew the amendments. We are pleased, now, to have what we hope will be a final debate on clause 2. It is the only clause that causes the Opposition any concern.

As we said on Second Reading and in Committee, we support the Bill and would like to see it pass today, but that will be down to the will of the House, the assurances we receive from Sheryll Murray, whom I congratulate on piloting—forgive the pun—the Bill to this point and, obviously, the assurances that the Minister can give on our amendments.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the amendments in my name, including Amendment 1, which Philip Davies supports. I know that the Government take every amendment seriously—even more so when those on the Opposition front bench attach their names—but when the hon. Gentleman adds his tag it captures the Government’s attention, because they know there will be a good discussion about the amendment. Amendment 1 would delete clause 2 in its entirety, whereas our amendments 2 to 5 would amend it.

Amendment 1 registers the principle of opposition to change, based on the need for the certainty that exists at present. In previous debates I quoted from the Library note on the Bill, which outlines the history of pilot exemption certificates—and, indeed, the pilotage regulations—when it says:

“In March 1997 the Marine Accident Investigation Branch…published its findings into the grounding of the Sea Empress at Milford Haven in February 1996.”

The MAIB found that

“the initial grounding was caused by pilot error, due in part to inadequate training and experience in the pilotage of large tankers. It recommended that procedures should be developed and implemented for the effective monitoring of” competent harbour authorities’ “standards and examination” of all pilots. That is what led to the present arrangements to ensure that vessels are piloted. That is the key issue, because any collision involving a vessel will lead to damage of the vessel or vessels and also poor infrastructure, while any subsequent pollution can have significant consequences, which we all want to avoid.

It was clear in Committee that there was support from the UK Maritime Pilots Association, which I know has been in correspondence with the hon. Member for South East Cornwall, the Minister and others. It said in an e-mail to me that clause 2

“is based on the specific commercial requirements of a small (aggregate dredging) sector of the UK shipping industry which for operational reasons is falling foul of the Working Time regulations. The net result of the clause will be to increase the risk of a serious maritime casualty within a UK port or approaches, seriously threatening: the safety of mariners and riparian communities, the safety of other shipping or vessels, ports’ infrastructures and ability to operate efficiently, environmental protection through increased risk of pollution”.

That is the UK Maritime Pilots Association’s starting point. I know that the whole House agrees that safety is a prime consideration in transport; therefore, when professional organisations raise concerns, they need to be addressed adequately. I am sure that in due course the Minister will respond in detail to the points I raise.

After the UKMPA’s e-mail there was correspondence from the officers’ representative body, Nautilus International, which said:

“It is important to state at the outset that Nautilus has been concerned for many years about the way in which PECs”— pilot exemption certificates—“are issued.” Nautilus continued:

“we struggle to find any rational justification for the clause”— clause 2—

“which would remove the existing restrictions requiring that PEC candidates should be a bona fide first mate or master.”

If amendment 1 is not accepted, which is contingent on what the Minister and others add to this debate, amendments 2 to 5 would address what we believe to be an inadequacy. The Government agree that there is a deficiency, as they have joined the hon. Member for South East Cornwall to table amendments 12 to 16, which give additional detail about the appropriate officer who should be empowered to pilot a vessel, so clearly there is an issue to clarify. We propose to add the words “senior deck officer”, whereas the Government and the hon. Lady propose the words “deck officer”. We are keen to hear the Government’s logic behind that—I will return to why we would include the word “senior” in a moment.

The Transport Committee’s 2008 report referred to pilotage exemption certificates and to the amendment in the original draft Bill to amend the provision for pilotage to extend the scope of those who can hold a PEC. The report stated:

“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.”

We have also raised the question of the pressure that shipping lines might bring to bear on smaller ports to accept different levels of qualification.

The position in respect of the concerns about PEC holders was supported by port owners and unions alike at the time. Indeed, in Committee recently we heard that the British Ports Association and the UK Major Ports Group were still unhappy with the clause as it stood. I referred to the relevant correspondence, and the Minister kindly said that he would seek further clarification from the industry. I am sure that he will update the House on the outcome of those discussions shortly.

Industry representatives have subsequently written to say that they support the Government’s amendment whereby PECs would be extended to include the term “deck officer”, and that the term should be defined in the “Port Marine Safety Code” and the “Guide to Good Practice”. However, the second paragraph of their communication detailing this change of heart states:

“Having looked in some detail with both the Chamber of Shipping and the DfT as to whether a fuller definition could be contained within the Act, it is apparent that requiring, for example, STCW(Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) qualifications, would debar some existing PEC holders who are already operating safely and with the full support of the harbour authorities concerned.”

I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that the term “deck officer” will not compromise that definition.

The UK Maritime Pilots Association takes a different view. It states that amendments 2 to 5 adequately cover the need for the appropriate competence and qualification. Its correspondence goes further, stating:

“The recently published Final Report of the EU PEC study determines the eligibility of PEC holders throughout Europe that generally the PEC applicant must hold a Master’s (STCW 11/2) certificate and that different rules exist as to whether a Chief Officer can obtain a PEC. There is no mention of junior officers being able to hold a PEC.”

So the definition of “deck officer” is very important to the debate, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us the reassurance we are seeking.

There is an argument that the term “deck officer” in the amendments tabled by the Government and the hon. Member for South East Cornwall is inadequate. The UKMPA argues that the words in the Bill should read:

“Master, Chief Mate or other deck officer engaged on board at Management level holding an STCW A-11/2 Certificate of Competency”.

That illustrates the UKMPA’s acceptance of the term “senior deck officer” that we have proposed. The term “management level” is used in the STCW convention and the UKMPA believes that the term “senior deck officer” captures that meaning. The organisation e-mailed me to say:

“We now understand that it was the use of the word “senior” that the DfT objected to in our proposed amendment…because the word “senior” does not appear in the STCW convention, instead the phrase “Management level” is the term used in its place.”

We are talking about the terms “senior deck officer”, “deck officer” and “management level”. The competence of the officer who may hold a PEC is critical in this regard.

Nautilus International believes that

“there is considerable evidence to show that the issue of PECs should be restricted to vessels that operate on regular trades and where it can be demonstrated that there is adequate manning”— a word that I am unhappy about; I would much prefer “crewing”—

“to conduct safe pilotage. There is an associated need for a more effective regime to govern the issue of PECs and improved controls against their misuse.”

In conclusion, we still seek reassurance from the Minister and from the hon. Member for South East Cornwall on the very important question of PECs. We will listen carefully to their comments, and especially to the Minister’s response, to see how the Department for Transport interprets some amendments and reacts to others. Once we have listened to the Minister and received any explanation or reassurance he might be able to offer, we will decide whether the Opposition wish to press our amendments or support others.

As I said in my opening remarks, we are very supportive of the Bill. It is well documented that it started out when I was Minister with responsibility for shipping back in 2008. It is essentially a good Bill that has the support of the industry as well as of the representative bodies of organisations that speak on behalf of mariners across the UK. We would very much like to see the Bill enshrined in law, and we look forward to its passage either today or in due course.

It is a pleasure to follow Jim Fitzpatrick. I am a big fan of his, to be perfectly honest, although I am sure that such a declaration will not do much for his reputation. Nevertheless I am a fan, and I think he made some excellent points. I would also like to congratulate my hon. Friend Sheryll Murray on getting her Bill to this stage, which is an achievement in itself—something that many people do not do.

I just wanted to draw to the hon. Gentleman’s attention, in case it was not mentioned by his hon. Friends, that Hansard will show that I said some nice things about him as well, when he was temporarily not in his place at the beginning of this debate.

I am very grateful for that, and I apologise for missing it. It was obviously my embarrassment that forced me to miss his saying nice things about me, but I am grateful. I shall certainly consult Hansard at the earliest opportunity to find out just how nice he was about me.

I rise mainly to discuss Clause 2 and Amendment 1, which is the only one that has my name attached to it, along with that of the hon. Gentleman, who made some extremely good points.

I support the thrust of the Bill and certainly wish it well in the broadest possible sense, but it is crucial to ensure that any legislation we pass is not passed solely on the basis that we broadly support what is in it, which we generally do. The hon. Gentleman and the Labour party, for example, broadly support what the Bill is trying to achieve and no one wishes it any ill will in that regard. It is important, however, that any legislation we pass is fit for purpose and properly considered and will achieve what we all want it to do.

As things stand at the moment—although I am certainly prepared to listen to what the Minister and my hon. Friend have to say—I have many of the same concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I do not understand the reasoning behind clause 2, as it seems to be a solution looking for a problem in respect of where we are now. It is my understanding—I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—that the clause proposes to reduce a long-standing, efficient and effective risk mitigation measure in regard to the limitation of pilotage exemption certificate holders to master and first mate only. As far as I can see, none of the reasoning behind the clause substantiates the Bill’s goals, and the hon. Gentleman made the same point.

This provision is based on the specific commercial requirements of a small sector of the UK shipping industry, which, for operational reasons, is falling foul of the working time regulations. As it happens, I am not going to stand up for working time regulations in all their glory or for all the other things passed by the European Union, but that seems to be where we are. If people want to correct me, I would be happy for them to do so.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has consulted the Pilotage Act 1987, which the Bill amends, but it makes it clear that to qualify for a pilotage exemption certificate an applicant would still need to demonstrate possession of the

“skill, experience and local knowledge” that a competent harbour authority judges to be necessary for him to be capable of piloting the ship, or ships, to which the certificate applies. Applicants must still have that expertise, as well as language expertise. Clause 2 merely allows that requirement to apply to people other than senior officers.

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I do not doubt her intention, but it seems to me that we currently have a clear basis for knowing about the competence of people who are dealing with these matters, and I am not entirely certain that, under Clause 2 as it stands, that will necessarily be the proven case in the future. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the clause has the potential to increase the risk of a serious casualty within a UK port or its approach, threatening the safety of the various people to whom he referred.

There are plenty of good things in the Bill, and I do not want them to be undermined by our leaving open the possibility of things going wrong. Obviously that would not be good for the people concerned, but it would not be good for my hon. Friend and her Bill either. Clause 2 is, as it were, a bridge that does not need to be crossed, given that there does not seem to be a massive problem with the current position.

The clause also directly contradicts and contravenes policy and guidance in the shipping industry, such as the requirements of the port marine safety code and some of the requirements of the standards of training, certification and watchkeeping, all of which refer to the specific duties of and differences between officers with managerial roles on board a ship—namely the master and first mate—and those in an operational capacity—namely junior officers, the second mate, and others whose role is to support a bridge team led by a senior officer—in specialist circumstances, for instance in pilotage waters, in the context of the established principles of proper and effective bridge management practices prescribed by the International Chamber of Shipping. Cutting across all those requirements, as the clause does, is opening a can of worms, and such action should be taken only when it has been considered in legislation that allows more detailed consideration than a private Member’s Bill.

The clause is based on arguments in support of the Department for Transport’s impact assessment, which many people believe to be based on incorrect assumptions in the interpretation of available evidence. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Maritime Pilots’ Association. As my hon. Friend will know, it is the body that is most concerned about her proposals. It does not necessarily accept that the assumptions in the impact assessment justify the clause.

I am all for the Government’s stated one in, one out policy on regulation. In fact, I think the Government’s one in, one out policy is a modest commitment. Throughout the last Parliament we Conservatives were saying that there was far too much red tape and regulation in this country. This policy will serve to add to the regulations, and I think a policy of one in, two out would be far better.

I fear the situation is even worse than my hon. Friend suggests. Does he share my concern that because the one in, one out rule does not apply to EU regulations, the European Union can send as many of them over as it likes, so that body of law will continue to grow?

My hon. Friend is right, but I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you would not want me to get sidetracked into discussing the merits, or otherwise, of EU regulations, so I will not do so.

I have good news for my hon. Friend on this point. The Government intend to move from one in, one out to one in, two out as of next year. I am surprised to see him today. He is rightly raising concerns about safety, but he is also raising concerns about regulation rather than deregulation.

I take on board the Minister’s point. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend Richard Ottaway mutters that perhaps we could move to one in, three out, and that would certainly be a step to be encouraged. The point is that the question of one in, one out and regulation and deregulation is not just a numbers game. Although the aim is to have less regulation overall, we want to keep the regulations that serve a good purpose and get rid of the ones that are wholly unnecessary. I firmly agree with the point of my hon. Friend Mr Nuttall about European regulations.

I agree with the thrust of the Government’s one in, one out target, or one in, two out, which would be even better—or even the one in, three out proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. I would be happy to start a bidding war on that. The problem, however, is that a deregulatory measure might be proposed not because it deregulates in the right area, but because it meets the numbers target we have set ourselves. I would not want us to get into that situation. We must address each proposal on its merits, and I am not convinced that we have chosen the best measure in this instance. The Government’s impact assessment suggests to me there may be too much attention on hitting this particular target, and not enough on the merits of each proposal.

The key point is safety, not questions of one regulation in, one out. The point is whether the regulations make the situation safer or less safe. Last week in Westminster Hall we had a disagreement with the Government about European regulations on pilots’ hours, because we thought the UK standard was better and safer than the European standard. So far as we are concerned, the question being discussed today is also fundamentally a safety issue, and we want the Minister to give assurances on the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, which we share.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that Intervention. He puts the case far better than I could. His comments highlight why I wonder whether Clause 2 is misguided. Our concerns about it may well be shown to be unjustified and my hon. Friend and the Minister shown to be right: everything carries on as before and all is fine and dandy. But it might also turn out that something goes wrong. We can argue the merits of whether such measures should be introduced in the first place, but once they have been introduced it is a lot more difficult to get rid of them. In effect, it will put the Minister and my hon. Friend on tenterhooks for ever as they will basically be hoping that nothing ever goes wrong in future.

If something goes wrong, even if it is not wholly linked to the provisions in the Bill, those provisions are where the blame will end up lying. I wonder whether that is a sensible position for the Government to take; do they want to put themselves in that situation for the benefits in clause 2, of which I am still not convinced? There are clearly benefits that the Government want to see, but we must ask whether they outweigh the risks, I am not entirely convinced from what I have read or from the information provided by those on both sides of the argument whether that is necessarily the right way to go.

My hon. Friend argues that there is protection in the clause through the CHA’s responsibility to ensure that only appropriately trained and qualified ships officers, other than master and first mate, will be awarded a pilotage exemption certificate. I am not convinced by that, to be perfectly honest, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is either. Statements of compliance are not always received. Investigations into port-related incidents recommend improvements to operations when they do not feel that the operation was up to scratch and there are examples of such recommendations being ignored or contested and of operational failures that contributed in some way to an accident that have not been put right. Given that we are in that situation now, people should be nervous about any move towards further deregulation, and we should only introduce such provisions if the evidence is overwhelming. I do not think there is that evidence.

During our debate on the previous Bill, I made it clear that the people who know best about such matters are often those who do and see the job every day of their lives. That was certainly the case when I worked for Asda. If I wanted to know what was going on in a store—what was going well and what was going badly—I would go to someone who worked in the store on the checkout, on the shop floor or filling the shelves, as they knew exactly what was going right and what was going wrong. They could see it with their own eyes and they also had people telling them everyday what was going right or wrong. It is very easy to stand in this House—I am as guilty of this as the next person—and say that we should deregulate when our safety is not at risk. Everybody knows that my natural instinct on all matters is deregulation rather than extra regulation, but I wonder whether we should be considering more than we have whether the Government and my hon. Friend want to get into this situation.

This might well be a step too far. My main concern is that it will undermine all the other good things in the Bill, of which my hon. Friend should be rightly proud. We are muddying the waters slightly with clause 2. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will press either this Amendment or his other amendment to a Division. In fact, I hope for more than that—I hope that he does not have to do so. It would be much more helpful, given all the other good things in the Bill, if the Government accepted them. Time is precious, and I am sure that we would all like the Bill to progress further today, rather than having to come back at a later date. The best way of ensuring that would be the Government’s giving some indication that they will consider the points that the hon. Gentleman and I raised and ascertain whether we can reach some agreement that satisfies everybody, does not detract from the rest of the Bill and allows it to make further progress. We have much ground still to cover on the amendments and Third Reading. Time presses, and it would be helpful if the Minister gave assurances that satisfied us so that we reach a point where the Bill can progress. If he does not, the danger is that the Bill will not progress today, and that would be sad for us all.

I thank the Minister for his co-operation in facilitating the availability of his officials since the Committee stage. It has caused me to do an awful lot of reading, for which I do not necessarily thank him. We are dealing with incredibly complex regulations and I want to put on record, having previously chaired the Deregulation Committee, that I believe that there is undoubtedly a case for better regulation, and the Bill is part of that process. When we deal with the regulatory regime, we should not simply count numbers, but focus on better regulation all round.

We cannot compromise on marine safety. Things go wrong at sea and close to shore. Some have tragic consequences and others have an element of humour, not least the recent case of Sandy island. I do not know whether the Minister has caught up with that story, but the island has been on charts since 1876, and it has taken till 2012 for the error to be spotted. A whaling ship—I do not know whether it had a drunken skipper—spotted the island in 1876, and only now has it been proven not to exist.

However, the Bill deals with very serious matters. The difference between us is a matter of definition, as the Minister knows, but the definitions are critical. My hon. Friend Jim Fitzpatrick referred to evidence that we received from the United Kingdom Maritime Pilots Association, which says that the current wording of Clause 2 contravenes: Department for Transport and Maritime and Coastguard Agency policies and guidance; the Department for Transport and port marine safety code; the International Maritime Organisation standards of training, certification and watchkeeping regulations; the IMO international safety management code; and bridge resource management. The Department has signed up to all those principles.

In Committee, the Minister tried to explain that, in his view, the language of the clauses was adequate to keep within not only the spirit, but the letter of such regulations. However, it is clearly the professionals’ view that that is not the case. I hope that, when the Minister speaks to his amendments, we will have some clear answers to those challenging points, which are very serious.

The first code that I mentioned refers to 10 years and thousands of hours of work required to reach the status of an expert in some of the disciplines that are needed. It is therefore important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse said, that we ensure that the skill levels are properly defined so that we do not put anyone at risk.

The reference to management level is appropriate. There is sufficient cross-referencing in the various regulations and in the way that marine officers, ship owners and Governments have interpreted the law over many years to mean that if we incorporate the word “senior”, we get some way there. The Minister may be able to convince us that he has got it right.

I have received further guidance from my constituent, Mr Youde, who I know has written to the Minister—

Extensively.

He has also written to the Prime Minister, extensively. Mr Youde refers to an incident which, coincidentally, came up in discussion with the Minister’s officials, and he refers to the report published by the marine accident investigation branch, in which a pilotage exemption certificate under section 8 of the Pilotage Act 1987 is a significant feature. The report relates to the collision in March this year outside Belfast between the short sea ferry Stena Feronia and the small bulk carrier Union Moon. The Union Moon was outward bound and had discharged her pilot. The Stena ship was inward bound under the pilotage of a PEC holder.

The report states in express terms in the synopsis that the PEC holder was on board the ship solely for the purpose of conducting pilotage, both at Belfast and at Liverpool, and had no other duty on board the vessel. The report thus makes it clear—

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the master of the Union Moon had 123 micrograms of alcohol per 100 mm of breath when he was operating vessel?

I am reading from the synopsis of the report, which makes it clear, according to my constituent, that the PEC holder was not a bona fide member of the crew of Stena Feronia. This is where the kind of difficulties that have been described become important. We need to be very precise.

As I said in Committee, I accept that the Minister is acting in an honourable way and is taking advice from people who are clearly knowledgeable about the subject, but the view has been expressed that the breach of the terms of the Pilotage Act that appears to have occurred should be taken seriously. There is, however, Mr Youde says, no indication yet that any prosecution might arise in respect of the apparent breach of section 15(1).

If, under the current regulations, such incidents occur and there is no prosecution, how seriously does the Department take the matter? I am not asking in an aggressive way; I am inquiring. Are there other factors, as the hon. Lady indicated, which mean that it is not appropriate to mount a prosecution? It seems to me that if alcohol was involved, somebody should perhaps have been prosecuted. These are the kind of issues that we need to be certain about as we progress the Clause.

I want the Bill to succeed, but I want it to bear the label of better regulation and not to be open to endless litigation and interpretation in court, which would mean that we had wasted our time. I hope the Minister can give us confidence that his interpretation or his acceptance of our amendments would be the right way forward.

We have had a wide-ranging debate on Clause 2 and on the amendments, to which Jim Fitzpatrick spoke ably, as ever. Let me say at the outset—I know that the hon. Gentleman accepts this, but I want to put it on the record—that the Government will do nothing in legislation that would in any way endanger safety as sea. Only a mad hatter would believe that we would do anything that mad.

I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend Philip Davies, who, as ever, has been thorough in his investigation and exploration of the clause we are considering. I hope that he is reassured by some of the helpful assurances that I was able to give Andrew Miller on Second Reading and in Committee. For example, I was able to say that the Government would reconsider the clause and bring forward amendments on Report, as we are today.

Let me deal with each Amendment in turn. Amendment 1 would leave out clause 2. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse for setting out his reasons for tabling the amendment. As with other amendments that have been proposed, alternative definitions of who should hold a PEC have become the crux of what we are debating. The existing restriction limiting the issue of PECs to masters and first mates only no longer reflects maritime operations. For example, many ships and ferries making short voyages no longer have a single master or first mate, because they need to be able to keep the ship almost constantly active. On longer routes, where it is more likely that there is a single holder of each of those roles, there is often the risk of fatigue.

There will always be the alternative for a master to take on board a marine pilot if circumstances mean that none of the PEC holders on the ship is available to pilot it because of the hours worked or limited crew numbers, but if a suitably qualified person is available, it cannot be justifiable that, simply because they do not have the right title, they should not hold a PEC and pilot the ship.

Both the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley suggested that the clause was being introduced solely to satisfy the demands of a small number of operators of dredges on the River Thames. I say gently to them that that explanation is like the fish that is so rarely caught on the River Thames: the red herring. It is simply not the case—[ Interruption. ] I am glad my hon. Friend Sir Peter Bottomley enjoyed that joke; this is a serious matter and there are few opportunities for levity.

The UK Chamber of Shipping has highlighted its desire to see that change in the UK ferry industry. It considers that recognition of the expertise that already exists on its ships will improve the flexibility and efficiency of operations. The industry is also looking ahead and training younger officers so that they are ready to fill senior roles in coming years, recognising that a large proportion of officers are approaching retirement in the next five years. Clause 2 supports the aspirations of those young officers by offering the opportunity to apply for a PEC when they are ready and able to do so, rather than just holding them back because of a job title. I hope that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, on reflection, will consider withdrawing amendment 1.

I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the problems he is seeking to address through his other amendments to clause 2. I have already stated that the maintenance of maritime safety must be our key concern. That is why I think that the Bill contains three balanced clauses relating to the management and usage of PECs. I firmly believe that competent harbour authorities would not issue a PEC to unqualified individuals. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will remember the clarification that I was able to give him on Second Reading and in Committee about exactly when a PEC is in operation.

Further, the Bill does not remove or amend in any way the essential safeguard whereby competent harbour authorities may only award a PEC to those whose

“skill, experience and local knowledge” is sufficient to pilot the named ship or ships to which the PEC applies. The amendments would prevent the deck officers who have that skill, experience and local knowledge from holding a PEC merely because they are not a master or first mate. The addition of a senior navigating officer would not, in practice, extend the restriction at all. Aside from the fact that the definition of the term would be somewhat imprecise, common usage would associate it with what most people call the chief mate under the international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers. The term “deck officer” is well known and makes it clear that PECs can be held only by crew members who are regularly tasked with the navigation of the named ship. This definition can be supported by guidance in the co-produced port marine safety code and the accompanying guide to good practice about the qualifications that deck officers are likely to have achieved before they are ready to take the PEC exam. Clause 2 amends the criteria in the Pilotage Act 1987 for those who are eligible to be granted a PEC. At the moment, an applicant must satisfy the criteria that they must be a bona fide master or first mate and must demonstrate the skill, experience and knowledge sufficient to be capable of piloting the ship specified within the harbour to which the PEC applies. Let me be clear: the clause amends only the first criterion; the second is entirely unaffected by the Bill and remains a vital safeguard to ensure that competent harbour authorities issue PECs only to mariners who can demonstrate that they can safely navigate the ships specified on the PEC. That addresses several of the points made by hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. He should be absolutely clear about the fact that the PEC can be issued only to mariners who have the necessary skill and that it applies only to a specific harbour. I hope that he will reflect on that and recognise that the Bill does not affect the issue at all. All that clause 2 changes in relation to the Pilotage Act is the definition.

Let me turn to the Government amendments. The Government propose that we use the term “deck officer” rather than the terms suggested in other amendments. In Committee, I gave a guarantee that given the importance of this matter to maritime safety, we would give further consideration to exactly what might be the best terminology. The current terminology for such crew as would be appropriate for the qualification of a PEC is “deck officer”, which enjoys the following dictionary definition:

“an officer in charge of the above-deck workings and manoeuvres at sea of a ship or boat.”

I suggest that that covers several of the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse and for Ellesmere Port and Neston.

Members have suggested qualifying terms such as “senior” or “certified” deck officer. However, those do not have the required clarity and are not in common usage, and would therefore maintain the current restriction. I was interested in the term “management-level deck officer” and accept that it could have some merit, but again, it is not in common usage. There may or may not be such a definition in maritime law, but there is no clarity about that.

In the STCW regulations, there is a reference to “management level”, but there is also a reference to “operational level”. Perhaps the Minister should look for a way of bringing the two together, because somebody can have managerial responsibility without having a hands-on role. The definition must ensure that the person is of operational level. Later in the regulations, there is a reference to

“officers in charge of a navigational watch”.

Somewhere in there, I think that there is a definition that everyone could buy into. The term “deck officer” does not exist in the regulations.

The term “deck officer” does not exist there, but it does exist. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the point that management level is covered by the usual definition of deck officer, which is

“an officer in charge of the above-deck workings and manoeuvres at sea”.

That implies that the officer must have operational and management level qualifications.

The term “deck officer” is clear and is widely accepted to be in current usage. It excludes members of the crew who are not responsible for navigating the ship. The second criterion will still apply, so a deck officer would still need to have the requisite

“skill, experience and local knowledge” to qualify for a PEC.

The port marine safety code and the accompanying guide to good practice are co-produced by the ports, the shipping industry, trade unions, maritime experts and the Government. They provide guidance for ports on the management of PECs and already suggest that competent harbour authorities seek a valid certificate of competency as a deck officer from PEC applicants.

I suggest that the Government amendments are a way forward. We have listened carefully to the concerns of the Opposition and other Members about the definition. Our proposals reflect the ambition of the Bill to reflect modern usage. I hope that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley will be reassured by the Government amendments and will not press their own.

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response on our amendments. As I outlined in my opening remarks, the deletion of Clause 2 was a principled defence of the status quo in the absence of an alternative.

The alternative that we suggested was “senior deck officer” because that is what was suggested to us. The Minister stated that “deck officer” is a recognised term in the industry. He also acknowledged that our suggestion of replacing “senior” with “management-level” would be appropriate and that that term is contained in other regulations.

In essence, what we are talking about is safety. As Philip Davies said, this is not an insignificant element of the proposals, but relates to the fundamental question of safety. We would not want to challenge the Government on their commitment to safety, because we accept the Minister’s assurances. I also know that Sheryll Murray, in whose name the Bill stands, would not want to do anything other than improve safety for mariners. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: Government amendment 12, page 2, line 7, leave out ‘member of the crew’ and insert ‘deck officer’.

Government amendment 13, page 2, line 8, leave out ‘omit “of which he is master or first mate”’ and insert ‘for “master or first mate” substitute “a deck officer”’.

Government amendment 14, page 2, line 10, leave out ‘member of the crew’ and insert ‘deck officer’.

Government amendment 15, page 2, line 12, leave out ‘person’ and insert ‘deck officer’.

Government amendment 16, page 2, line 12, at end insert—

‘( ) In section 31(1) (interpretation) at the appropriate place insert—

“deck officer”, in relation to a ship, includes the master and first mate;”.’.—(Stephen Hammond .)