Harbour towage as we know it came about in the early 19th century when people realised that small steam-powered vessels could be used to assist ungainly ocean-going ships into port.
Such small ships were particularly useful to sailing ships, which might otherwise be delayed for days or even weeks by unfavourable winds. Their owners were already facing commercial pressures from the much more reliable steamers that were appearing, so they were prepared to pay steam tugs to assist them in and out of port.
As tug companies multiplied, so did the terms they offered, and it was not unknown for a tug master to board a potential tow and negotiate individual terms on the spot. Remarkably, sources agree that these verbal agreements were always honoured.
I like to think that steam tugs were invented in the United Kingdom, where the Industrial Revolution was born, but our Dutch friends and others might disagree. Sadly, there is not much research on the early history of towage and towage contracts, at least as far as I can determine, so I cannot tell you for sure.
In the painting, the magnificent sunset presumably indicates that the sun was about to set on the era of sail.
I do know that one of Britain's favourite paintings features a tug in pride of place. J. M. W. Turner's The Fighting Temeraire tugged to her last berth to be broken up was painted in 1838, and records the last journey of the ship that went into action immediately astern of Nelson’s Victory as she broke the French and Spanish line at the Battle of Trafalgar. Temeraire manoeuvred astern of a French ship that threatened to overwhelm Victory, and sent a broadside through her entire length. She then managed to lash two French ships alongside and pounded them into submission.
Despite the fact that this was the only fleet action she ever took part in, she was known as "The Fighting Temeraire" for the rest of her career.
In the painting, Temeraire is light, and the unnamed tug is dark, menacing and polluting, while the magnificent sunset presumably indicates that the sun was about to set on the era of sail. Shipping mattered to the British in those days, and I venture to suggest that nobody painted ships in stormy seas better than Turner.
Towing in the Thames estuary received another boost during the Crimean War from 1854 to 1856, because troop ships typically had to call at three separate berths – one for provisions, another for ammunition, and a third to actually embark the troops. There were an awful lot of vessels going to the Crimea and the tugs would often be required to assist ships as far as the Downs, whereupon they would go in search of inbound vessels who would employ them for the return leg into the Port of London. Tug companies and towing contracts proliferated.
The UK version of the conditions is a favourite with tugowners – probably because the conditions so unashamedly protect their interests and insist that whatever goes wrong is somebody else’s fault.
By the 20th century, shipowners were tired of the confusion, and in 1933, the Chamber of Shipping convened a meeting with the British tugowners to demand a standardised set of towing conditions. Nothing happened immediately, but eventually a set of national conditions emerged.
They appear to have been drafted by the tug owners, so they were rather biased towards the interests of the towing industry, which had no trouble adopting them. Eventually, these national conditions became the UK Standard Conditions for Towage and Other Services.
The Standard Conditions have been revised from time to time, but the 1974 version was adopted in many countries and was probably the most widely-used towing document on the planet. Some countries have their own towing contracts, which are generally considered to be more even-handed, but the UK version is a favourite with tugowners – probably because the conditions so unashamedly protect their interests and insist that whatever goes wrong is somebody else’s fault.
I think this approach was remarkably far-sighted because when we are dealing with today’s massive high-sided vessels, we often cannot see anything except a wall of steel, so it would be totally unreasonable to suggest we should be responsible for all the things we simply cannot see. Far better to insist it is none of our business, in my opinion.
Whilst I cannot think of any tug company or tug crew who wake up in the morning and decide to intentionally or recklessly screw up a towing job, this will not stop the lawyers from claiming that we did.
In 1986, UK tugowners were concerned that new legislation concerning the fair and equitable wording of contracts might render the conditions unworkable, so they amended them slightly. Many countries did not have to worry about UK legislation, and stuck to the 1974 version.
And now, almost 40 years later, we have another revision. I am not sure who instigated it, but it is with us in the form of the UK Standard Conditions for Towage and Other Services 2024.
As far as I can tell, the 1986 changes were found to be unnecessary, so they have been dropped and replaced with a clause that still makes the hirer liable for any acts or omissions of the tug and its crew. However, there is now an exception because it is stated that the hirer’s liability excludes any act or omission by the tug crew committed intentionally or recklessly to cause harm.
This is obviously the change that will keep the lawyers busy for the next 30 or 40 years, and whilst I cannot think of any tug company or tug crew who wake up in the morning and decide to intentionally or recklessly screw up a towing job, this will not stop the lawyers from claiming that we did. For this reason, I suspect there may be a strong temptation for tug companies outside the UK to stick with the 1974 conditions, at least for a few years until they see how many court cases result from the new version.
The other changes are largely cosmetic and do not raise any red flags. The term "whilst towing" has been simplified and clarified, whilst the force majeure events have been expanded to include modern items such as cyber threats, computer malware attacks, and the impacts of disease and piracy.
In addition, the parties are now allowed to agree on any governing law and jurisdiction, although English law remains the default option.
Sensitive souls are already cheering from the sidelines because 'he' and 'his' have been replaced by 'they' and 'theirs', and I suspect it is this meaningless modification that will have the most appeal.
Finally, we come to the revision that will, in my opinion, make the UK Standard Conditions for Towage and Other Services 2024 the preferred towage contract among the feminists and the politically correct for years to come. Yes, they have changed the language to make the conditions gender-neutral!
Sensitive souls are already cheering from the sidelines because "he" and "his" have been replaced by "they" and "theirs", and I suspect it is this meaningless modification that will have the most appeal. The P&I Clubs and others are already singing the praises of the revised conditions, so there may be pressure on all of us to adopt them.
The only other change which concerns me is that, in their desire to make the conditions relevant to the modern world, the people who drafted them have removed references to "steam" and "boilers". So while I normally leave predictions to my esteemed colleague Hieronymous Bosch, I am going to stick my neck out and predict that, in 30 or 40 years when tugs are powered by small nuclear devices, the words "steam" and "boiler" will have to be re-inserted.
Kung Hei Fat Choi, and may the Year of the Snake be a good one for you all.