COLUMN | The vital role of government advisory committees in the maritime sector [Tug Times]

The most effective government advisory committee I ever served on was the recovery committee that was convened by the Director of Civil Aviation when a commercial airliner plunged into Hong Kong harbour in 1993.

It was a very large committee, comprising practically every government department plus aviation experts and salvors. Remarkably, it worked perfectly, with all the members focused on recovering the aircraft so the airport would not have to close.

Everything we asked for as salvors was considered and quickly approved, and the members were united in seeking a swift and successful resolution to the problem. The time from the crash to the recovery of the aircraft was a mere fourteen days, and I am convinced that was only possible because of the recovery committee.

Some years later, I was appointed to the Pilotage Advisory Committee (PAC), which was responsible for overseeing pilotage and related activities within Hong Kong waters. Chaired by the Marine Department, the committee comprised pilots, tug interests, berth and terminal operators, commercial shipping representatives and other interested parties.

Our bible was the Berthing Guidelines, which listed every berth in Hong Kong and laid down the number of pilots and tugs required for berthing and unberthing ships of different sizes, often at different stages of the tide. As a result, there was no argument about the number of tugs used in every case, although pilots always had the authority to summon more assistance if the circumstances warranted.

Naturally, in our deliberations, the shipping companies generally wanted fewer tugs, whilst I was sure they would benefit from having more or more powerful tugs. At the end of the day, the pilots had the greatest say, because they were the ones responsible for guiding ships in and out of the Territory in a safe and efficient manner.

Once we had all stated our opinions the chairman, himself an experienced mariner, would sum up before a decision was taken. It is fair to say the chairman recognised BS when he saw it, and we generally came to the right conclusions, even if some members were not entirely happy with the outcome.

For female readers, I must point out that all the members were men in those distant times, although women are now playing an important role in the PAC and all the other advisory committees, as is right and proper. Even our Director of Marine is a woman, as have been several of her predecessors.

The port of Hong Kong has an enviable safety record, so I guess the members of the PAC earned their pay – except there was none. All the members were volunteers who, if we were lucky, would be offered a cup of tea during the meetings.

This is pretty much how things work in other countries, too, although volunteers in larger countries are often given an allowance to cover the cost of travel to attend the meetings. They are generally public-spirited individuals who want to help, and perform an excellent service for little or no recognition.

By now you will have realised that I am a fan of government advisory committees, provided they are run properly, so I was horrified to learn that, in the United States, all members of federal advisory committees under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been dismissed and all meetings have been put on indefinite hold.

A spokesperson explained that this is in line with the Trump Administration’s “committment to eliminating the misuse of resources and ensuring DHS activities prioritise our national security."

Sadly, the DHS is responsible for, among others, the National Towing Safety Advisory Committee, the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee and the Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health.

It is not for me to question why these vital committees were a matter for homeland security rather than, say, transport, but I certainly question the wisdom of suspending them, especially since they collectively cost less to run than what President Trump spent on redecorating when he first moved in to the White House.

Research reveals that members of these committees are generally qualified mariners, and some are also union members. All must have a deep knowledge of the subject areas. They are not paid, but may claim travel expenses.

Among the unimportant things they were doing before they were dismissed was commenting on the Safer Seas Act, which contains vital rules on preventing sexual assault and sexual harassment, and attempting to renew outdated rules for training and certification. Incidentally, it was they (and not I) who described their certification as outdated, and I am sure they know what they are talking about.

Nobody ever accused me of being a fan of modern trade unions, but I was very impressed that five maritime-related American unions banded together and wrote to Congress urging reinstatement of the advisory committees. They rightly pointed out that “the consequences of compromised maritime safety are devastating.” Good for them!

The American Waterways Operators (AWO) were slightly less forceful. Caitlin Stewart, their vice president for regulatory affairs, said the AWO “views the coast guard’s federal advisory committees as very important forums for the agency to seek feedback from the public, including operators and subject matter experts.....and ensure its regulations and policies are informed by real-world perspectives”.

If there is a silver lining, perhaps it resides in the fact that the US Government has shown itself willing to change its mind within days, and reverse policies that might appear to an outsider to be totally insane. We can but hope.

On the other hand, this is shipping, so the vast majority of the population will neither know nor care what is going on. All I can do is remind the thousands of people around the world who give up their own time to serve on government advisory committees that some of us appreciate their efforts, and are grateful.