The laws controlling pilotage are such a jumble of anomalies and anachronisms that the Government must introduce a new one to sort out the confusion, Mr. E. Eden, general secretary and legal adviser, said at the United Kingdom’s Pilots’ Association annual conference in London in November.

He said that throughout history the main theme running through the development of the law of pilotage was one of consolidation of previous Acts. “So we have today a pilotage system based on pilotage law which dates back centuries and which is full of anomolies and anachronisms of all sorts. Is it not time for the Government to sever this ancient umbilical cord from a body of Acts of Parliaments riddled with what can be described as the persistent disease of ‘Parliamentary consoliditis’?” Mr. Eden asked.

Recommendations on pilotage seemed to suffer from a similar affliction, he went on. The Steering Committee on Pilotage recommendations were noncontentious except for recommendations on pilots’ certificates and nationality questions.

“Once more we are at the crossroads of pilotage history,” Mr. Eden declared. “The 1911 Departmental Report produced a Pilotage Act in 1913. Dare we still hope that the 1974 SCOP Report will produce a Pilotage Act in 1976?”

Referring to the discussion on nationality, Mr. Eden said the pilots viewed with the gravest concern the SCOP proposal that the automatic restriction of pilotage certificates to British subjects should be removed.

“It may be that if this proposal were to be limited to EEC countries on account of the Treaty of Rome, and only activated on a reciprocal basis, the Sword of Damocles might look less terrifying—particularly if all pilotage certificate holders were required to pay the full dues and cost of the pilotage service,” he added.

In the case of pilotage certificates, the steering committee recommended “a liberal attitude” to the issue of certificates to masters or chief officers of ships, and that such ships should meet a proportion of the pilotage costs.

“It is of course possible to introduce some safeguards for pilots in respect of this recommendation which might remove the area of contention,” Mr. Eden said. “For example, by requiring pilotage certificate holders to pay the full dues and cost of the pilotage service. This suggestion has been partially supported by the Department of Trade when they recently confirmed a byelaw for the Humber requiring those owners of ships whose masters or chief officers hold pilotage certficates to contribute one third of the pilotage dues which would have been payable had the master of the ship employed a pilot.”

Referring to pilots’ earnings, Mr. Eden said the 1975 package award had not only increased the disparity between the levels of earnings in various districts, but had also widened the gap between pilots’ earnings and the sea standard based on the earnings of the highest paid master entering the district.