TWENTY five years on it seems that the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control is still very much with us. It shouldn’t be.

It is not that its work is unappreciated (although it often is) or that its policies are unwelcome (although they often are). It is simply that they shouldn’t be needed.

Port state control and the various regional bodies that followed were established as a temporary back-stop to protect against failing flag states. But as the Paris MoU has pointed out this week, the inconvenient truth is that they have never been needed more.

After several years of a declining trend in port state detentions, the past two years have seen an unwelcome u-turn in safety statistics. The inspectors point to the increased demand for tonnage and the difficulties owners are facing in finding well-qualified and experienced seafarers. They have a valid point, but there is a more fundamental issue at stake here.

Every ship that gets caught by a port state inspector with deficiencies is one that has been failed by its flag state, its owner, its operator and its insurer.

There are many problems with port state control, not least that it was never set up to do the job it now performs. Reforms within bodies like the Paris MoU are to be welcomed if they can iron out some of these issues. Targeting the high-risk ships and rewarding quality is an obvious and welcome shift in focus for many.

But the fact that the port state inspector has become an institutionalised element of the system suggests that there is an institutional problem with our industry.