Maritime Safety (Hansard, 16 February 1982)

§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the safety of maritime vessels and their crews in United Kingdom territorial waters; and for connected purposes. This weekend witnessed the loss of an oil rig off Canada and a Greek tanker in the Atlantic, with the loss of more than 100 lives. That emphasises the danger of the seafaring occupation. Even in the United Kingdom, the number of deaths among seafarers is four times that among those who are engaged in the dangerous occupation of coal mining.

My Bill, which is supported by hon. Members with Merchant Navy seafaring experience, is designed to improve safety standards for our seafarers. Some of the present inadequacies were highlighted by the tragic loss of the "Union Star" and the Penlee lifeboat in December, with the loss of 16 lives. That same week over 100 seamen died in roughly the same area. That disaster rated very little press attention.

Last week in the High Court in London judgment was delivered on the loss of the Liberian vessel "Salem", confirming that vessels are being sunk deliberately for the purpose of fraud. This twentieth century development of the nineteenth century coffin ship and marine frauds is growing to one a week. Some of it takes place under the British flag, but 90 per cent. of the practice takes place under flags of convenience.

The increasing growth of flags of convenience fleets—they now amount to over a third of world tonnage and many of the vessels are European—owned—is responsible for more than four times as many vessels being lost under such flags as the average loss under the flag of traditional maritime countries. The losses of such vessels, even with their entire crews, do not warrant investigation or inquiry in some of the flag of convenience countries. That applies even to British flags of convenience vessels. The entire crew of 17 of the "Barbra 'B'" was lost, but that did not warrant any inquiry by the Government. However, Panama conducted an inquiry into the loss of that British ship.

The only organisation to resist such practices and trends is the international trade union movement, which uses its industrial strength to protect exploited seamen against such practices. Even that is to be outlawed by the Government's trade union Bill, which has been welcomed by the flag of convenience operators. As British operators switch to phoney flags in the name of competition, seamen are forced to follow and to serve on ships which are less safe and which present greater risks to themselves.

The "Union Star" was British-owned and sailed under an Irish flag. It was able to carry two fewer men, with fewer qualifications, than would have been required if it had been a British-registered vessel. The Bill will require all vessels in United Kingdom waters to observe the minimum safety standards laid down and imposed by the House. Such standards reduce the risk to our crews, particularly the lifeboat men who have to go out to rescue such vessels in difficult circumstances.

The Bill seeks to emphasise that the captain's prime responsibility is the safety of the vessel and its crew. The refusal of the captain of the "Union Star" to accept towing or assistance in gale conditions, with 40 ft waves, and with 150 no engines or steering power, bordered on the criminal. It reflects the growing pressure that is placed upon captains to put commercial judgments before the safety of their vessels and crews. The Bill would make it clear that the captain has that prime responsibility.

The Bill goes much further. It requires that the captain of a ship that is in difficulty and has no motive power shall be forced to accept a tow. The irony is that, under international law, if the "Union Star" had been carrying oil or a dangerous cargo the Coastguard would have had the power to force the skipper to accept a tow and thus the crew of the vessel, and possibly the lifeboatmen, would not have been lost.

It is deplorable that Parliaments and international law give a higher priority to property—the saving of our beaches—than to saving the lives of seafarers. Understandably our seafarers feel that the spilling of blood gets little more attention in the House than does oil and its effect on our beaches.

The circumstances of the lifeboat tragedy demand that a public inquiry be held and an investigation made into related matters. For example, why did a certificated engineer join the "Union Star" on her maiden voyage and leave halfway through the voyage, to be replaced by a man less competent to deal with engine problems? [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Gentlemen are not saying "Nonsense". No doubt a public inquiry would establish the facts.

It is essential to assess the capabilities of the Coastguard and the air-sea rescue services. The cuts that are being imposed on the Coastguard Service's manpower, its watchkeeping facilities and on its whole capability are causing considerable concern, not only in the maritime industry and in the service itself, at low and high levels of command, but in the coastal areas that are affected.

A maritime authority should be established to deal with the many difficult problems of safety at sea because, increasingly, individual departments are proving to be incapable of dealing with cases involving small vessels. Moreover, in inquiries the Department of Trade acts as both judge and jury. That is not a satisfactory situation, and it should be changed.

The Bill seeks to make public inquiries compulsory when vessels and crews are lost. It would reverse the trend of the last few years of fewer public inquiries into losses. This is evident from answers to questions, which show that whereas preliminary inquiries were held in one out of every four losses, the figure is now one in 12. We are not satisfied that the reduction of expenditure and coverage in this sphere increase safety.

Finally, the Bill seeks to correct the inadequate way in which public appeals arising from maritime tragedies are handled. Such uncertainty appear to maximise private anguish for the surviving dependants and undermine public confidence in appeals. Claims by some surviving widows and orphans from the same incident are denied due to terms of reference that are too narrowly drawn.

Yesterday, at the memorial service for the Penlee men, the Prime Minister said that there was little of a practical nature that she felt that she could do. The first practical step that she and her Government could take would be to make it clear to the appropriate Minister that a public inquiry into the loss of the Penlee lifeboat is essential.

Secondly, the Government could support the Bill. It is the least that should be done for the seafaring community, or that Parliament should expect to be done for the dead 151 of the Penlee tragedy and for the seafarers who pursue a livelihood in one of the most dangerous of occupations. They do so in circumstances which are more dangerous than they need be, and which Parliament could improve by supporting the Bill.