ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SAFETY

HC Deb 05 June 1984 vol 61 cc243-50

`The Secretary of State shall set up an advisory committee to examine and report on the safety of fishermen in vessels operating in the areas specified in this Act.'.—[Dr. Godman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.36 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The three main issues with which the Bill is concerned are, first, the repeal of restrictions on trawling and sailing inside the three-mile limit, secondly, the need to improve the protection afforded to static gear fishermen and, thirdly, the need to increase the protection of nursery grounds and juvenile fish. I believe that there should be a fourth objective — the safety of the fishermen operating in those waters.

The first three objectives are laudable, and will be supported by all those concerned with the well-being of the crews of our fishing vessels and the Scottish fishing industry as a whole. It is my hope that new clause 2, if accepted, will help to focus attention on the safety needs of both crews and vessels operating in those areas specified in the Bill.

I remind the House that article 9 of the recent Council regulation concerning the restructuring and modernisation of EEC fishing fleets emphasises the need for greater safety measures for fishermen. Another article in that regulation spells out the need to structure decisions around integrated safety principles.

I anticipate that the Secretary of State would ensure that the composition of the proposed advisory committee would be such that the majority of its members would be representatives of fishermen's associations concerned with both static and mobile gear vessels. In addition, the Secretary of State could invite nominations for the remaining positions from such bodies as he considered appropriate. Currently, there is no Scottish organisation specifically concerned with fishing vessel safety—that is dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry on a United Kingdom-wide basis.

There is a fishing industry safety group. It meets twice a year and its 35 members include departmental officials, representatives of various fishermen's organisations, vessel builders and trade unions. The unions now play only a small part, since the demise of the distant water sector of the fleet, though the Transport and General Workers' Union still has a representative on the committee.

Given the existence of that safety group, some may question the need for what might be termed a Scottish inshore fishing safety group. In my view, the safety of fishermen should be uppermost in our minds when we legislate for the catching sector of the industry. While I have considerable respect for its members, the fishing industry safety group is too large and unwieldly to deal with specific areas of fishing vessels safety, the safety of fishermen, problems relating to certain methods of fishing and various other activities.

A Scottish committee comprised, in the main, of experienced fishermen could examine more realistically the problems faced by fishermen as they go about their work. No one can deny that those employed in the catching sector face many dangers in the alien environment in which they work.

In a written reply on 22 March last I was told by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport that while there were no separate Scottish figures for the deaths of fishermen, for the period 1979 to 1982, 60 Scottish registered vessels of 12m and above were lost. Given that Scotland has 60 per cent. of the United Kingdom fleet and that during that period a total of 118 vessels were lost, Scottish losses were marginally below those for the United Kingdom as a whole. Nevertheless, they were depressingly high.

The Scotsman of 9 February published a list of 10 Scottish vessels that had been lost. The article highlighted the problems faced by Scottish fishermen. The vessels dealt with were lost in the period September 1977 to June 1983. Among those listed was the Arcadia of Inverness, in which five men were lost. In all, 62 men were lost on the 10 vessels listed. The statistics point to an increase in the number of vessels lost.

Not all the vessels were lost in the waters specified in the Bill, but some of them were, and not a month goes by when we do not hear of a vessel being in danger around our shores. The Scotsman article began: In spite of all the official efforts to make the fishing industry less dangerous, the safety battle is not being won. 9.45 pm

A medical-geographer at Dundee university, Mark Riley, is of the opinion that risks to fishing vessels have increased in recent years. In an article that was published in the Journal of Navigation, he wrote about his research findings as follows: At a time when the fishing industry is transfixed by the rapidity of economic decline and its very existence frequently appears threatened, it is not surprising that preoccupation with matters financial has attenuated and in some respects has eclipsed the relevance and implications of the alarming trend in vessel losses. He continued: In the light of present knowledge, effective remedial action ought to be implemented forthwith, since the current risks of loss or casualty are about twice a high overall as those with which Holland-Martin and his committee colleagues were concerned and over which they expressed surprise and deep concern. That is a reference to the Committee of Inquiry which considered trawler safety, which was set up in 1969 following the loss of three Hull trawlers within a few days.

I am given to understand that officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are somewhat sceptical about the statistical methodology employed by Mr. Riley in his study. I, too, have my reservations about his research methodology, but, putting those reservations to one side, his research findings should be of concern to all.

Hitherto, safety measures in the sea fishing sector have concentrated overwhelmingly on the safety of the vessel and, when this was endangered, on the survival of the crew. Despite Mr. Riley's serious and justifiable reservations, some progress has been made in the past 20 years, although a great deal still needs to be done. However, the concentration on the fundamental aspects of the safety of vessels and crews has tended to obscure the fact that a fishing vessel is at one and the same time a work place where many accidents occur which could be avoided if appropriate preventive measures were adopted by skippers and crews.

An important part could be played by an advisory committee of the sort that is suggested in the clause. Such a committee could advise on the application of the principle of integrated safety and on all forms of decision making on fishing activities. Much more attention could be paid by way of such a committee's deliberations to safety measures in all decisions on the design and construction of vessels, the design and operation of equipment and the organisation of work and working methods. Similarly, emphasis could be placed on the ease and speed of use of design-manufactured tools and the health of crews which handle them.

Fishermen who are active in the areas covered by this proposed legislation would benefit from the work of a committee concerned with their safety. I believe that much more needs to be done, but I am well aware that some people disagree with that view. For example, one representative of the Scottish Fisherman's Federation recently said: Over the years, we have been saddened and perplexed on the occasions when vessels are lost without apparent explanation. In the wake of Holland-Martin, everyone became very safety-conscious and there have been a tremendous number of strides forward with the Scottish fleet being more modern than the rest of the UK. He added: Frankly, I do not think that there is any more that we can do. I hope that that cri de coeur is not echoed tonight. I believe that Ministers and hon. Members on both sides of the House have genuine and sincere concern for fishermen and their well-being. The clause goes some way to acknowledge and outline the magnitude of the problems surrounding the safety of fishermen.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie (Banff and Buchan)

I oppose the motion because it is unnecessary. I should like to correct the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for the safety of fishermen, not the Department of Trade and Industry.

An examination of the figures since 1973 shows that, on average, only three vessels a year have been lost. In the past year, there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of fishing vessels and people lost at sea, many of them because of accidents.

The hon. Gentleman overstated the need for the new clause. Fishermen put great store on their safety. The excellent HM Coastguard service is available to fishermen. We do not have the same problems as occurred in previous years. Practically all fishing vessels now carry radar systems allowing them to be contacted and to have contact with the shore. It is not necessary to have an additional committee on safety. Vessels are regularly inspected under the powers of the Secretary of State for Transport. Safety matters are watched by fishermen's organisations, the safety committee, which comprises various organisations, the Sea Fish Industry Authority and other bodies. I believe that there are sufficient safety powers in respect of the vessels that go to sea.

In the light of what has happened in the past, fishermen are safety conscious. The type of vessels and the superior equipment used should negate the need for any additional safety committee. There are adequate provisions in the Bill to ensure that the safety of fishermen is secured whenever they are at sea.

Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)

I support the new clause. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) under-rated the horrific figures of deaths at sea in recent years. Fishing has been reported in the press as a more dangerous occupation than some occupations that are better known as dangerous. This measure is called for because of the recent withdrawal of the training schemes. Training applies not only on vessels but when dealing with accidents on board, fires at sea, and so on. Although this matter has been transferred in Scotland to another authority, fishermen feel that the useful work that was being done at a low cost — about £40,000 a year—should have been maintained because over a period it would have led to greater safety in the fleet. In the absence of the training courses, the measure is well called for. The new clause could be a useful addition to the Bill.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

I support the new clause, as it is a valuable measure. I am surprised at the arguments used by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). I understand what he said about the importance that fishermen attach to safety and their interest in maintaining it, but the hon. Gentleman did not put forward any substantive arguments against establishing an advisory committee. Most concerned fishermen consider many facets of safety at sea—the rapidly changing design of fishing vessels, the need for expert advice and the need to consider international experience, which fishermen might not readily have at their disposal.

I should have thought that the statutory establishment of an advisory committee on safety, with the remit to consider many matters, including safety on board and the adequacy of training practices, would be welcome to the fishing industry and of considerable benefit.

I understand that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan may not wish to establish a fifth wheel on a coach but no such comprehensively active body exists, and although inspectors and the coastguards exist, a body of men and women is needed to pool information and advise——

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)

Another quango.

Mr. Maclennan

As the hon. Gentleman said, another quango which would be interested in the safety of the fishermen upon whom the public depend for an important part of their food, is not a quango which anyone would seriously argue has no merit. The hon. Gentleman should not fling around such words as if they were pejorative. The body would have a function which would justify its existence and which I think the Secretary of State, in the discharge of his statutory responsibilities, would find helpful.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has raised the subject of fishermen's safety. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), that well-known fishing constituency, suggest that there was something bad about quangos whose responsibility would be unable to protect fishermen's safety at sea.

Opposition Members are right to be interested in this matter because one of the educational institutions which has done a great deal of research, education and training to protect the safety of fishermen at sea is the Leith nautical college. One of the many reorganisations that the Government are carrying out in education to save money has been the reorganisation of navigational training in Scotland. Leith nautical college has suffered from the cuts. It has given great service to fishermen from my part of the world and many others.

When I first read new clause 2 I was not sure that it was entirely appropriate, because the most dangerous waters that British and Scottish fishermen fish are probably not the inshore fishing areas. I then remembered an incident which happened not far from my constituency. The skipper of a fishing vessel was having a good day's fishing. He was fishing for sprats and they were plentiful in those waters on that day. One must remember that there are no Plimsoll lines on fishing vessels so there is no law to say how far one can load a fishing vessel. He fished and fished until the boat sunk. That might sound like a biblical parable, but it happened. When there are people who are prepared to go to such excesses, perhaps there is a need for extra safety measures. I hope that the Government will take the matter seriously.

Mr. Soames

rose——

Mr. Home Robertson

I am not giving way. I have finished my speech.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay)

This has been a useful debate, if only to highlight the interest that both sides of the House have in the safety of fishermen. I am not sure that setting up a committee is the best way to do something concrete to help fishermen's safety. The little speech made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) illustrated the fact that, unless someone from the committee of inquiry sails in every fishing boat, there is not much to be done about a fisherman who overloads his boat with fish. That is almost the opposite of what happened to St. Peter. He fished all night and caught nothing.

Fishing is a hazardous occupation, but knowing that does not absolve us from trying to make it less hazardous. However, the Bill is concerned with the regulation of fishing in a limited area—in waters close to our shores. It is not a suitable vehicle for dealing with issues of safety.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That, at this day's sitting, the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Lang.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. MacKay

Any inquiry set up as a result of the new clause would be limited in its scope, relating only to those waters within the six-mile limit, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) recognised. Recent research by Dundee university into the safety of the United Kingdom fishing industry has cast doubts on the safety record of the industry. The preliminary conclusion of that report is that fishing has become more hazardous. However, I understand that that conclusion has been challenged vehemently by the Scottish fishing industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) made that point.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has suggested that the research shows a need for another general inquiry into the subject. The Secretary of State for Transport, who is responsible for the safety of all seafarers, including fishermen, is in the course of replying to the proposal made to him. That being so, and because the research is highly technical — testing inferences statistically is seldom simple — not much would be gained by setting up a committee such as is envisaged in the new clause.

I will draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport to some of the points made today about safety at sea and ask him to take them into consideration. However, I do not believe that, even though Opposition Members are acting on the best of motives, they have proved that such a committee would save the life of one fisherman or prevent one vessel from foundering.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan has said, the safety of fishermen is very largely in their own hands. They must be careful in everything they do—in how they navigate and how they fish. They do not have to be told that the sea is a cruel mistress and that one mistake can be lethal. I believe that the new clause is unnecessary and would be out of place in the Bill.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill (Clackmannan)

As the Minister says, the scope of the Bill is limited. It was more limited before this debate, and the presence of many hon. Members in the Chamber is evidence of the extension of the scope of the Bill and the willingness of the Government to extend its scope to cover species of fish hitherto not within its compass.

However, it would be remiss of the House, when debating fishing in any context, not to take account of safety. I was disappointed in the remarks of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), although I know that he is mindful of the difficulties and dangers under which many of his constituents earn their living. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was very fair when he summed up the evidence. He questioned some of the methodology applied by the Dundee study of safety. However, when we deal with an industry as dangerous as fishing, it is not inappropriate for the House to consider the question of safety. The limited scope of the inshore fishing industry in Scotland does not preclude the possibility of specialist consideration. It does not matter when one is six miles from the Scottish shore or 60 miles; if the water is deep enough, one can drown. One's distance from the shore is academic.

We know that the Government are always loth to burden themselves with yet another source of advice when they think they are well served by existing committees. The Opposition recognise the value of the committees that advise the Government, but the industry involves many Scots who could well do with being reminded of the importance of safety. I am not in any way denigrating the care and attention of skippers and their crews, but it is important that the importance of safety be hammered home again and again. We are aware that another committee might not save too many lives but the evidence of the Health and Safety Executive on land is that the more people are reminded of the need for safety, the safer employment becomes.

I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow will not push the new clause to a Division—I leave that to him.

Mr. McQuarrie

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the joint committee of representatives of the fishing industry and operators of oil rigs in the North sea, which meets regularly and discusses safety at sea, is adequate and that a new one is not necessary?

Mr. O'Neill

There are Scottish fishermen other than those who operate from the east coast. Such fishermen might not be involved in that committee. Fishing is a dangerous occupation and accidents are possible, even with the highest safety standards. It does no harm constantly to remind crews and skippers of the dangers. This brief debate will be read closely by the industry because it has been watching the Bill's progress. We felt it appropriate to raise the issue of safety once again. We realise that there is little enthusiasm among Conservative Members for it now and are disapponted by that. This is a modest proposal that is concerned with only a limited area of activity in the fishing industry. It could be a testing ground for specialised advisory committees on safety throughout the United Kingdom's waters. We do not envisage a massive bureaucracy or quango because the people who would be called upon to participate in such a committee give their time freely with the same commitment that they give to their other worthwhile activities in regard to the fishing industry.

We regret that the Minister has not seen fit to set up the advisory committee. We have put down markers and are sure that, in other debates that we shall have on the fishing industry, safety will arise. We shall remind the Minister, although not in terms of, "We told you so", that this evening he threw aside an opportunity.

Dr. Godman

I readily accept that this legislation is not perhaps the best vehicle for a continuing examination of fishing vessel safety. However, in reply to some of the ill-considered remarks delivered from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who I suspect is here to discuss salmon and who shows little or no concern for the safety of fishermen, may I say that this issue is very important.

I should like to quote from the answer I had from the Minister of State, Department of Transport. These are his words, not mine, and they may go some way to answering the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie): I greatly regret that during the four year period 1979 to 1982, 60 vessels of 12 m in length and over registered in Scottish ports were lost." —[Official Report, 22 March, 1984; Vol. 56, c. 551.] It is a major problem. I reject totally what the Minister said about having to leave this to the skippers and crews involved. I have personal experience of this industry, coming from a fishing family. I lost an uncle when a freak wave hit the wheelhouse of his trawler some years ago. Therefore, I have experience of the need for greater safety measures.

Having said that, in no way would I denigrate the members of fishermen's associations either in Scotland or south of the border. As with all maritime industries there is a need for continuing surveillance of safety measures from the very design of the vessel to the working methods. I hoped to draw attention to that by raising those issues.

With that in mind and given the comments made by the Minister that he would bring some of my remarks to the attention of his colleague, the Minister at the Department of Transport, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.