§ Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives)First, I thank the Minister for her presence. I appreciate that her colleague, the Under-Secretary of Sate for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), who is responsible for shipping matters and would normally deal with such matters, is absent. I ensured that her office was aware of the questions that I intended to raise, very much in the spirit of co-operation as I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that the matter is taken forward to the benefit of the safety of lives at sea in the fishing industry.
I requested the debate with many misgivings as it will place in the public domain private tragedy and grief, but I hope and think that we are coming together in a shared belief that progress needs to be made in the protection of life at sea in the industry.
Last Sunday was sea Sunday, and I was asked to compere a Carolaire in the village where I was born and brought up—Mullion on the Lizard peninsula. We have grown used to tragedy and accustomed to the enormity of grief in the fishing industry. Traditionally, fishing communities come together at times when men are lost at sea. The families of those who are lost experience great solace and comfort from such support and companionship.
However, the world is changing, and the industry has altered greatly compared with the one I remember from my boyhood. Boats go further and are more sophisticated at catching and detecting fish. Fishermen have access to increasingly accurate weather forecasts that help them to plan days or weeks in advance. Most boats have highly sophisticated communications and sonar equipment. Satellite equipment is increasingly being added. Boats have acquired the belts and braces of vastly improved safety technology, including automatically released sonar beacons and life rafts with hydrostatic release units.
Despite that sophistication, and despite technological improvements, loss of life at sea in the fishing industry is high. Last year, 7,809 vessels were engaged in the fishing industry, the lowest figure on record. However, more lives were lost at sea than at any time during the past five years. In a recent parliamentary answer from the Under-Secretary responsible for shipping, I was told that 19 men were lost in 1995, 20 in 1996 and 29 in 1997. I do not want to debate sanitised, impersonal statistics. The Minister will agree that we risk sanitised and impersonal solutions if we fail to recognise that those figures represent real-life human tragedy and grief caused by, among other things, inadequate safeguards in the fishing industry.
Within the past 18 months, 10 men have been lost at sea from my constituency: William Pirrie, Steven Cooper, Philip Benney from the St. Ives-based Gorah Lass in March 1997; Simon Adams lost from a Newlyn trawler, the Prevail, in the western approaches in September 1997; Chris Cripps of Porthleven lost from the Ocean Spray off the Isles of Scilly on 28 October 1997; Robbie Holmes, Vince Marshall, John Todd and his son Kerry Todd when the Margaretha Maria was lost 70 miles south of the Lizard after leaving Newlyn on 11 November 1997; and Joslin Basher of St. Keverne, who was lost from the Heart of Oak, a gill-netter from Helford, within site of land off 385 the Lizard in April of this year. Those 10 men left 22 children without a father. That is surely the cause for a major inquiry.
Many issues arise from those cases. I have spoken to the Shipping Minister several times, and I know that a consultation paper is being produced. Can the Under-Secretary say when that will be published? The industry, and the families of those who have died, are keen to see lessons learned from the tragedies.
When the Margaretha Maria went down, sea conditions were calm, visibility good and the weather fair. The trawler, which had a highly experienced crew, was lost with no sign on the surface. Its life rafts did not inflate, and its emergency position-indicating radio beacons—sonar beacons known as EPIRBs—did not operate. Such beacons also failed in the case of the Gorah Lass. EPIRBs are fitted at considerable expense as a potential saviour in the worst-case scenario of a rapid sinking, when they are supposed to alert rescue services. Clearly, that is not always so. One Newlyn fisherman commented recently that they give a one in three chance—they may go off and a search be launched, they may go off and be deemed a false alarm, or they may fail to go off at all.
The second problem in the Margaretha Maria case was the difficulty of locating the vessel. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is aware of that problem, and I am glad to see him here. He is also aware of the commercial pressures on the industry, which force fishermen to be secretive about their most productive fishing grounds. That was one of the factors that made the tragedy of the Margaretha Maria more difficult to deal with. The Minister also knows of questions about the stability of fishing vessels and the increasingly heavy gear that some older boats are taking on deck. The marine accidents investigation branch will doubtless learn lessons from the tragic cases that I have mentioned.
I understand that it is customary in Scotland for the lives of men to be insured, as well as the vessel itself. That is not always the case elsewhere. The owners of the Margaretha Maria have received the money for the loss of their trawler, but the men were not insured. The mother of two of the three men lost from its sister trawler, Provider, on 6 November 1995 wrote:
For about ten days after Provider disappeared the weather was reasonably fair for the time of year but no search was made to locate the boat, even though, in the case of the Provider, there was a definite location for the search. This was because the contract to search was 'put out to tender' by the boat's insurers,—that's how it was done. We were devastated. It seemed that the lives—and deaths—of these hard-working men were of no consequence. Had such a tragedy occurred on land an immediate search would have been instigated.The involvement of the Ministry of Defence in searches for vessels is voluntary. It has no duty to assist. I urged the MoD several times to send surveillance planes to the site where we believed the Margaretha Maria to be. After the body of the skipper was found by a trawler in the area, I pleaded with the MoD to send vessels to search the area. However, the Ministry's involvement is voluntary, not a duty. When search and rescue helicopters do go out, they do not have the infra-red, heat-seeking equipment that could help them to locate men in the water.The recovery of bodies lost at sea is a difficult matter. I have spoken several times to the Minister responsible for shipping about it as families feel very strongly on the 386 subject. The Government's position is—although we await their consultation paper—that the sea is a dignified grave for a mariner. However, the Minister will understand that families want to bring their grieving to a close. The sea is not an undignified grave, but a proper funeral is love's last act. Families need that, and are in some cases demanding it. I support those who want a change in the Government's view, and we shall debate that point in the months to come. A lot of soul searching is required. It is not that I am arguing with the Minister because I know that our debate will be co-operative. Where practical, and where there is no threat to the lives of searchers, we must consider the matter. The technology has moved on from the days when the tradition was not to recover bodies from the sea.
§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)The hon. Gentleman puts the case fairly. No one would argue that bodies should be recovered in every possible instance. There may be many circumstances in which they cannot be recovered. Equally, there are some in which they can. We need an organisation to judge the appropriate response to a family's request. Families find that, without such an organisation, they operate in a vacuum. The Sapphire was raised by the petition and fund-raising efforts of the families involved. Through their efforts in raising it and recovering their loved ones for Christian burial ashore, valuable information about the causes of the sinking was found that could not otherwise have come to light. That has already been reflected in the report of the marine accidents investigation branch.
§ Mr. GeorgeI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to our attention. The recovery of the Sapphire provided evidence helpful to the MAIB investigation. The Margaretha Maria lies a good deal further offshore, 70 miles south of the Lizard in more than 300 ft of water. It would be a highly expensive operation, but the families are determined to consider it. They are raising funds to consider whether it is a realistic possibility. If it provided information helpful to the inquiry, it would be all to the good.
The first and foremost question is the consultation paper. I appreciate that it involves not only the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There needs to be consultation between the two Departments, and I greatly appreciate the presence of the Minister responsible for fishing. We want progress. Every day that publication is delayed and action not taken is another day in which men risk their lives at sea because we are not learning the lessons of past tragedies. I urge the Minister to bring publication forward. She can be sure that I will respond positively and constructively, as will others, especially the families who have learnt from these tragedies. It would be helpful if the Minister could not only say when the paper will be published but give the timetable for the consultation and for turning the proposals into action.
What plans has the Department to assist voluntary efforts to establish ship-to-shore radio systems to allow regular reports on vessel location to avoid what happened with the Margaretha Maria? A FRAPS, or fishermen's reporting and positioning system, has been set up voluntarily at Newlyn by fishermen's wives after that tragedy. Its fund raising is voluntary and it is struggling 387 to establish itself properly. Departmental support that did not put additional commercial pressure on vessels and respected confidentiality would be helpful.
What assessment has the Minister made of the need to require boat owners to insure the lives of crew as well as vessels? When will her Department publish the redraft of the code of practice for smaller fishing vessels under 12 m? What lessons have been learnt from the previous effort? My discussions with the inshore fleet around Cornwall revealed concern about the expense of inspection and monitoring. It would be helpful if the Department recognised that investment in assisting fishermen with safety features in their boats is money saved in searching for boats at sea later. It is investment well made.
Does the Minister agree that the informal, voluntary arrangements between her Department's agencies such as the MAIB and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency should be established as some formal duty shared by her Department and the Ministry of Defence? The lessons that we have learnt and the cases that I have described emphasise the need to clarify that. Does she agree that lives could be saved if MOD search and rescue helicopters and craft carried infra-red heat-seeking equipment? What assessment has the Department made of the stability of vessels carrying increasingly heavy gear on deck that makes many boats top-heavy? What lessons have been learnt about the failure of hydrostatic release units to operate automatically to provide crews with life rafts in so many recent fishing tragedies? What recommendation will she make on the difficult question of the recovery of bodies of men lost at sea? Where it is practical and does not risk other lives, the Government should reconsider their position.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle)I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) for raising this important subject. Although the responsible Minister is on Government business abroad, I am responsible for health and safety. There are many cross-overs between health and safety on the shore and at sea.
By almost any measure, the industry has an unacceptable safety record. Over the past five years, the accident rate for UK fishing vessels has increased significantly. In 1997, there were about 60 accidents per 1,000 vessels, compared with about 45 in 1992, an increase of a third in only five years. Put another way, there is worsening safety with a falling number of vessels. As the number of vessels in the fleet falls, the safety record has worsened.
In terms of lives lost per 100,000 employees, the industry has a worse record than any other sector. In 1995–96, the rate of fatal injuries was 77 per 100,000 fishermen, compared with 23.2 per 100,000 employees in the mining and quarrying industry, which is the next worst category in that year. Last year, 29 fishermen lost their lives, as the hon. Member said. Five have lost their lives so far this year. In considering these sad and difficult issues, we send our condolences to those who have lost their loved ones.
388 The number of reported accidents to crew is increasing. We may suspect that many injuries go unreported. In the past, the industry was thought reluctant to spend money on safety. The Government's approach to regulating and enforcing safety, which I shall outline, seeks the active and positive co-operation of the industry. Fishing is a potentially hazardous occupation, but it is not good enough to accept that with a shrug of the shoulders. We are determined to reduce the accident rate, and I shall also mention what the industry is doing to help.
The regulations governing safety are enforced where appropriate by a survey and inspection regime, as the hon. Member for St. Ives knows. All UK-registered fishing vessels of 12 m and over in length must be surveyed every four years and issued with a UK fishing vessel safety certificate.
Fishing vessels under 12 m in length are not surveyed, but they must comply with relevant sections of the safety provisions rules that were introduced in 1975. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency carries out a large number of inspections of UK-registered fishing vessels each year—more than 6,000 in the past three years—with effort concentrated primarily on vessels of under 12 m.
Clearly, it is important to ensure better standards of safety for all fishing vessels, but the under-12 m sector remains a high priority as significantly more vessels—the vast majority—fall into this category. The MCA has been considering the safety of such vessels with the fishermen's federations, and I welcome the willingness that fishermen have shown in tackling this difficult and essential issue. Earlier discussions concluded that safety could best be improved by the introduction of a code of safe practice. The code would replace the 1975 safety provisions rules for smaller vessels and would ensure that each vessel was inspected regularly.
As the hon. Member for St Ives knows, a draft code, containing both mandatory requirements and recommendations based on good practice, was sent to all owners of UK-registered fishing vessels under 12 m in length last year. Many fishermen felt that the draft code was too complicated and were concerned about the potential costs. We have listened to their concerns and are now working with the industry to produce a revised code in order to deliver a genuine improvement in safety standards. In answer to one of the hon. Gentleman's questions, we hope to publish that code and the revised proposals in the autumn. I am confident that fishermen will want to take their own safety seriously, and that agreement on the code can be speedily reached. I hope that all vessel owners will realise that it is in their own interests to comply with the code when it is introduced. For larger vessels, we will implement the recently adopted European Union directive, which will establish a harmonised safety regime.
We have also recently implemented EU directives to improve occupational health and safety for workers at sea, including fishermen. Our legislation places a general duty of care on employers, which is new for fishing vessels, to protect the health and safety of workers through, for example, the provision of a safe working environment—including requirements for larger vessels relating to construction and equipment—safe working procedures, training, and instruction.
So far, I have spoken mainly about standards for vessel construction and the equipment carried on board, but it is just as important to ensure that fishermen are competent. 389 The industry's poor accident record indicates a clear need to ensure that fishermen receive appropriate basic safety training. At the moment, the requirement to undertake basic safety training applies only to new entrants to the industry and serving fishermen born on or after 1 March 1954. A recent review conducted by the marine accidents investigation branch indicated that emergencies were handled well by trained skippers and badly by those with no safety training—rather unsurprising, one might think. The review concluded that basic training covering sea survival, fire fighting and prevention, and first aid should be extended to all fishermen. The MCA is currently consulting the fishing industry on that issue.
Fishermen must be made aware that many accidents can be prevented by following safe procedures and practices. The MAIB publishes regular safety digests highlighting problem areas which it sends to agents, companies, owners, skippers, missions and the fishing press to help to inform fishermen and to prevent accidents.
Fatigue can lead to accidents in any industry and I suspect that it is an especially important factor in the accident statistics in the fishing industry, to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which I have already raised. It is clear that the problem of fatigue needs to be dealt with. The Government are considering controls on working time for fishermen in the context of the European Commission's proposals to extend the working time directive to the sectors, including sea fishing, that were originally excluded from it. Any legislation must, of course, be workable and take account of the operational requirements and the share fishermen system.
We cannot hope to improve safety standards in the fishing industry without first gaining the active co-operation of fishermen. The MCA chairs regular meetings of the fishing industry safety group, which is attended by representatives of the industry, other Government Departments and interested organisations. This group, which meets twice a year, allows constructive discussion and consultation on policy developments and implementation, and has produced important proposals such as the draft code of safe practice for vessels under 12 m.
While we want fishermen to take as much responsibility as possible for their own safety, the Government have a duty to provide an appropriate level of regulation and enforce it effectively. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency was formed on 1 April this year, by merging the Marine Safety Agency and the Coastguard Agency. Under the previous structure, the inspection of fishing vessels was the responsibility of the Marine Safety Agency. Its 15 dedicated fishing vessel surveyors, together with other marine surveyors deployed around the coastline, continue to inspect fishing vessels to ensure that they meet all appropriate safety standards.
However, following the merger, there is now also the scope to use the coastguard, which has 64 sector officers deployed around the coast, to reinforce the work of the inspectors. The benefits of this are significant. The coastguard has a major presence on the coast and its officers see fishing vessels far more regularly than do the traditional inspectors. A pilot scheme is taking place on the south coast this summer, which also involves coastguard officers in certain areas of this work.
390 The hon. Gentleman asked when the consultation paper on sea safety in the fishing industry would be published. I can tell him that it will almost certainly be published next week. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)Order. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) is wandering around the Chamber. He has just come between the Minister and the hon. Member whom she is addressing. He must be more conscious of what is happening in the Chamber.
§ Angela EagleWe hope to be able to address the responses to the consultation paper by the end of the year, but the hon. Member for St. Ives needs to bear in mind the fact that we do not yet know what the consultation will come up with. Some of the suggestions that arise out of it may require primary legislation or changes to particular regimes that will not have a definite timing, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will deal with the results of the consultation paper as quickly as we can.
§ Mr. Andrew GeorgeWill the Minister expand on the extent to which the consultation paper will cover the issues that I have described in my speech?
§ Angela EagleI am trying to get through the long list of questions that the hon. Gentleman asked me in the time left to us. If I do not, I will write to him with my responses to the rest of his questions.
As for action to prevent accidents, clearly fishing is a dangerous occupation, and risk can never be eliminated. That is why the Government's consultation paper will seek comments from the fishing industry and from those involved in marine search and rescue on possible measures to improve survival rates following an accident. We shall be consulting on the maintenance and use of survival equipment, increased position reporting by fishing vessels, distress watch practices and the proper use and maintenance of key safety equipment. Maintenance is an important issue. As I said, we hope to be able to respond to the results of that consultation by the end of the year.
Some fishermen, sadly, will continue to be lost at sea and it is important that the Government keep under review their policy for locating and examining wrecks for accident investigation purposes, as well as their policy for the recovery of those lost at sea. The Government regard the sea as an honourable last resting place for those it has claimed. We believe that that is consistent with the traditions of seafaring, which recognise the sea bed as a grave. We recognise that modern technology makes possible the recovery of relatively small vessels, but such operations will often be dangerous and costly. Those issues are covered in our consultation paper. I very much hope that we can have a debate within that context.
The costs of a change in policy on the recovery of bodies would be considerable. If it is considered that the Government should fund the recovery of bodies from fishing vessels, arguably the cost should be reimbursed by the vessel's owner. The consequences could be a significant increase in insurance costs for vessel owners. The hon. Gentleman is clearly worried about this, as is the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). The issues of cost, insurance costs and safety need to be considered carefully.
391 In summary, we acknowledge that commercial fishing is an inherently dangerous occupation. The continued high incidence of crew deaths and losses of fishing vessels means that efforts to raise safety standards and increase safety awareness within the industry must be improved. We must maintain an adequate rescue service—which we are doing. The hon. Member for St. Ives made a point about search helicopters. The reason why military helicopters do not carry the heat-seeking equipment that he talked about is that it allows them to be identified by potential enemies. However, they carry other equipment which achieves the same goal, but does not use the same technology. We cannot allow military helicopters to be pinpointed by those who may not have their best interests at heart. That does not alter the effectiveness of the search and rescue procedure.
We must ensure that appropriate safety standards are developed, with the industry's co-operation, and applied, either through widespread compliance with voluntary 392 measures, or through the enforcement of Government regulation, where necessary. I look forward to receiving the industry's active co-operation and to the results of the consultation paper, which we hope to issue next week so that we can consign as far as possible debates such as this to history.
§ It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.