| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.3 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): May I point out to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) that many Opposition Members
welcomed the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994? We have sufficient experience of the fishing industry to know that, occasionally, vessels are overwhelmed in utterly natural circumstances, and we are well aware of the dangers facing our merchant seamen and fishermen.
I am pleased to see the Bill's emphasis on accident prevention measures, but it is important that, in designating exclusion zones, we do not lose local fishing sites. Damage would be caused if fishermen were to be excluded from traditional fishing grounds, but I am sure that officials will take account of the concerns of fishermen. The Secretary of State is not here, but I readily acknowledge his concern about enhanced safety regulations.
Will the crews of emergency vessels be equipped with immersion suits--sometimes called survival suits? If they are involved in such work, they should be provided with every piece of safety equipment available, and I think that a survival suit is essential. I have long campaigned for the crews of our fishing vessels to be equipped with survival suits. Sometimes, officials and Ministers think that I am talking about suits for fishermen to wear while they are working on deck, but that is not the case. The kind of survival suit to which I am referring is one which a crew member dons when the ship is foundering.
Let me give an example. A few years ago, a French stern trawler with a crew of 27 foundered off the coast of St. Kilda. She went down quite quickly, and the men on watch had time to put on their survival suits. Out of a crew of 27, 14 men were on watch and had time to slip on their survival suits. Every one of them survived--despite being in heavy seas off St. Kilda in February--and the men were rescued as a result of the remarkable efficiency and bravery of a helicopter crew from Lossiemouth. The poor crew members who were down in their bunks did not have a chance to put on their survival suits, and they quickly died--as one would expect in northern waters at that time of the year. That is a stark example of what happens when a man goes into the water without a survival suit.
I make no apology for continuing my campaign, because I do not believe that any UK-registered fishing vessel should be allowed to leave port without a survival suit on board for each member of the crew. I have been criticised by fishermen's associations for that campaign, but the father of a young fisherman who drowned not so long ago after going overboard from a Scottish fishing vessel now says that he wishes his son had been able to don one of those suits.
I am pleased that, at long last, we will have regulations governing the klondykers--the floating fish-processing plants which play an important role in the Scottish fishing industry. Fishermen anchored in Loch Broom ship their mackerel on to these ships. This work is done mainly at Ullapool, but also takes place in Shetland. As someone who comes from a fishing family and who made his first trip to the Arctic at the age of 11, I must say that I would not sale across the Clyde in some of the vessels seen at Loch Broom. They are a disgrace to the nation under whose flag they fly. I am pleased to note that the Bill will introduce tougher regulations on maritime hygiene and safety.
On the issue of criminal proceedings against the owners and captains of vessels who infringe the rules, can the Minister confirm that, in the Scottish courts, the local procurator fiscal would refer such cases to the sheriff court? I am sure that the Minister will be keen to answer that question.
On the question of the Minister and his officials taking note of the concerns of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Government's measures are welcome. Some would say that the Government's relationship with the Coastguard and the RNLI is somewhat theoretical, but they have made an important gesture to the RNLI. Together with the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), I represent the House on the executive committee of the RNLI, so I welcome those measures.
I have asked the Secretary of State--I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the point later--whether the pilot of a ship acts as an adviser and guide to the master of the vessel. When a pilot is taken on board a ship--for example, when a ship enters the firth of Clyde--I understand that the ship is not under his control, and the master remains in command of his vessel at all times, even when the pilot is on board.
Lord Donaldson dealt at length with the subject of the Minch in his report. Incidentally, Lord Donaldson, as he himself pointed out recently, is not the sole author of his brilliant report. I have long argued that very large vessels--such as very large crude carriers and ultra large crude carriers--should stand to the west of the Western Isles. Lord Donaldson recommends that, in exceptional weather, such ships should be allowed into the Minch.
I disagree; that is the one criticism I have made of the Donaldson report. Big ships, especially in bad weather, should stand in deep water and not in relatively shallow water, especially waters that are so important to our fishing communities on the west coast of Scotland. There is a deep-water route to the west of the Western Isles--as the Minister knows, because he has heard me complain about the subject before--and that is the way that the largest vessels should take. The route lies to the west of North Uist, Harris and Lewis. It might add three or four hours' steaming time, but that is the vessels' problem and not that of the communities in the beautiful area around the Minch.
In their report, Lord Donaldson and his colleagues said the deep-water route was
The councillors continue:
I know a skipper who put a big stern trawler ashore in the Minch, because he thought its turning circle was smaller than it was. It was only 750 gross registered tonnes. What will happen to the tankers and other big ships that carry hazardous materials through that narrow channel? I suggest to the Minister that he pays close attention to some of the proposals made by the two councils. For example, they suggest the introduction of a compulsory Coastguard reporting scheme for all shipping moving through the Minch. It is obvious that the voluntary scheme is ineffective. The letter also contains proposals to
Clause 18 deals with general lighthouse authorities. It provides that a general lighthouse authority may use any of its assets that have spare capacity, after discharging its functions to manage and maintain all navigational aids, and enter into an agreement, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to exploit that spare capacity. I presume that that means the Secretary of State for Transport, but the Secretary of State of Scotland also has an important role to play.
For example, the Pharos--the northern lighthouse vessel which was launched from Ferguson's in Port Glasgow and entered service in early 1993--is presumably one of the assets that can be used elsewhere. I suggest that it could be used, as it has been in the past, as a reserve vessel for the Britannia, especially when the royal family visit parts of Scotland, including the Western Isles, in the performance of their duties. Written answers on 31 January 1997 show that the Queen used the royal yacht for a total of 46 days in 1995 and 1996. When the Queen visits the Western Isles and other points of the compass, the Pharos might be used. It is a very fine ship, and I speak as an ex-shipwright. It was built in my constituency to the highest of standards. It is a first-class ship and it could be used by the royal family instead of spending £60 million on a replacement vessel.
"the only one in UK waters established for environmental reasons."
My concerns about the Minch are shared by many people in Scotland. For example, a letter to Members of Parliament from Councillors Michael Foxley, William Fulton and John Munro states:
"The Highland Council and the Western Isles Islands Council have serious concerns over the current arrangements for managing the movement of tanker traffic transiting the north west of Scotland".
The letter continues:
"A recent survey of shipping through the Minch over a two month period saw 456 vessels pass through the Minch, 25 per cent. of which did so improperly."
By "improperly", the councillors mean that those vessels failed to report their positions to the Coastguard and some of them failed to stick to the designated channels. Such failures might lead to a serious accident in those important fishing areas.
"Taking into account that less than 20 per cent. of the total number of vessels using the Minch were UK registered and therefore less familiar with the specific dangers of local waters, there are very real concerns that an accident is waiting to happen."
Those douce highlanders make a good point, and I hope to address it further, if I am fortunate enough to serve on the Committee. I might get the thumbs down from the Whips Office, but I hope not.
"sustain the current practice of directing all laden vessels over 10,000 gross tonnage to the deep water route to the west of the Western Isles".
The councillors also suggest that, if vessels over 10,000 gross tonnage pass through the Minch at times of severe weather, they should do so only under the authority of a qualified pilot. That is a reasonable suggestion. They say that vessels under 10,000 gross tonnage with hazardous cargo should be treated as if they were over 10,000 gross tonnage. We also need, as suggested by the councillors, measures to secure the permanent provision of an emergency towing vessel of sufficient capacity based in Stornoway. One is stationed there in the winter, but, as we know, ships founder in other seasons.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |