| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn): I speak in support of the new clause. My father was a merchant seaman. He served as a stoker in the merchant
navy from 1936 until his retirement in the 1960s. He was torpedoed on three occasions during the war. A seaman's occupation affects his family directly. When my father complained about safety at sea, he was disciplined and the family lost wages. A seaman at sea is under maritime regulation and can be disciplined differently from a worker on land, who can complain about health and safety with no repercussions. At sea, it is impractical for a complainant to step off the boat. Seamen who have spoken up about safety have been dismissed and left at the next port.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): In that context, I remind my hon. Friend that, traditionally, if a man was swept overboard from a company-owned trawler, the wages given to his wife or mother were docked from the hour he was knocked overboard.
6.45 pm
Mr. Martin: That is true and my hon. Friend may be able to expand on that point. My mother was paid fortnightly through a seaman's allotment. If my father's wages were docked or he was put off the boat in Egypt or Montreal, it might be 14 days before my mother discovered that he had been disciplined. I know that the position has improved, but the point is that good safety training on our sea-going vessels--the few that are left--is a must. Those British men and women who have the honour of serving in our merchant navy are entitled to the best possible training. Those in charge of our able seamen, stokers, stewards and others should also have the best training. I hope that the new clause will improve the situation, and I support it.
Dr. Godman: I am happy to support the new clause. Will the Minister confirm that fishing vessels fall outwith the United Kingdom's merchant fleet? If that is so, I hope that the Minister--if he is sympathetic, as he often is, to our case--will pay serious attention to the need to emphasise the training of our fellow citizens who are employed in marine-related businesses and the fishing industry, as well as those in the merchant fleet.
Safety training is especially important. I need hardly remind the Minister about the two terrible losses that we have just suffered. Allegations were made in Scotland over the weekend that the Arbroath, which foundered a few days ago with the loss of its crew, snagged its gear on a pipeline. Whatever the truth of those allegations, it is essential that those who go to sea, on any vessel, should be given the best safety training. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that such training should include training in donning immersion suits. Men may have only a few minutes to put the suits on. They are not easy to put on, especially in the darkness and if the sea is running and the vessel is going down. That is the sort of training that all our seafarers should be given.
Safety is of the essence, and the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State have agreed with me on this in the past. I would like the measures dealing with the merchant marine to include also the fishing fleet, where safety is also important. If a vessel is going down, but the men and women on board have time to put on survival gear before going into the water, excellent equipment is important. I told the Under-Secretary in Committee about the French fishermen who had to jump
off their ship west of St. Kilda. Those who had time to put on their survival suits survived, but the other men died quickly. Safety is of the essence, as is safety training.
Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke):
I wish to support briefly the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). Many people believe that the reason for the decline in the British merchant fleet has been the far cheaper charters offered by flags of convenience, and that may be true in some sectors. But we must remember that our continental partners--particularly Norway and Denmark--have been able to maintain substantial merchant fleets and, in certain areas, have expanded them.
The tragedy for the British merchant fleet has occurred in areas where, initially, Britain led the way--I am thinking in particular of the United Kingdom continental shelf, where many of the supply vessels which operated in the late 1960s and early 1970s were owned, operated and crewed by British people. Since then, there has been a significant decline in the proportion of the British merchant fleet operating on the United Kingdom continental shelf. Some of it, admittedly, has gone to flags of convenience with relatively cheap crews, but a significant part of the market has been taken by Norwegian, Danish and German-crewed vessels.
If, as we well know, the officers and crew of Norwegian, Danish, German and Dutch vessels are paid extremely well, why on earth is the British share of the market so small? The same is true in relation to tanker fleets, where the Norwegians and the Danes have been able to maintain a significant and flourishing sector. Any Government must address the issue of why there has been such a huge decline--as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate--in the British sector of the world merchant fleet. We must find out why countries with high-quality training and well-paid crews--any British seaman would give his right arm for their terms and conditions--have been able to maintain, and improve where necessary, their merchant fleets.
Other significant areas must be addressed, such as new build and how we support the merchant fleet not just on the United Kingdom continental shelf, but in the world market. The tragedy is that the British merchant fleet has shrunk to such an extent that it will be difficult to build it up to what we knew and appreciated in the 1960s and 1970s.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Bowis):
I am grateful to the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. In moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) talked about this country's great maritime traditions, and she was right. Those traditions have been based on a quality of seamanship that has been the envy of the world, and many of those qualities have been the result of the training given to our seamen.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn(Mr. Martin)--in a moving tribute to his father's experiences--highlighted some of the risks, dangers and problems faced by our seamen. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) reminded us of the most recent tragedies affecting fishing boats and the men who put to sea in them. Our thoughts go to the families of the crews of those two ships which had such a sad end.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked whether the fishing fleet was covered by the related section of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The Act does apply to fishing vessels, although it does not apply to the matters referred to by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew our attention to the need for equipment and clothing, and we have referred him in the past to the guidance that is available on this matter. His points are well taken on board.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) had a wider shopping list than is addressed by the new clause. However, British training benefits British seafarers--no matter what ship they are sailing in. We should bear that in mind as we look at our training record.
The new clause is unnecessary, but I want to make clear that the Government are very much in favour of consulting those with an interest in seafarer training or those with relevant expertise and experience. We are against imposing needless bureaucracy and superfluous regulation. The Government's record shows clearly that we support well-thought-out and targeted schemes for seafarer training.
I wish to refer the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate to the implications of the wording of the new clause, which caused me to have some doubts about it. The problem is what the new clause could do in practical terms. As drafted, the new clause could mean--among other things--that when the Government wished to make an adjustment to a seafarer training support programme, the Secretary of State would be obliged to consult all those presently engaged in the merchant fleet and all those engaged in marine-related businesses, as defined. It could also mean that the Secretary of State would be obliged to consult all retired members of the merchant fleet and all retired practitioners in marine-related business.
There are issues on which it would be valuable to have the advice of harbour operators, naval architects, manufacturers of the specialist equipment used on board ships and ship builders but, at first sight, the new clause would seem to oblige the Secretary of State to consult them all--whether they had relevant experience or not.The hon. Lady developed her point to make clear that she is not looking for something rigid, but for as wide and as sensible consultation as possible.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate referred to two training support schemes by the Government. The GAFT scheme has been running since 1988 and assists cadet officers. Since 1988, it has helped to fund some 4,000 trainees at a cost in excess of £18 million. During that time, no eligible candidate has been refused assistance. Junior officer training is supported by the DOCS scheme, which is in its third year of a pilot exercise that has helped to provide nearly 1,000 junior officer berths.
The Department of Transport currently spends some £4.3 million a year on these highly successful schemes, and the value and skills of British seafarers are recognised the world over. We estimate that some 5,000 British seafarers work on foreign-owned and flagged tonnage. British seafarers and their training are success stories of which we should be proud. We have kept the operation under review and we have proposals to integrate the
programmes to make better use of funding. We are consulting the relevant bodies, including training providers, trade unions and ship owners. We do all that already.
Our assistance for seafarer training also takes account of the need for trained seafarers in shore-based establishments, especially those that constitute what we know as maritime London. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate paid eloquent tribute to the Baltic and others. As she said, the consultation under way on changes to our training support scheme follows the study by the University of Wales that was jointly commissioned by my Department, the Chamber of Shipping and the Marine Society. That underlines the Government's recognition of the importance of the contribution made by British shipping as a whole to the nation's well-being.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |