Fishing Industry Safety Group

Technical Operations (TOPs) Sub Group

9^th Meeting

MCA – SPRING PLACE

4^TH SEPTEMBER 2007

Attendees

9.1     CHAIRMAN’S OPENING REMARKS.

9.1.1. The Chairman welcomed the attendees, thanked them for coming, and advised the Group of the apologies received.

9.2     INTRODUCTIONS AND APOLOGIES

9.2.1. Apologies had been received from Andrew Pillar (Interfish): Bill West (MAIB): Gary Owen (MFA) Jim Hudson (NFFO): Lee Haigh, Paul Fairbrother, Dave Wagstaff and Bill Wood all of the MCA. (Keith Patterson attended on behalf of Bill Wood). George Geddes (SFF): Bill Farquhar (SSA).

9.2.3. As there were some new attendees the Chairman asked for each person to introduce themselves. Ken Smith (Hook Marine – he attended as an Observer and to give a demonstration of the Stability Monitor that the company are working on).

9.3.     MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING ACTIONS ARISING

9.3.1. The Chairman asked if the Members of the Group were content with the minutes of the last meeting.  They were. The Minutes were formally agreed.

9.3.2. With reference to: “”””Action 8.3.B: The Members of the Group to consider the refinement of the wording proposed by Jim Evans (SFF) for a definition of “Dangerously Unsafe” and send in their suggestions to the Secretariat (Ian Forder - MCA) Action to be completed by 27^th April 2007. COMPLETE. Only two responses received. One from the SFF saying that the definition was acceptable to them. Bill Wood also responded; his point being that the definition was specifically aimed at under 15m FVs, the purpose being to get guidelines for inspectors so they could inform FV Surveyors if they thought the vessel was unsafe.

Reminder of Jim Evan’s wording:-

Jim Evans advised that the criteria for “Dangerously Unsafe” would depend upon (a) material or (b) manpower.

(a) The surveyor would consider the vessel unsafe to proceed to sea either because the vessel was unfit due to severe deterioration of the watertight structure of the vessel or because it was in a state where the stability could not be guaranteed.

(b) The crew did not have the training and/or numbers to adequately man the vessel for the sea trip to be undertaken.

It would be anticipated that the surveyor would warn the owner/skipper of his concern and allow the opportunity for faults to be rectified before the vessel proceeded to sea. This would include lack of sea survival or fire fighting equipment.””””

It was agreed at the meeting that Jim Evans’s wording be used.

9.3.3 With reference to: “”””Action 8.3.D: Christine Phillips (Registry of Shipping and Seamen) to liaise with the three MCA Principal Fishing Vessel Surveyors to obtain additional guidance information to “top up” that which is already held for applicants as part of the process of registering fishing vessels. (The information would encompass Seafish and MCA requirements for both vessel and personnel in respect of Codes of Practice and Safety Training). Action to be completed by 27^th April 2007. ONGOING. “”””

9.3.4. The information supplied at the meeting suggested that although some work had been done it, as yet, had not found its way on to the Registry of Shipping Website. Tony Tait explained that he was meeting with Paul Fairbrother (the head of the Fishing and Code Vessel Branch) in October with reference to this “additional information”. The Chairman advised that the Group waits for the feedback from this meeting before taking further action. Ian Forder added that Julie Brightman (RSS) had taken over responsibility for this from Christine Phillips and he was waiting for an update from her.

9.3.5. With reference to: “”””Action 8.5.A: Christine Phillips (Registry of Shipping and Seamen) to liaise with Gary Owen (MFA) to compare their Fishing Vessel Databases in an effort to pinpoint the vessels that are currently outside of the survey/inspection regime i.e. that as yet had not come forward to be surveyed but should have done so. Those which therefore should be de-registered. Action to be completed by 15^th April 2007. ONGOING.””””

As with Action 8.3.D.Julie Brightman (RSS) had taken over responsibility for this from Christine Phillips and we are waiting for an update from her on what is currently happening.

9.3.6. With reference to: “”””Action 8.3.F: The Chairman (Cedric Loughran - MCA) to prepare a Paper on behalf of the FISG: TOPs Sub Group for FISG 63 (May 24^th 2007) regarding its concerns over the Fishery Protection Vessels “covert” operations. Action to be completed by 6^th April 2007. COMPLETE.””””

9.3.7. There was a brief discussion about “covert” operations and the Chairman summarised by advising the Group that it had gone as far as it could as the concerns of the TOPs Group had been referred to the FISG 63 meeting in May and it had been discussed there.

9.3.8. With reference to: Action 8.12: The Group Members to formally ask their local chandlers for their policies on receiving out of date pyrotechnics and copy the responses to the Secretariat (Ian Forder - MCA). Action to be completed by 27^th April 2007. COMPLETE. (One verbal response received by the Chairman?)

9.3.9. As at TOPs 8 the problems associated with disposal of out of date pyrotechnics were reiterated by Members of the Group, i.e. certain companies/chandlers unwilling to take them back; significant transport costs in certain cases – to get them back to manufacturer; MCA not in a position to take back some; you can now “mail order” pyrotechnics so how to return them?: etc etc.

9.3.10. The Chairman asked all the Members who have dealings with Chandleries and Companies that supply the pyrotechnics to find out about their policy in respect of accepting out of date pyrotechnics and feedback to him. He also felt that the MCA’s Life Saving Appliances Branch should become involved with this issue. Also consideration should also be given to seeing what other European Union countries policy is.

Action 9.3.A: All those Members who have dealings with Chandleries and Companies that supply the pyrotechnics to find out about their policy in respect of accepting out of date pyrotechnics and feedback the information to the Group Secretariat Ian Forder. Action to be completed by 16^th November 2007.

Action 9.3.B: The Chairman to liaise with the MCA’s Search and Rescue Branch and the Life Saving Appliances Branch expressing the Group’s concerns over the problems of disposal of out of date pyrotechnics and to see what resolution there might be to the problems. (To include the investigation of what other European Union countries policy is in respect of accepting out of date pyrotechnics). Action to be completed by 21^st December 2007 which allows for Action 9.3.A. to be completed)

Post Meeting Note: The Marine Guidance Note that covers this topic is MGN 287 (M+F) “Disposal of Out of Date Pyrotechnics”.

9.3.11. John Noble raised the point that the section on Drug and Alcohol Policy had been overlooked. He said that Carol MacDonald was meeting with Alex Salmond in the near future on this topic to discuss the Scottish Government’s policy on this. There are problems in this respect in North East Scotland. Jim Evans explained that it was no worse than any other industry of that area. Many factors were involved.

9.3.12. Nigel Blazeby told the Group that in his Region the large operators have their own drug and alcohol policies.

9.3.13. The Chairman advised that the MCA policy, if staff feel that fishermen are working under the influence of drugs then they call in the police as it falls under their responsibility.

9.4.     UPDATE ON SMALL FISHING VESSEL CODE

9.4.1. Dave Fenner talked to the Paper which was essentially self explanatory. He explained that the 5,700 or so UK Registered FV Owners/Skippers had been advised directly by letter of the changes to the Code. Boatyards and Fisheries were also being identified and would be written to. For the wider audience Articles/Adverts were also placed in recent issues of the Fishing News.

9.4.2. Dave went on to say that an enabling Statutory Instrument (SI) which would cover all three Codes is being drafted and is currently with the Legal Branch. The Better Regulation Unit told us that such a combination would be the most appropriate way forward.

9.4.3. The Codes will be essentially the same with the exception of the inclusion of the 12-15m Stability requirements that will be reintroduced. The timeframe for the SI is first an internal consultation for 4-6 weeks then the 3 month “public domain” consultation. The 24m and Over Code will be reviewed as part of the process following on from the comments received back from the consultation. Possibly completed by end of March 2008.

9.4.3. It was felt that the introduction of Stability Requirements for those vessels under 12m be left for consideration during work on the next version of the Code.

9.4.4. Nigel Blazeby expressed his disappointment, frustration and serious concern that this work is taking so long to progress.

9.4.5. Dave Fenner explained that the Fishing and Code Vessel Safety Branch, due to a variety of circumstances, staffing changes, finances, hold ups with Legal Branch, etc the Branch had not been able to progress the work more swiftly.

9.4.6. Nigel Blazeby felt that this response was not good enough. He was surprised that all the Members (the Industry and Regulators – including MAIB) were not “banging the table” to get the MCA to find the resources.

9.4.7. Dave Fenner said that the new Chief Executive of the MCA, Peter Cardy, who is the Chairman of the Fishing Industry Safety Group (FISG) has certainly taken a positive interest in Fishing safety and saw it as a key area he wished to address.

9.4.8. The Chairman summarised by saying he was encouraged to hear of Peter Cardy’s “positive interest” and reminded the Group that Peter will be chairing FISG 64 in November where such issues could be raised.

9.5     SMALL FISHING VESSEL INSPECTIONS

9.5.1. The three MCA Principal Fishing Vessel Surveyors advised the Group that they were all slightly below the ongoing current target but were confident that this would not have an affect on the target for the year as a whole.

9.6     UPDATE ON “24M AND OVER” AND “15-24M” CODES

9.6.1. Dave Fenner talked to the Paper which was essentially self explanatory.

9.7.     FLAG IN MATRIX

9.7.1. Nigel Blazeby advised the Group of the background and purpose of the Flag In Matrix. The MCA felt that, when ships were being considered for flagging in on to the UK Register, there should be a more defined process, than there is now, to follow. This would mean that the process is “transparent” to Industry, it is consistent across the MCA and it would give guidance to owners on what would be expected of their vessels if they wished them to be considered for joining the UK Flag. Using such a method would help to ensure that the UK operates a “quality” flag.

9.7.2. Nigel went through the Matrix and gave three examples

The Spanish trawler can be flagged in, the Dutch Trawler would be subject to a pre Flag Inspection and the Spanish Longliner would not fit the criteria for flagging in.

9.7.3. Bill Brown asked what was wrong with the old system? A Surveyor inspected the vessel and decided upon its “fitness” to be flagged in or otherwise. If deemed not fit and certain steps needed to be taken to become fit then the owners would take the appropriate action.

9.7.4. Roger Janson explained that the MCA wanted to ensure that its staff were using a consistent, and transparent, approach to all applications. That this “tool” will assist in getting that consistency as far as is practicable.

9.7.5. Industry members put forward examples of vessels that, in their view, were perfectly fit to flag in but because they do not satisfy one or two of the criteria as required then they would be refused registering with the UK. E.g. a 25-30 year old “fit” vessel that has been well looked after and lightly used would not get flagged in.

9.7.6. Keith Patterson said that from his experience over the last couple of years none of the vessels that he has been involved with that have been flagged in would have been under the Matrix system.

9.7.7. Dick James said that there is very much a second hand boat culture with Northern Ireland companies purchasing vessels from the Republic of Ireland, which is not on the “White List”. Bringing in the Matrix could have a serious affect on the latter. Perhaps the MCA is being over prescriptive here. Not only that could there be some Restriction of Trade under European Law if this is brought in?

9.7.8. Roger Janson pointed out that the Matrix was a draft document and a fresh look can be taken at all aspects of the methodology used.

9.7.9. The non MCA Members, as this was a new initiative, felt that they were not in a position to comment fully on the Matrix at the meeting.

9.7.10. The Chairman brought the discussion to a close by saying that, as there clearly was some concern from certain Members, the issue would be referred to FISG 64 (1^st November 2007). Prior to that would all Members who wish to comment on the Flag In Matrix and Process send their comments in as soon as possible to the Secretariat who will collate them and then pass to Roger Janson.

ACTION 9.7.A: Members to send in their comments on the Flag In Matrix Document and Process to Ian Forder (Secretariat) who will collate them and pass to Roger Janson. Action to be completed by 26^th October 2007. (If Members are able to get comments in by 14^th September 2007 it would be greatly appreciated as this would assist Roger Janson).

ACTION 9.7.B: Roger Janson to prepare a Paper for FISG 64 in respect of the FV Flag In Matrix to include in its background referral to the TOPs 9 Meeting and the issues raised therein. Action to be completed by 18^th September 2007.

9.8.     RNLI LIFERAFT TESTS - UPDATE

9.8.1. Ian Benham advised that thirteen liferafts and a range of HRUs had been tested in the RNLI’s sea survival centre in a scenario that simulated the sinking of a vessel.  The trial was managed by RNLI fishing safety and Seafish staff, and attended by a range of manufacturers and key MCA staff.  Preliminary conclusions (subject to change following production of final report) included:-

• Preferable to use non-SOLAS HRUs with small liferafts
• New ISO standards – self ‘certification’/lack of 3^rd-party accreditation
• Liferaft servicing issues - a liferaft that had been used once and subsequently serviced also did not inflate properly.

Dick James advised that in his experience, he had never seen a liferaft that had been used being serviced and used again, so it may be unfair to compare the performance of this liferaft (or others that had similarly been used and re-packed) with brand-new units.

9.8.2. Feedback on the tests was also sought from all the fishermen that took part in them. All the tests were videoed and the videos are in the process of being edited, prior to being sent to the manufacturers for their comments and feedback. Two manufacturers have subsequently asked to use the RNLI facilities to do further testing, as they have made modifications since the original test.

9.8.3. Ian Benham reminded the group that this project is being conducted on behalf of the FISG TOPs Sub-Group, so there will be a joint RNLI, Seafish, MCA and Industry meeting to reflect the main findings of the tests before the full report is published, which will hopefully be during the Autumn.

9.9.     SAFETY EQUIPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SEAC) – UPDATE LATEST MEETING

9.9.1. Minutes of the SEAC meeting were presented for information purposes.

9.10     FITNESS OF VESSEL (RISK ASSESSMENT) - UPDATE

9.10. The latest version was available for information purposes.

9.11.     REPORT ON “ATTITUDES TO SAFETY ONBOARD FISHING VESSELS IN THE NORTHERN PERIPHERY”

9.11.1. Ian Campbell the co author of the Report was not able to attend the TOPs meeting, the Chairman introduced the Paper.

9.11.2. John Noble expressed his opinion on the Report generally thinking that the money that it cost to carry out the work should have been put to a better use. He had some questions he wished to raise with Iain Campbell on it.

9.11.3. There were no strong views expressed on the report by the other members.

9.11.4. The Chairman suggested that further comment be made to Iain Campbell at the FISG:Safety Promotion Sub Group meeting that was being held the next day by those Members attending. Other Members could make comment to Iain if they wished to.

Post Meeting Note: Iain Campbell did attend the FISG: Safety Promotion Sub Group meeting that was being held the next day and the Report discussed at greater depth taking John Noble’s comments and questions amongst others into account. Members are referred to the minutes of that meeting for more information.

9.12.     INVOLVEMENT OF “FEMALE FISHERS” IN FISG AND SUB GROUP ACTIVITY

9.12.1. The Members were unanimous in the view that female fishers would be welcome to be part of the FISG and FISG Sub Group set up but at the moment there are simply not enough female fishers available to become involved. (A few amongst the 12,000 or so fishermen).

9.12.2. Of the 30-40 mentioned on the Paper that have done Safety courses it would appear that the majority of those are not fishers as such, some have done the courses to enable them to go on Research vessels others are fishermen’s wives and girlfriends who occasionally go on the vessels.

9.13.     FIVE YEAR STRATEGY DOCUMENT

9.13. The Chairman reminded the Group that this was a rolling document, now available on the MCA Website, and that if changes to future significant activities come up then they will be recorded appropriately.

9.14     ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.14.1. STABILITY MONITOR DEMONSTRATION.

9.14.1.1. Ken Smith gave a demonstration of a Stability Monitor that Hook Marine Limited is currently working on.

9.14.2. DATE/VENUE OF THE NEXT MEETING.

9.14.2.1. Tuesday 12^th February 2008 at Spring Place.

9.14.3. FISHING AND CODE VESSEL SAFETY BRANCH

9.14.3.1. Jayan Pillai wanted to make those persons not aware of the situation with respect to staff resources in the Branch aware. He explained the current situation i.e. that the Fishing Vessel Safety and Code Vessel Safety Branches had merged and there was currently a lack of Surveyors. He was one of two surveyors in the Branch and he was new to the Branch.

9.14.4. AUTHORITY TO OPERATE (ATO) FOR GMDSS TICKETS

9.14.4.1. Paul Read raised the problem – confusion over the proper processing of the ATOs by the MCA’s Seafarer Training and Certification Branch as they were advising that a STCW Validation on the GMDSS Certificate is required which apparently is not the case.

9.14.4.2. David Fuller said that it was discussed at the recent MCA FV Surveyor’s liaison meeting. And that he is taking action forward with the Seafarer Training and Certification Branch to resolve this problem.

9.14.5. INSTRUCTIONS TO SURVEYORS

9.14.5.1 David Fuller advised that this was being dealt with but not quite as swiftly as he would like to do it.

9.14.6 GUARDSHIPS

9.14.6.1 Registered fishing vessels following a GI and Loadline inspection may be issued with a Loadline Exemption to conduct Guardship duty. The certificate is issued for 12 months. Keith Patterson indicated that there were a number of vessels registering as Fishing Vessels, having no intention of ever fishing, registering to gain Guardship work.

9.14.6.2. The chairman explained that the Guardship Exemption applied only to working Fishing Vessels, other vessels would have to comply with the Codes of Practice or appropriate Merchant Shipping legislation.

9.14.6.3. Ian Fowler said that if a vessel registered as a Fishing Vessel was not issued with a Fishing Licence within six months of registration the vessel would then be de-registered under statutory provisions. A vessel registering as a Fishing vessel would also have to go through survey and have the necessary qualified personnel aboard etc. Persons trying to circumvent the arrangements made for bona fide fishing vessels to act as Guardships should be advised to go through the proper route or waste their money.

9.14.7 FILLIPINO CREW

9.14.7.1. David Fuller was asked to raise the issue of the increase use of Fillipino nationals being on UK Fishing vessels. Were they properly certificated, had they done the appropriate courses?

9.14.7.2. Dick James agreed with the Chairman that the Filipino's are generally contracted on a wage and therefore are not share fishermen so are not self employed. All of the rigours of PAYE and Health and Safety legislation, Employers liability insurance etc apply.      

9.14.7.3. Ian Fowler said that a condition of UK fishing vessel licences requires that at least 75% of the crew on board the vessel has to be British citizens or other EU Nationals so within this provision there would be a restriction on the number of Filipino crew to be employed on a vessel. Nigel Blazeby explained that Crew Lists were checked to see if the vessel was manned as required by law.