Vol. 530 No. 2
1 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the steps he will take as a consequence of his decision to make mandatory the wearing of safety jackets at sea; the training proposals he has to encourage seafarers to wear such equipment; the body or organisation which will bear the cost of the new scheme; and the compliance procedures he will introduce to police the scheme. [3485/01]
As the Deputy will be aware, I announced on 28 January last that I intended to put in place new statutory measures which would require fishermen to wear suitable personal flotation devices.
The present position is that while it is a statutory requirement to carry a sufficient number of lifejackets on board a vessel, the actual wearing of them while on deck is not. My initiative in this regard has been prompted by a number of recent incidents involving deaths of fishermen and others in recent times, where such tragic outcomes could have been avoided if PFDs, or lifejackets, had been worn.
Before making this decision, which is a decision in principle, consultation took place with the Marine Survey office, the Coast Guard and other State agencies including BIM and the Health and Safety Authority who fully endorsed the proposal.
The task now is to translate this decision in principle into a workable scheme. This involves defining the quality standards to be specified for the equipment to be worn, definition of where the onus is to be placed for ensuring compliance with the regulation, and the preparation of the necessary statutory instruments. This process will involve detailed consultation with the statutory agencies and the fishing industry, and it has now commenced.
Among the issues to be considered will be the costs and financing of the personal safety devices. In this regard, the primary responsibility for the safety of the crew of a fishing vessel lies with the owner of that vessel and meeting the costs of safety are properly part of the normal operating and commercial costs of running a fishing business. I do not see that the costs involved in meeting the requirement of the new regime should place any significant additional burden on the fishing sector. Nevertheless, we will consider if there is a case to give an incentive and encourage the start up of the new scheme. There are already a range of safety grants in place and it is likely that the new requirements can be accommodated within that framework.
As regards training, I am advised that there are no major training requirements associated with the wearing of such personal safety devices. However, this issue will be looked at as part of the separate but related initiative on mandatory safety training which I also announced on 28 January last.
As regards timetables, the aim is to have the consultation and analysis phase completed by April next. At that point I will take a decision on the basis of the advice then available on the timing of the introduction of the mandatory requirement. A lead in period will be required to enable the fishermen to adapt to the new situation.
Like the Minister, in principle I welcome this move because there have been a large number of tragic accidents at sea. Laudable and all as this measure is, and one would hope that the fishing industry would take this up because it would be in their own interest, once this is legislated for, what will the position be in regard to compliance? What about ships in the middle of the ocean? How will the necessary compliance be supervised? Many people in the industry tell me it is one thing to enshrine in legislation the need to wear mandatory safety equipment but unless the Minister, as the head of the Department, can convince the people to comply with this measure, there is not much more he can do unless some pressure can be put on in other ways. The worst thing that can happen is that we legislate for something without the necessary wherewithal to see it through. That is the biggest problem. I would like the Minister to comment on that.
I take the point being made by the Deputy but we have to at least try to have this measure accepted, thereby avoid many drownings as a result of fishermen being swept overboard. I would prefer to rely on persuasion and voluntary compliance but that has not worked up to now. While we are under no illusions as to the difficulties with enforcing this mandatory rule, we hope making it mandatory will result in fishermen being fully aware of the need to wear these devices, which are new and lightweight. The fishermen who want the wearing of this device made mandatory tell me there is no reason people should not use them, especially in difficult conditions, because they will not hinder their working ability once they get used to them.
The message to all fishermen is that there have been a number of deaths because of fishermen being lost overboard in recent years. There was a particularly sad drowning recently in Cork where, tragically, a fisherman who was almost saved was lost. Had he been wearing a device, there is no question that his chances would have been enormously better. That is the only message we as legislators can give to fishermen. We should not have to make the wearing of this device mandatory but it is crucial for safety.
Arising from the Minister's reply, it is obviously a carrot and stick approach. I have no problem with that but I put it to the Minister that there should be some sort of financial incentive for the fishing industry to get involved in this area because irrespective of the size of such an incentive, it seems to have a great effect, whether in fishing, farming or whatever. Perhaps the Minister should do that in parallel with the legislation to remove some of the cost and also to get across the importance of safety, which is in everybody's interest. Will the Minister give us an undertaking in that regard today?
It would be a major mistake to attach this programme to a financial incentive. We are making financial incentives available to fishermen to undertake safety training programmes and essentially the safety of a crew is the responsibility of the skipper and the owner of the boat. That is a commercial part of the fishing exercise. I would not envisage making grant aid available for this safety equipment. However, there are general grant aid schemes available towards the provision of improved safety measures on fishing boats and those are being taken up by the industry. We encourage the industry to upgrade their safety requirements and in a general way provide financial support for the improvement of safety equipment in general.
Is that not the same thing?
It is not the same thing. Let me be quite clear.
We must proceed now to the next question. We are way over time.
The Minister wants it both ways.
It would be entirely wrong to tie the mandatory use of an essential lifejacket to grant aid.
