I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 1, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'those sections' and insert

'sections 1 to 3 and section (Immersion suits)

• No. 5, in page 2, line 23, leave out 'and 4' and insert '4 and section (Immersion suits)'.
• No. 7, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'and 4' and insert '4 and section (Immersion suits)'.
• No. 9, in page 2, line 37, after '4', insert 'and section (Immersion suits)'.
• No. 11, in page 2, line 41, after '4', insert 'and section (Immersion suits)'.
• No. 13, in page 3, line 11, after '4', insert 'and section (Immersion suits)'

Many fishermen will not welcome the new clause, as their attitudes and beliefs are overwhelmingly conservative. I can say that with some conviction as my father, an honourable and decent man except for the fact that he was a life-long Tory, had that curious mixture of optimism and fatalism which seems to characterise the thinking of many fishermen. Despite the likely reservations of many fishermen, however, I shall press on.

"for fishing vessels of over 12 metres in length to which these rules apply for every person on board a life jacket will be carried."

"The immersion suit shall comply with regulation 33 of the Consolidated Text of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, published in 1986."

"The International Conventon for the safety of Life at Sea 1974."—

"was adopted by the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea on 1 November 1974."

"The Maritime Safety Committee, on 17 June 1983, adopted further amendments to the 1974 SOLAS (1983 SOLAS amendments) in accordance wth the procedures specified in Article VIII and determined that these amendments shall enter into force"——

"on 1 July 1986 unless prior to 1 January 1986 more than one third of Contracting States to the Convention or Contracting States, the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than 50 per cent. of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant fleet, have notified their objections."

"the Contracting Governments undertake to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and the Annex thereto, which shall constitute an integral part of the present Convention. Every reference to the present Convention constitutes at the same time a reference to the Annex."

"the Contracting Governments undertake to promulgate all laws, decrees, orders and regulations and to take all other steps which may be necessary to give the present Convention full and complete effect, so as to ensure that, from the point of view of safety of life, a ship is fit for the service for which it is intended."

"The present Convention shall apply to ships entitled to fly the flag of States the Governments of which are Contracting Governments."

"the immersion suit shall be constructed with waterproof materials such that: 1 it can be unpacked and donned without assistance within 2 min, taking into account any associated clothing, and a lifejacket if the immersion suit is to be worn in conjuction with a lifejacket;

2 it will not sustain burning or continue melting after being totally enveloped in a fire for a period of 2s;

3 it will cover the whole body with the exception of the face. Hands shall also be covered unless permanently attached gloves are provided … An immersion suit shall permit the person wearing it, and also wearing a lifejacket if the immersion suit is to be worn in conjunction with a lifejacket;

1 climb up and down a vertical ladder at least 5 m in length;

2 perform normal duties during abandonment"—

"3 Jump from a height of not less than 4·5 m into the water without damaging or dislodging the immersion suit, or being injured; and 4 swim a short distance through the water and board a survival craft."

"An immersion suit made of material with inherent insulation, when worn either on its own or with a lifejacket, if the immersion suit is to be worn in conjunction with a lifejacket, shall provide the wearer with sufficient thermal insulation, following one jump into the water from a height of 4·5 m, to ensure that the wearer's body core temperature does not fall more than 2° C after a period of 6h immersion in calm circulating water at a temperature of between 0° C and 2° C."

"The evidence in this Inquiry demonstrated the advisability of some form of protective clothing being available for the crews of trawlers in the event of a casualty when they had to leave the vessel. This matter is under consideration by the Hull Mutual Insurance Society"—

"and perhaps other organisations connected with trawlers, and it seems that a small, comparatively cheap form of such clothing can be obtained of such a size that a sufficient number can be packed in a liferaft."

"The mate, who stated that he was in the starboard side of the wheelhouse, said that the vessel heeled over to port"—

"and that he was able to get out of the starboard door and climbed aft along the casing where he saw two members of the crew in the process of launching one of the inflatable liferafts. The raft was launched, and the mate gave evidence that he was struck by a sea and washed overboard and came to in the liferaft having been pulled into it by the other two men who were in it. One of the flaps of the liferaft had been torn, but they were able to close the other. However, a heavy sea"—

"washed into the raft taking out a considerable portion of its equipment, including the bailer, but the occupants were able to reduce the water in the raft by improvised means."

"The three men in the liferaft were very differently dressed. One of them had very little clothing on"—

"which was, of course, wet through, and he soon became unconscious and, despite efforts by his companions, died in about one and a half hours. The second occupant of the raft, who was more warmly clad but who was wearing no waterproof clothing, also succumbed to the cold and died a little later. The mate, who was warmly clad and was wearing protective clothing, managed to survive, and about daylight the raft grounded. The mate was able to get out, drag the raft clear of the water, stagger along the shore to an empty house under the lee of which he stayed the night, and next morning was found by a shepherd boy who assisted the mate to reach his home farm where the mate was given hot drinks, dry clothing and put to bed."

"In the first place, the statutory rules on lifesaving appliances do not require trawlers to carry any special clothing for survivors to wear in liferafts. It became clear after the loss of the Ross Cleveland north of Iceland in February 1968 that crew members might well reach a liferaft with insufficient clothing to survive in Arctic seas (especially after casualties like capsizing, which can happen suddenly) even though the inflatable liferafts carried on trawlers have canopies which enable the raft to be completely closed."

"We recommend that, in the light of these studies, the Board of Trade should take steps to ensure that all trawlers which operate in Arctic Seas carry survival clothing for use in liferafts."

"We also recommend that, in addition, the trawler-owners ensure that cooks, engine-room personnel and other crew members who normally work below decks provide themselves with warm outer clothing suitable for wear in an emergency; these men may never go on the open deck in the course of their normal duties and do not always possess adequate protective clothing at present."

"Every man on the Snekkar Arctic who had time to don an immersion suit survived. All the others perished. That was one of the facts which emerged when the survivors of the tragedy told their story in Stornoway on Sunday."

"When the Snekkar Arctic went down nine men managed to get into immersion suits. Those nine survived, even though some of them had not put the things on properly. The 11 others got off the boat, but were drowned or dead of hypothermia long before the 'Dogger Bank' arrived. Those nine lives have surely amply repaid the cost of fitting the French fleet with the suits … If there is a criticism to be made of the Safety at Sea Bill, it is not that it goes too far, it is that it does not go far enough. French vessels, and those of some other countries, have to carry immersion suits. British vessels do not"—

"although they are provided on all Royal Navy ships. A Navy spokesman tells us that while men are on deck in foul weather they carry the suits at all times, in the same way that gas masks are carried. When below deck the suits are stored at specified points. Their use considerably extends the life expectancy of the user, and it takes under 30 seconds to put them on. The suits cost about £300 each, but even so Britain should join France, Norway, West Germany and Denmark in insisting that they are carried. Grants for their purchase are, apparently, already available."

"We expect that many fishermen, particularly those old enough to be set in their ways, would object strongly to being made subject to such laws—after all, 'it can't happen to me'. But since 1975 a total of 434 United Kingdom registered fishing boats have been lost. There are nine men in Normandy who will be grateful as long as they live for the strict French safety regulations."

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for his comments. He has taken a great interest in fishing matters since he came to the House and I am pleased that he decided to be a sponsor of my Bill. I agree that, far from gutting the Bill, the Government have supported its principles, as is evidenced by the clauses which they have accepted.

I come late to the consideration of the Bill. I assure the House, especially the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), that it is not because I am not interested in the subject, but because in recent weeks I have been heavily involved in the consideration of a number of other private Members' Bills. I am extremely interested in the subject, because I have always been concerned with the safety of workers at work. Until now, I have been concerned with workers on land, especially in factories and on construction sites. I know from bitter experience that the worker is not always the best judge of what is good for him in regard to occupational health and safety.

I should like to set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest about the word "legal". Perhaps I should not have used that word specifically and implied its normal meaning in this place. I meant that, as usual, the drafting did not provide what we needed to ensure perfect legislation. The Government are introducing new regulations to ensure that the legislation is correct.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He reinforces the point that I am making. Happily, the Bill will leave us this morning with the blessing of Third Reading and will go to a place where there are many lawyers—even more than in this place—some of whom are very distinguished. I have no doubt that they will bend their minds to tidying up any defects that there might be. It would be a blow for common sense if the House indicated its acceptance in principle, but, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, did little more than give information to the Minister and leant on him a little. If the new clause were incorporated into the Bill, it would lean a lot harder and ensure that practical action is taken with regard to immersion suits.

I was impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). It was based upon sound experience of having been at sea and of having lived in a fishing community.

I must dissent from my hon. Friend's reference to fishermen being contemptuous of safety. Fishing is a high-risk occupation, and I suppose that that risk is part of the excitement of the job. However, the job is the call of the sea and of fishing, and in succumbing to that call it is possible that people take a relaxed attitude to safety. It is certainly not a contemptuous attitude; they are conscious of the need for safety and are dependent upon each other and on the navigational abilities and skills of the skipper.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Perhaps "contemptuous" is too strong a word; "dismissive" might be more appropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, who has been to sea, would agree with that.

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that face masks have been provided for workers involved in dirty processes in the woollen industry in Scotland, but they scarcely use them. Therefore, I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo).

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but we need to distinguish between the carrying and the wearing. There was considerable debate in Committee about whether the lifejackets proposed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan would enable fishermen to fish and do other work. Concern was expressed about wear and tear on a lifejacket which, in the event of its being needed, might then malfunction.

That is a key question. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) said that no one in Britain had yet devised a suit that measured up to the required standard. How have the French managed to achieve that?

I was about to ask that question myself. British fishermen are being deprived of proper safety equipment. I was not impressed by the argument of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that the Government propose to introduce a new set of regulations in July. This Bill is about the safety of fishermen at sea. I am also not impressed by the hon. Gentleman's argument that Britain has not produced equipment of the right specification. If the French can do it, why cannot we?

I can give the hon. Gentleman two answers. I said that the compulsory wearing of immersion suits from July 1986 would be obligatory on certain fishing vessels, and that that would be incorporated into the regulations. I also said that I was in full agreement with the Minister that discussions must be held with the industry about fishermen being compelled to wear these suits. We know to our cost that there was not sufficient discussion about lifejackets, and the industry threw out the proposal. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that there must be proper discussion with the industry so that we can gain acceptance of our proposals.

Today we are talking about provisions for improving safety at sea. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the regulations will be coming in, and will apply to some vessels. However, we do not know to which vessels they will apply. Therefore, we do not know whether we should wait till July or deal with the matter here. I think that we should deal with it today without waiting.

I would look for an initiative being taken by the European Community on that issue. I can well understand why fishermen are unhappy with consultation because the history of consultation between the Government and fishermen's federations is not of the happiest. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) knows that as well as I do. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland was criticised only recently for its failure to consult vis-à-vis the imposition of a ban on monofilament nets in Scottish waters. The hon. Gentleman knows what I am talking about.

I shall not add to what my hon. Friend has just said about Scotland. We could wait for an EEC initiative, but we are in 1986, and it has taken us long time even to agree that we should have distress beacons to help Nimrods or civil aircraft when they are searching for men on a liferaft. Therefore, for us to delay longer on the use of the immersion suit is absurd and verging on complacency. Therefore, I want action to be taken.

The hon. Gentleman should not labour his point about 1 July. The most important factor is the consultation with the industry. As the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said, it is a matter of whether the fishermen will accept that they will be able to work on deck if they are obliged to wear the suit. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I should be delighted if the clause were inserted in my Bill today, but there would be a problem if it were inserted before the necessary consultation with the industry. I have had to suffer the disasterous consequences of the rejection of the lifejacket issue. I wanted that provision to be made mandatory by the House.

Our dilemma is that either we pass the new clause and insert it in the Bill or we lose the opportunity. I feel that many people, particularly those in the trade union movement and many fishermen at sea, might despise us for not being a little more bold in taking the initiative.

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for not being present to hear his speech. I had a detailed account of it from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), and it must have been impressive. I was absent because I was engaged in urgent discussions in Grimsby last night about whether Conservative and alliance candidates in the local elections should have worn immersion suits before the dunking they were given yesterday. In the end, that proposal was negatived. I was stuck, fuming, in a traffic jam at the end of the A1 this morning.

It is all very well to say that the new clause contains a compulsion only to carry the suits. At some stage, they must be worn. How can we justify the expense of purchasing the suits if they are put into lockers and left there for ever?

As with carrying fire extinguishers in cars, one hopes that they will never be used, but there must be provision for emergencies. The sensible motorist makes that provision, and the sensible skipper will provide for an accident. Fishing is a high-risk industry, and statistics show that fishermen are much more at risk than the much-vaunted miners, who constantly tell us about the risk of accident and death in their industry.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, compared with the aid that the Government have been giving to farmers, the assistance given to the fishing industry has been derisory?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That brings me to the central folly of the Government's handling of the fishing industry. Benefits have been showered by the Government and by an institute about which the right hon. Gentleman and I agree—the Common Market—on agriculture, which, under the treaty of Rome, is to be treated on the same basis as fishing, but those benefits have been denied to the fishing industry. This is true of many other provisions besides safety. For example, research, which is a form of Government investment in industry, has been denied to the fishing industry. The Department that has its responsibilities for agriculture and fisheries incorporated in its title has been niggardly with regard to the fishing industry. I hope that the Minister, who is from a different Department, can remedy that deficiency.

I listened with care and not a little sympathy to the speech by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I was also interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) said about incorporating the new clause into his Bill. I agree that it would not be appropriate.

May I, with permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, reply briefly to some of the observations that have been made?

In Birkenhead Dunlop-Beaufort is similarly testing suits in order to present them to the Department at an early date. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) talked about the use of immersion suits by people going out to the rigs and the belief by Dunlop-Beaufort that the time will soon come when fishermen will have to use immersion suits at all times. I was fortunate enough to see suits being tested in Birkenhead during the course of discussions about the Bill.

That firm deserves our compliments for arranging with the hon. Gentleman the demonstration that took place in one of its dining rooms. I found that useful. It is a long time since I put on any survival gear, even in a drill. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and the Government's stipulation that such suits must be of the highest standards.

Formal consultations are not the nature of what goes on in the fishing industry. There is more of constant ear-bashing by skippers and owners about their problems and grievances. On that basis it is fair to say that the skippers and crew members to whom I have talked would not welcome the new clause. That does not obviate our need to deal with the matter if it is proper for safety reasons, but they are hostile to it. That is partly because they are hostile to regulation generally, but mainly because of the considerable expense of installing immersion suits. That is why I am so disappointed that the Minister said nothing about money in his reply.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. One does suffer a lot of ear-bashing in consultations, whether formal or informal, with fishermen. I was talking about formal consultations in the sense of arranging meetings with fishermen when they come ashore. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan well knows that there are only two fishermen in my constituency, so I shall not damage my electoral interests.

That point bears reinforcement. Firms have been utterly dismissive of the need for redundancy payments, and when they were forced on them by the Department's decision in the Hamlings case, the owners chose to contest the case in the higher courts. They have a monstrous record and even now are trying to reject the requirement on them to pay redundancy benefits.

I hope that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow NA ill not stray from new clause 1. It contains nothing about redundancy payments.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely used that as an illustration.

The hon. Gentleman is right except that the provision under which we would make the regulation is the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Act 1970.

I am sorry if I got the title and the year wrong, but I hope that I am not wrong about the assurance. If the consultations go as we hope they will, I understand that the carriage of immersion suits on fishing vessels of 12m or more can be introduced in the near future.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it may be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 12, in page 3, line 10, leave out 'sections 1 to 4' and insert

`this Part or section (Training in safety matters)'.

'Part or section (Training in safety matters)'.

'Part or section (Training in safety matters)'.

'Part or section (Training in safety matters)'.

`provisions of this Part or section (Training in safety matters)'

'Act or any enactment amended by this Act'

'Part or section (Training in safety matters) or any enactment amended by this Part or section (Training in safety matters)'

'or section (Training in safety matters)'.

In Committee, I said that it was the Government's intention to introduce on Report a new clause dealing with safety training. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) said at the time, he has made headway in persuading the Government that it is right to take a power enabling regulations to be made which require fishermen to undergo safety training. This decision was not easily reached. By temperament, my preference in general is that such matters should be organised voluntarily, but the industry has said that it is prepared to see such a power on the statute book. This, coupled with the knowledge that fishing as an occupation is still four times more dangerous than coal mining, are powerful arguments in favour of compulsion.

I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister has said about new clause 2. It reinforces the fact that training in survival at sea, fire-fighting courses and training in first aid are essential requirements for the fishing industry.

"A one-day fire-fighting course is also offered but this is not DOT approved and the content may need to be reviewed by them if the Bill becomes law. First aid should be added and all new entrants, not just school leavers under YTS, should go through the course before going to sea. We also see no reason why the provision of six months should be implemented or for excluding those over 50 who have joined the industry. Altogether, a substantial number of people employed by the catching centre have been exposed to the training that you envisage and the SFIA endorse the proposal that this should become a legal requirement."

The hon. Gentleman has commended the efforts of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I am sure that he will join me in offering commendation to the members of the now defunct sea fisheries training council, which paved the way for the training of fishermen, especially in the share sector.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the work of the council. I agree that it should be commended for the great work that it undertook. At the same time, we should not forget existing training organisations. At Peterhead, which is in my constituency, fishermen are put through various courses. The local organisation that is responsible for training undertakes a tremendous amount of work and the success of training organisations generally has led all hon. Members to be supportive of the argument that there is a need to have mandatory training courses.

"fishing vessel is trained in safety matters."

I welcome the clause, which I think is essential and overdue. I remember taking great objection, along with other hon. Members, to the winding up of training under the sea fisheries training council. Fortunately, some other arrangements have been made. I am pleased to say that more than 90 per cent. of fishermen in the fleets in my constituency have been trained in sea survival techniques. I hope that the training will be extended to cover 100 per cent. of those who go to sea in our fishing fleets.

I am not as readily satisfied as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). It seems that we have been given a superficial and invalid reason by the Minister for not specifying the major areas in which training should take place. The Minister said that if it were stated that there should be training in A, B and C, that would include and exclude, and that people might say that there need not be training in other matters.

"The Secretary of State may make regulations"

Perhaps I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. The letter that I received from the Sea Fish Industry Authority indicated that it was in a position to support the courses until 1989, when the financial position would be reviewed with the Minister. That is why I was satisfied that the wording that I discussed at length with my hon. Friend the Minister and the noble Lord was acceptable.

That is all right as far as it goes. I applaud the hon. Gentleman for having secured that letter and for having got that much on the record. But it does not go far enough. First, it does not go beyond 1989, which is not very far away. Moreover, it makes no mention of the quality or length of the courses, of the subjects covered, or of how effective they will be. We need to know that. What sort of courses will there be, and how long will they last? How seriously will the training be taken? Will chaps get time off, and will they be able to attend full time? What are the teachers' qualifications? What certification, if any, or other evidence that the chap taking the course has absorbed what he has heard will be provided? What proof will there be that he has been listening, and is capable of implementing what he has heard?

The hon. Gentleman has taken an extremely wide interest in the Bill, and I am grateful to him for that. But he may not be as aware of the issues involved as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and I are, as we are deeply immersed in the fishing industry. I have the largest fishing constituency in Europe. The courses are carried out via a national network which is controlled by the SFIA. They run for a specific number of days. The instructors have the highest qualifications. The courses cover fire fighting, safety at sea, survival at sea and first aid, and subsistence and travelling expenses are paid to those who have to travel to the various centres.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. I had gathered something like that from reading the reports of the Bill's earlier stages. But we are now moving from non-statutory to statutory provision. The Secretary of State may be going to make regulations. He is under no compulsion to do so, although I dare say that he intends to. But I want to know what those regulations will say about the quantity and quality of the courses. They will have to say something. They may merely repeat the provision that the hon. Gentleman has just described. But I should like to know whether that is so, or whether they will go further than that.

Perhaps I may add to what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) said about the funding of training. He said that the SFIA would fund it until 1989, but what will happen to that funding after that? Will the state seek to impose a levy on fishermen to pay for it? Moreover, is not training in agriculture state funded? If it is, training in the fishing industry should surely continue to receive state funding.

As I said, the provision is all right as far as it goes. But funding will continue only until 1989. After that, we are left with a vacuum. If the industry undertakes to provide training, and can provide adequate resources for doing it properly, all well and good. No one would object to that. But my hon. Friend is right; the state must take a fallback position. If the funds dry up in 1989, or even before then, we must ensure that training does not cease just because the Government have not accepted any obligation to carry that burden.

There is merit in what my hon. Friend suggests because even on the smallest vessel someone should be responsible for good housekeeping and hygiene. Someone should be responsible for safety. Gear should not be left to block passageways, and decks should be kept clear. We must remember that the shared system is dominant in the industry.

If some chaps were certificated they would be responsible for good housekeeping. They would ensure that gear did not block gangways because that might delay the crew if there were a fire. If ropes are left around the crew might trip over them. It is difficult on a trawler to keep everything spick and span, but someone must ensure that slippery floors are prevented. Above all someone must be responsible for ensuring that fire extinguishers are where they should be and that they are inspected regularly. A safety officer in a land-based industry would ensure all of that.

I support the new clause in principle. Fishing is indeed a hazardous occupation with a high accident and death rate.

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Fire fighting is carried out at national network training centres under the supervision of the fire brigade in the area of the network. For example, in my constituency, officers of the Grampian fire service commendably go down to the training centre and give a full training course to the fishermen. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. The matter needs to be laid down by the Department in line, chapter and verse. I hope that the Minister will consider these important safety matters.

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I readily acknowledge his confidence in such fire brigades. I hope that the fire brigades in Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Aberdeen or points further south and in fishing ports have been trained in fire-fighting techniques in ports and harbours. I do not have the conviction of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan about fighting fires at sea. I repeat, are the trainers trained in the most up-to-date techniques in combating this dreadful menace at sea, not just when a vessel is tied up in a harbour? I put those questions in all seriousness.

indicated assent

The Minister nods his assent. I am pleased to receive such an assurance, even from a sedentary position. I sometimes wonder how regularly drills are conducted. I have seen entries in log books that do not accord with what has taken place. Does survival training include the need for taking part in drills?

I think that we are all pleased with the new clause, and the reason is clear. The fishing industry is extremely hazardous, and anything that saves lives must have our attention. In principle, the Labour party is pleased with the new clause, but we have some reservations about its form.

"The Secretary of State may make regulations".

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the mining industry, to which reference has been made by comparing accident statistics and hazards, there is usually someone with special responsibility for safety even in groups as small as four or five? The predominant training aspects in the mining industry are safety and health rather than production.

I am grateful for that intervention, because it is an interesting parallel and it shows that the absurdity I mentioned earlier may not be sustained when one can see that there are safety officers in the mining industry for small groups.

In case there is any confusion about whether small groups need a safety officer, I can say that not only the mining industry provides a safety officer for groups as small as four or five. Surface industries do so, too. For example, in a large factory with many people one can have a specialist store, such as an embodiment store, where only four or five people work. One of them is always a safety officer.

As we proceed with the debate it is interesting to see that we are establishing the fact that there are a number of precedents for this kind of safety officer, or whatever we would call him. That is encouraging.

I understand some of my hon. Friend's reservations about the SFIA, but in fairness I must point out that its involvement in training is carried out by competent, highly trained people. Surely the question at issue is the continuation of funds for training.

My hon. Friend is certainly right on his latter point. Continuation of funding is absolutely crucial, but we are in the dark on that point. I have a great deal of time for the SFIA as an organisation and fully accept that it has many skilled people. However, we are talking about a not insubstantial programme of fishing training, and it surprises me to learn that the SFIA has the money to fund it. If it has, I am glad.

My hon. Friend has raised an important point about subsection (2). I, too, am a little unhappy about it because it appears that the responsibility for determining whether, for example, a young lad of 17 has been trained rests wholly and solely with the skipper. Such a young man could be encouraged to sail on a vessel although he may be in complete ignorance of the rules. Does my hon. Friend agree that the responsibility should rest with the master of the vessel?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Subsection (2) reads:

"The regulations may provide that if a person goes to sea on a fishing vessel in contravention of a requirement of the regulations—

(a) he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2, or if he is the skipper or an owner of the vessel level 5".

"the skipper and each owner of the vessel is…liable on summary conviction to a fine"

As well.

That is absolutely right. Fines can be levied on both the person who goes to sea, and the skipper or the owner.

This is an important point of principle. In what other industry is there such a regulation whereby the person who has not sought training faces the possibility of court action? Young lads might be ignorant of such a statutory requirement.

That is an interesting point. I should like the Minister to answer that question because it is he who drafted the clause. That is a valid point. Is that discriminatory in that industry as opposed to other industries? I do not want to pre-empt the Minister's reply, but I imagine that the reason why the clause has been put in that some boats might have very small crews, but I shall leave that form is that matter for the Minister rather than trying to anticipate what he will say.

As the hon. Gentleman represents a fishing constituency—we both do—I am sure that he will be aware that the fire authorities take care that they know the latest fire fighting techniques for all modern ships. As was said by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), the fire fighting people have to be up to the mark on the latest techniques because of the possible dangers in harbours. For example, Peterhead is a busy harbour. Any one vessel on fire could create a catastrophe unless the fire fighters were familiar with the latest methods.

The whole point is whether the matter is dealt with in statute or whether we reply on the local authority which controls the fire brigade.

This important new clause arises from the assiduous efforts of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), who prised it out of the Government. The original Bill included the provision, which was withdrawn at the Minister's suggestion because he wished it to be clear that the industry should finance training.

On the history of training in the industry, is my hon. Friend aware that the record in the traditional inshore sector before the advent of the sea fisheries training council in the late 1970s was abysmal?

I entirely agree, and that is what makes me emphasise the pressures from outside the industry. Training is not adequate at present, and we must keep up the pressure on the industry.

The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar raised a series of questions about why there were no details of courses and the curriculum. It would not be appropriate to put the details of that in primary legislation and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) says, those involved in the industry are aware of the training that is available. To help the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar, I point out that the Department will approve the curriculum when it comes, and some idea of it can be gained from the courses that are carried out as survival at sea courses by the SFIA, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you give me some help and guidance on a matter that has come to my attention this morning? It is reported in The Times Higher Education Supplement that a Minister in the Department of Education and Science has offered misleading information about his educational qualifications in his "Who's Who" entry. It is important to me and others in education.

Order. I have no responsibility for what appears in The Times or any other newspaper.

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 16 leave out 'those sections' and insert `sections 1 to 3'.

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10.

The amendments in this group are of a purely technical and drafting nature.

I have had considerable discussions on these amendments with my hon. Friend the Minister and my noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for shipping. I accept that they are drafting amendments and I am happy to ask the House to accept them.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

"If but one life is saved by these changes now in sight it will be time and money well spent and Mr. McQuarrie is to be congratulated on his persistence in the face of opposition from within sections of the Industry itself, let it be said, in pressing forward his Bill. He can claim if the modified measures eventually become law, to have achieved significant advances in making life less hazardous for the seafarer."

"while his Bill is certainly not in the form which he envisaged, at least he has drawn attention to the tragic safety record in the fishing industry, and the Bill will still make a contribution towards improving safety."

I wish to make a short intervention to congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) on his Bill reaching Third Reading. Tragedies at sea are nothing new, and there was a great need for some tightening of safety procedures to ensure safety as far as possible for our fishermen. There have been several tragedies off the north of Scotland even during the time that the Bill has been passing through the House.

I, too, will keep the House for only about a minute. May I first warmly thank the Minister for the comprehensive answers that he gave to the questions that I raised during the last debate?

I shall be brief. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). As someone from a fishing family, I am very grateful to him for the Bill. Any measure that improves the safety of fishermen as they go about their most hazardous occupation must be welcomed by everyone. I never want to read again of men dying despite the fact that they have reached the relative sanctuary of an inflatable liferaft. That is what happened to Harry Eddom's two comrades. I never want to hear again of men going over the side, as those French fishermen did from the Snekkar Arctic, without protective suits, and perishing while their comrades who wore such suits survived.

I enthusiastically join in congratulating the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) on his Bill. It represents a very real achievement. I hope that it will become known as the McQuarrie Bill, as it is an important measure and the effort that he has put into it and the fact that he introduced it in the first place warrant the attachment of his name to it. I can testify to what an ordeal it is to promote a private Member's Bill. The hon. Member concerned has to be a Government Department holding consultations, a publicist, and a public relations officer, and he has to use his own wit as well. It is an enormous job for the average Back Bencher.

I have one small regret about the Bill, In Committee I asked the Minister about the exploitation of fishermen by Spanish fishing vessels. The Minister mentioned that briefly today and I received a letter from him, but I have not had time to table an amendment or to react in any other way.

I am happy to join those who have wished the Bill a successful and rapid passage on to the statute book. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) referred to Spanish vessels and the United Kingdom flag. If he reads the Hansardreport of what I said earlier today, he will find a satisfactory explanation on how we intend to proceed.

Will the Minister clarify a point? I should have raised it earlier. Arising from those cost estimates, what will be the transitional period during which people who have installed the 121 MHz equipment will be allowed to continue operating it before being asked to instal the 406 MHz equipment? The matter is causing some concern in the industry, particularly on cost grounds.

If the hon. Gentleman cares to table a question on that, I shall give him an answer which will be in a public form.

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 21. at end insert—

'"train" and "training" shall include the holding of exercises for members of local authority staffs and persons undertaking to serve as volunteers for the purpose of improving the preparedness of those persons to carry out any plans made under subsection 2 of section 2 of this Act.'.

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 2, in page 2, line 15, leave out

'perform that function so as to allow'

having regard to the subject matter of those plans, make, keep under review and revise plans',

With a little more foresight and a lot more generosity, we should have tabled amendments to protect the Government from fallout from last night's council elections and by-elections. We are, of course, too late for that now.

Or in Britain.

Yes.

Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I comment on some of the specific points raised. The amendment is similar to that tabled and discussed in Committee, although I recognise that there is a slight difference in the wording.

Has the Minister any estimate of the possible cost in which the Government could be involved if local authorities were able to go ahead and train for civil accidents and disasters not connected with wartime planning, and attract grant for that? The Minister seems to suggest that this is an economic argument.

It is not really an economic argument. We are saying that the civil defence grant made available within our total budget—which, off the cuff, I think is £8 million—that has been used for training purposes still has a little way to go before it is fully taken up. I am not making an economic argument, but clarifying the point that the intention of the Bill is to allow training establishments to serve both purposes so that the civil defence grant can be made available to serve both purposes, but not peacetime arrangements alone.

I do not suggest that what the Minister has said about finance is an open invitation to what has become known as creative accounting. However, can he give the House an assurance that there will be a sensitive understanding of the need for flexibility? I understand his point about duality, but I want him to assure us that there will be some sensitivity about flexibility while meeting the point that he has urged on the House.

I give the House that assurance. As I said in Committee, although at the moment the grant aid in the civil defence budget is marginally underspent, I would expect that, through the arrangements in the Bill and the regulations set out in 1983, local authorities would be encouraged to spend more on the establishment of correctly designed training schemes, appointments and capital expenditure. If that were so, I would wish to review the total amount of grant aid available.

I endorse what my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said about the amendment, and I have very little to add to it. However, it is worth commenting that the Chernobyl disaster, to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) referred, illustrates very well the close link between civil defence and peacetime planning in the dangerous world in which we now live. Since Second Reading, the emphasis on the way in which the training for both those eventualities should be done at the same time has been clarified. Radiation fallout is one of the peacetime risks for which we now have to prepare ourselves, so that strengthens rather than weakens the Government's case that it is important that the close link between civil defence and peacetime planning be maintained. It makes it easier for us to accept that, in doing so, we are making adequate preparation for the peacetime planning of rescue operations.

"The main reasons why nuclear-free zones have to be worried about the passage of the Bill is that it legitimises the Government's new all-hazards approach to emergency planning, which aims to cloud over the clear distinction between preparing plans for civil contingencies and those for a nuclear attack."

I was disappointed that the Minister could not accept the amendments, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, are intended to be helpful. I am sure that the Minister accepted that.

The hon. Gentleman's point clearly illustrates why the Government and I must resist the amendment. We cannot allow a civil defence grant, which is specifically intended for civil defence purposes, to be entirely diverted from civil defence use into other worthy causes, such as entirely peacetime activities, which should be properly funded from other sources.

We have returned to the original point. Conservative Members seem to accept that, provided that the planning is essential to anticipate wartime emergencies, the benefit for peacetime planning is all right. But to get the benefit for the peacetime planning, we must accept the wartime planning element; politically, many Labour local authorities are not prepared to do that.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that local authorities generally find it difficult, if not impossible, to get information about the movement by rail of nuclear waste, and that that waste goes to a plant, now called Sellafield, which is not open for international inspection?

Local authorities are not so informed. That is why the need for training is so vital. I assume that local authorities are not told because of the secrecy involved. The Government may say that if they inform local authorities, the news might leak out, there might be a terrorist attack on the train, and we would get the disaster that we have all been desperately trying to avoid. I understand the Government's difficulty in such situations. They have to balance the interests of security with the interests of providing information, but we think that they often fall down badly when providing the necessary information.

I regret that the Minister cannot meet our points, although he has given us a slice off the end of the loaf. However, it may be for the convenience of the House if I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Like the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) I am anxious that not only this Bill but that of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) have a successful passage within the next half hour or so and I shall be brief.

"We have no adequate preparation to deal with a massive escape of radioactivity".—[Official Report, 21 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 592.]

"I accept that civil defence could do very little to mitigate that kind of disaster."—[Official Report, 21 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 595.]

I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) congratulate my on. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). I also congratulate my hon. Friend. He has given retrospective credibility and exactitude to an argument that I have long used.

I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) on what I hope will be the Bill's Third Reading. I wish it all success in another place, despite the reservations which I know he understands the Opposition have and which have been spelt out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo).

The words used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) seem to me entirely apposite. The Bill is a small commonsense measure. It amends the 1948 Act, and the way that that Act is rooted in civil defence made it so difficult to accept the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), which would have widened the scope of the Bill.

I beg to move amendment No. 1. in page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (1) and insert——

'(1) A customs officer may, for the purpose of facilitating the exercise by any enforcement authority or officer of such an authority of any functions conferred on the authority or officer by or under the safety legislation, seize any imported goods and detain them for not more than forty-eight hours.

(1A) Anything seized and detained under this section shall be dealt with during the period of its detention in such manner as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may direct.'.

"in such manner as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may direct."

I am sorry that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) should have felt it necessary, under gentle persuasion from the Government Front Bench, to move this amendment. I do not want to go over the ground that we covered in Committee, although I suspect that I shall do so.

"If that disagreement is not resolved during our debate, my hon. Friend's ambition to put the legislation on the statute book during the present Session may be in peril."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C; 30 April 1986, c. 5]

Is my right hon. Friend or the Minister aware of what the French get up to by delaying things at ports when it suits them? They operate what is virtually a non-tariff barrier to imports. In one case everthing has to be routed through a little customs post in Poitiers and a long backlog builds up. In another case it is demanded that a container should not contain a mixed load, so every container has to be opened. It is nonsense to suggest that we should be inhibited by Common Market rules.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who was not able to follow the discussion in Committee. That is why I draw his attention to some of the peculiarities in the arguments. We told the Minister that if he happened to be in France, far from quivering at the prospect of being arraigned before the European Court, he would be donning his best suit to be presented with the Croix de Guerre and some kisses for having found yet another way of restraining trade from outside France. However, the Minister does not want heroism; all he wants is to capitulate to the commercial interests lobbying his Department.

"the identity of the importer, the likely destination of the goods and preliminary checks on any documentation, test certificates and so on."

"to make a telegraphic check on information from an exporter in a different continent or where weekends or public holidays make it especially difficult to obtain information quickly."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 30 April 1986; c. 12.]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) for moving this amendment, which corrects a technical inconsistency in the Bill as reported and, more importantly, reduces the maximum period of detention by Customs and Excise from 72 to 48 hours.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am glad to see the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) looking so cheerful this morning after the Labour party captured control of York yesterday. That must be causing him much worry when thinking about his role in the next general election.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) on introducing this excellent legislation. He drew No. 20 in the ballot for private Members' Bills, which was hardly favourable. However, he has done everyone a great service by introducing the Bill, which is particularly welcomed by my constituents in Basildon.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory). As he is well aware, we welcome the Bill's intentions, I think that the hon. Gentleman would be gracious enough to acknowledge that the fact that it appears that the Bill will reach the statute book is due to the help he has received from Government and Opposition Back Benchers.

Like other hon. Members, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) who does not seem to me to look like a hijacked person might be expected to look.