SMALL CODE WORKING GROUP Meeting Two
Spring Place – 27 June 2006 Room L4 10.00 am Attendees
Apologies
1. Introduction 1.1 The Chairman thanked members of the Group for attending and asked individuals to introduce themselves, as there were a number of new faces to the Working Group. He also reiterated to the Group, why the Working Group was asked to convene and its aims and objectives:
Investigate measures to ensure under 15m fishing vessels are fit for purpose, taking into account:
2. Apologies 2.1 The Chairman informed members of the Group that he had received apologies from Chris Traves (NFFO) and David Fenner. 3. Minutes of the Last Meeting (4th April 2006) 3.1 The Group were given an update on the Actions from the previous meeting. Regarding Action 1, in view of the ongoing delays to legal clearance for the impending minor amend to the small FV code; no publicity has yet been produced. At this point Robin Raphael gave the Group an update to the impending minor amend. 3.2 He informed members that the Code has been approved by all but that the Code was being held up at DfT’s Better Regulation Unit and that hopefully within a few weeks, clearance would be given for the Code. He confirmed that there would be a 12 week lead in period before the new Code was enforceable.
3.3 Robin Raphael explained that the Code would include changes to stability and the liferaft requirements but would now only be as guidance. This is because the 1975 rules were effectively revoked and that a Statutory Instrument (SI) will have to be written and approved before liferafts and stability requirements could become mandatory.
3.4 Tony Tait asked whether the new SI would mean a change to the revised Code. It was confirmed that the Code would need an amendment.
3.5 The Chairman explained that Action 2 & 3 from the last meeting was for Seafish to draft a letter for the MCA to send to DEFRA concerning funding for modifications; he asked Seafish for an update. Tony Tait stated that he had spoken with Bill Lewis (Marine Fisheries Agency) and that he remained concerned over the issue but that a draft letter had not yet been complied; he agreed that Seafish would draft a letter to the Chairman regarding FIFG funding.
Action A – Seafish to draft a letter to the Chairman of the Working Group regarding FIFG Funding.
3.6 The Group went onto to discuss the issue further, in particular the issuing of grants and that in Scotland modifications to vessels would be approved and that Seafish would administer the grant on behalf of SEERAD . Bill Farquhar informed the Group that previously Seafish would visit the vessel before a grant was issued but that in England, this was not the case and that there are currently hundreds of vessels that have been modified by grants, which have not been approved.
3.7 Tony Tait informed the Group that there is currently an EFF scheme running and as part of that scheme, Seafish were pushing for this practice to be reinstated. Jim Evans stated that there is a draft document out in Scotland and Wales and that discussions were being held at meetings regarding modifications being seen by a surveyor or other qualified person.
3.8 Chris Venmore stated that Seafish should administer grants and that this used to be done and that there was nothing stopping the UK Government doing this. Jim Evans stated that this was not the case and that it was EU Policy for Governments only to issue grants. Tony Tait explained that he spoke with Roger Carlise (MAIB) at the fishing exhibition and that MAIB would support Seafish to administer all grants. It was agreed that a letter be drafted outlining Seafish’s proposal so that the Chairman could take the matter further.
Action B- Seafish to draft a letter to the Chairman of the Working Group outlining Seafish’s proposal regarding administering grants (This would propose a system to cover the concern raised in action A).
3.9 Regarding Action 4 from the last meeting, the Group were informed that Seafish presented a draft risk assessment paper on Potting at FISG 62. Tony Tait gave a brief background as to how the draft assessment came into being and that there currently looking at whether the document is legal. He stated that at FISG there was no confirmation whether it was an agreed way forward. The Chairman confirmed that there was no agreement at FISG but the consensus of that Group was that the document was good and that he had shown it to a few fishermen in his area and they thought that it was better than the current risk assessment.
3.10 Jim Evans stated that it was far better than the other document currently being produced and that FISG said that it should be developed further. Baden Gibson informed the Group that he represents the Under 10metre fleet and that they are enthusiastic towards risk assessment. The Chairman asked whether the risk assessments are written down or done verbally.
3.11 Baden Gibson stated that most of the fishermen in his area are seasonal part timers and that they normally do verbal risk assessments. Chris Venmore concluded that the risk assessment is good as a checklist but fears that if a written risk assessment becomes mandatory then fishermen and owners could go to court. He stated that he would be against such a requirement. Bill Farquhar explained that fishermen can leave themselves open if a risk assessment is not written down.
3.12 The consensus of the Group were for Seafish to produce a draft risk assessment for the following:
Chris Venmore stated that the format was good on the current draft and all that was needed to be done was to change the last page for the different types of fishing. Seafish stated that they would work on producing the draft risk assessments for the above methods and get it out to fishermen. The Chairman stated that MCA would take up the matter of whether the draft risk assessment would be legal with MCA’s Health & Safety Branch.
Action C – The Chairman to discuss the issue within MCA HQ of whether the Seafish draft would satisfy legal requirements for risk assessment.
3.13 Robin Raphael stated that he would also discuss this with DfT legal at the Over 24m Code meeting on Thursday.
4. Update on Progress With The Current Code
4.1 The Chairman explained that this has already been covered under the Actions from the last meeting (see 3.1 – 3.4)
5. Small Fishing Vessel Losses over the Past 10 Years
5.1 The Chairman introduced Robin Raphael who had undertaken an analysis of the data received from MAIB.
5.2 Robin ran through the tabled paper in detail regarding his findings from the MAIB raw data. Regarding the number of flooding incidents, Jim Evans stated that most fishermen ignore the Bilge Alarm and that two alarms should be fitted. More emphasis should be on the main implications and working conditions of the vessel.
5.3 Tony Tait informed members that Seafish have been conducting a project on Bilge Alarms in which Seafish purchased every type of alarm and fitted them to fishing vessels on a trial basis. These were fitted along side the vessel’s original alarm and results should be available by the end of the year showing the best alarms for different working conditions. The Group asked whether the data from MAIB was only for UK registered commercial fishing vessels. The Group was informed that this was the case.
5.4 Jim Evans congratulated Robin Raphael on the work that was done to go through the raw data and that this information helps focus the Group on the work required for the next development of the Code. Tony Tait stated the MAIB reports are interesting to see but asked whether there could be a comparison between accidents/incidents and whether the vessel has been issued with a hull and outfit certificate. The Group discussed whether vessels have been built to Seafish construction standards and that in Scotland two or three vessels a year are turned down because of the construction. The Chairman stated that as an action from the Group, MCA would ask MAIB whether data could be produced that shows the base port of the vessel and also ask MAIB about construction standards certificates.
Action D – MCA to ask MAIB about data regarding base port of vessels that have been involved in an accident or incident and whether in future MAIB could obtain details of whether the vessel had a construction certificate.
6. Seafish Accreditation Scheme
6.1 Chris Venmore informed the Group of the accreditation scheme that Seafish are running and that this came about because of the public’s concerns regarding where fish is caught and whether it comes from a sustainable source. He explained that checks were made regarding the safety of the vessel, certification of the crew and the handling of the actual fish. The scheme is to launch on 4th July and the Group Training Associations would be involved.
6.2 The Group considered this scheme to be beneficial.
6.3 Agenda Items 7,8 & 9 were grouped together for discussion but for the minutes of the meeting these are separated under the relevant headings.
7. Construction/Mechanical Standards for Existing Fishing Vessels.
7.1 The Chairman explained to the Group that there are construction standards for new vessels but there are no standards covering existing vessels. He asked the Group for their thoughts on whether construction standards could be produced for existing vessels.
7.2 Tony Tait explained that when administrating grants for existing vessels Seafish have leverage to look at the construction before giving the grant. He stated that there was no cause for any standards for existing vessels. Jim Evans informed the Group that at the Small Code Sub Group discussions were held regarding this subject and it was agreed that there would be no construction standards for existing vessels. This was agreed by MCA and that the Code would ask only for, fit for purpose. He felt that any construction standards for existing vessels could only be recommended in any revision of the Code.
7.3 Chris Venmore agreed with this statement by adding that you can not change existing vessels to use new construction standards. He stated that the MCA should detain more unsafe small vessels for not being properly maintained and that this message would spread throughout the industry.
7.4 The Chairman informed members that when a small vessel is detained the owners ask what standards the vessel should be built to and that MCA can not answer this question because there are no construction standards for existing vessels. Jim Evans stated that MCA should compromise on the new standards and inform the owners that these standards are there. Tony Tait stated that the Seafish rules were established in 1975 and that there were some sort of construction standards then so there is no need to place construction standards in the new Code.
7.5 Tony Tait asked whether the Registry of Shipping and Seamen are still asking for hull construction certificates. The Chairman stated that he did not know whether RSS are still asking for these and informed the Group that he would find out.
Action E – The Chairman to ask RSS whether they still ask for a hull construction certificate when new vessels under 15metres are registered.
7.6 Baden Gibson stated that he was shocked to see that there was no requirement for an Anchor or Warp in the current Code. The Chairman informed him that this was initially missed and is now in the amended Code waiting to be agreed by the Better Regulation Unit.
8. Areas of Operation of Fishing Vessels and the Code Requirements
8.1 The Chairman explained to the Group that the current Code is split by length and whether the vessel is open or decked but that in the trilogy report from the MAIB, it is recommended that the Code be split by area of operation.
8.2 Jim Evans stated that he was very unhappy in discussing the area of operation at individual committees as the Training sub-group is looking into this. The Chairman asked the Group for a feeling of their views on area of operation.
8.3 Chris Venmore stated that he would not be happy for the Code to go down this route as a new 9.99metre vessel is safer than an old 14metre vessel and that restrictions would be placed on that vessel. Pelagic vessels follow shoals of fish and if the vessel runs outside of the area of operation then it would become illegal. He stated that inshore waters are more hazardous than deeper waters because of the rocks, weather etc… There should be more Life Saving Equipment (LSA) requirements for vessels inshore than that off shore. He stated that there were no problems with the current breakdown of the checklist in the Code.
8.4 Jim Evans stated that Chris Venmore was confused and that the idea of area of operation follows the coverage of VHF radio and that it was logical to breakdown the requirements in the Code. Further discussion took place regarding whether the area of operation is logical for the breakdown of the checklists in the Code.
8.5 Tony Tait stated that area of operation should be included in the Code primarily for LSA equipment and that if a vessel changes its fishing method then the LSA should change. Chris Venmore asked why more LSA equipment is required for vessels operating further ashore as the most hazardous waters are inshore. The Chairman stated that he believed that the quality of the LSA needs to be of SOLAS or ISO requirements for vessels operating further afield than that of vessels operating solely inshore. A discussion took place over whether lives had been saved because of the quality of the LSA and that the cost implications would be sufficient to put fishermen out of business.
8.6 The Chairman concluded the discussions on area of operation by stating that this would be put on hold until after the Training Meeting has taken place in Hull.
9. Liferaft Requirements for Small Fishing Vessels
9.1 Chris Venmore opened the discussion on this subject by stating that all vessels should have a liferaft installed. His personal view was that a liferaft is more valuable than a lifejacket .
9.2 Tony Tait explained that currently FIFG funding is not available for liferafts as it is not a mandatory requirement. Chris Venmore stated that DEFRA should be persuaded to give a 50% refund on the purchase of a liferaft and that perhaps an article in Fishing News on liferafts would be beneficial.
9.3 Robin Raphael informed the Group of his findings when he visited the Western Region. A number of small vessels had liferafts installed but the Hydrostatic Release Units (HRUs) were not correctly installed. Jim Evans concluded by stating that anything than can save lives is a good thing to have.
9.4 Baden Gibson asked the Group about personal EPIRBs. Robin Raphael informed the Group of the Guardian system which is being launched by RNLI at cost funding. Discussions took place regarding the cost implications of the Guardian but the Group agreed that it was a very beneficial system to have installed on the vessel.
9.5 The Group agreed that liferafts should be recommended on all small fishing vessels (where practicable). The Chairman stated that he would speak to the head of Fishing & Code Vessel Safety Branch regarding FIFG funding for liferafts.
Action F – The Chairman to speak to Paul Fairbrother regarding the concerns raised about FIFG funding for non mandatory LSA (liferafts).
10. Basic Safety Courses for Fishermen
10.1 Single Handed Operations
10.1.1 Tony Tait stated that he has spoken with Simon Potten (Seafish) about courses for Single Handed Fishermen and that he would be interested in the views of the Group and will raise them at the FTAG meeting.
10.1.2 Chris Venmore explained that current Fire-Fighting and First Aid courses run for a whole day and are geared at larger vessels. A course should be established that cover these aspects as well as how to get in a boat if you go overboard when operating on a singular basis.
10.2 Refresher Courses
10.2.1 Jim Evans raised concerns that the Group discussed this last time and that there was no need to have a refresher course in First Aid. The Chairman confirmed that this is the case but the Group Training Associations are stating that it is mandatory to do a refresher course. It was agreed that this would be raised at the FTAG meeting by SFF.
11. Final Wolfson Unit Report – Stability Assessment of Small Fishing Vessels
11.1 Robin Raphael explained to the Group that this Final report was not yet in the public domain and that the findings would be discussed at the Stability sub-group meeting on 19th July. He did however read through the Executive Summary of the Report to the Group. The Chairman also tabled a flow diagram taken from the Final Report for information to the members.
11.2 Jim Evans stated that he had grave reservations over the report and that the proposed traffic light system was too complicated for fishermen to understand. Tony Tait stated that any system needs to be trialled on a number of vessels before any decision can be made.
12. Certificate or Decal
12.1 The Chairman explained that MCA Inspectors and Surveyors are not happy with the Decal and asked for feedback from the Group. The Group discussed the use of the Decal and agreed that it can not be placed outside of the vessel because they are not waterproof and they fade easily.
12.2 The Group agreed that the Date on the Decal (currently April 2006) should be the expiry date and that the Decal should be redesigned to incorporate this change and the changes suggested by the tabled paper.
Action G – The Chairman to redesign the Decal to incorporate suggested changes and provide a draft to members of the Group for comment.
13. Any Other Business
13.1 Jim Evans raised that there is a European Grant System being consulted on and that an early claim regarding safety equipment should be included. He also raised concerns over whether it was legal for MCA to attempt to withdraw fishing licences if a vessel is not inspected to the Code of Practice.
13.2 The Chairman stated that as part of the Trilogy Report made by the MAIB, it was for DfT to look into the linking of Licensing and Certification and that he had not heard anything regarding this. It was agreed for the Chairman to look into this matter further but he stated that a vessel can only be deregistered for failure to respond to a letter from the Registrar.
Action H – The Chairman to look into the matter of Linkage with DfT.
13.3 Tony Tait informed the Group that there was an IMO Committee regarding small fishing vessels established and that there was no representation from the UK. He explained that he has now got agreement to attend this meeting along with Rod Watts (Seafish), Barry Deakin (Wolfson), Keir O’day (Seafish) and Paul Fairbrother (MCA). Any discussions from that committee would be fed back to the Working Group.
14. Date of Next Meeting
14.1 The Chairman explained that he did not know whether a further meeting was required at this stage but if one was required he would canvass for dates in the Autumn.
|