Shipowners block safety plan

Press, 23 March 1988, Page 19

Shipowners block safety plan

wssissehsmhdwis-saaswisrass aaisaEsasKEei-sisHis | [a. |q. ;i ; ; i ■ ■ i ' ] I: I : 'iJ Hl' - ' H !■" ' 'I-” A year after the Zeebrugge disaster], British ferry owners have quashed inquiry recommendations _ : id i i !_.!_( _ I ' 1 1 ' I i ' . I L ' I'U ' ■

By

PAUL ROUTLEDGE

and GEOFFREY

the “Observer” newspaper, report on the anniversary aftermath of the sinking of the Townsend Thoresen ferry Herald of Free Enterprise.

Britain's powerful shipowners have persuaded the Government nty to press ahead with a pack| age of expensive safety measures designed to prevent another Zee] brugge-type ferry disaster. I ; [Paul Channon, the Transport Secretary, has given the shipowners a private undertaking that they will not be put at ;a commercial disadvantage against their foreign competitors. ; [ He appears to have accepted their argument that they cannot fairly be expected Ito modify their entire cross-.Ch'annelj fleet just because one man, Captain David Lewry, master jof thd Herald of Free Enterprise, set sail f/om Zeebrugge, Belgium, a year ago with his bow doors wide open. ' J [' . jp

| A widd-ranging investigation by the “Observer” newspaper, to coincide with the first anniver-i! sary of the disaster, has established that: . 1 'i! • jii ■ ; I/-. r :■ -'■ ! 1 • British shipowners have ex- ] pressed great reluctance to adopt the recommendation by Kir Jus- ! . dee Sheen, chairman of the j public inquiry into (the tragedy, <[ that emergency eScape | doors 11 should be fitted to ;the sides oft their ships. Officials at the Department of Transport agree this is a "difficult 1 area”!, i f! ! ' ■ I L’ iP | • The owners refuse tolacceptj - i Sheen’s argument that ships built before modern stability fegula- : doris were introduced should be either modified or scrapped. Department of Transport officials dgree that it would jbe unfair to force British owners to abide by modern safety [standards unless t,heir European jeompetitons were made to do so,!too.] i ■ . 1 • - I • Even the simplest of the 11 proposals' — to! fit- handrails-aty! [

! steps to the walls of walkways ; between the two sides! of a ship, so that passengers could reach emergency exits in the event of a capsize -j- has beeln rejected. The owners say they;don’t agree that ships should be ’■ designed to Sink ’’ ;|| II I|■; |. j © Marine inspectors, who are supposed to check British vessels for safety;: rarely travel on the ferries: to |see if these are: being operated safely. Even when they do, they [tend to confine! their attention to a few areas of the ships. The inspectors fare reluctant .to use powers giyen 1 to them! four years ago to force shipping! companies to change unsafe! practices, [and they! hardly ever’ bring prosecutions. | I Our inquiries reveal that shipowners tiave been j waging ■ a vigorous b'ehind-thetycenes[ battle to ensure|l.that the! government does not [force them to spend millions of pounds on isafety modifications. I I ' h In la letter to |tjie| General Council of British Shipping, Mr Channon said the; [Government ‘ifullyHrecognises that! the isafety 6f British passengers! cannot jbe preserved |by applying jmeasures only to British ships." ] Hl, | I He added: “If we [require U.K.flagged vessels to be phased out or. expensively modified and [do nothing about foreign operators, it would tie all too easy for ships to be transferred to foreign flags, whether under existing British management or foreign management.;] | ’ [I. ; j ' “The Government is not (interested in making rules that fail in their basic] objective, which' is to protect life at sea?'! The;i shipowners interpret this reassurance as a firm pointer to noh-irrtple!mentation 'Of Mr Jus- • ;l ;r li- . I ' i I

•io : 1 ► tice Sheen's, mOst far-reaching recommendation: that because ferries built before ,1986 may be “substantially less safe tian modern ships,” [those incapable of modification should be given a “finite.l short-term life.’ | Ferry operators argue that, if these older ships are pt ased out, their plape would ibe taken by foreign -vessels which do not satisfy ] the. department s regulations. i IHj j- • i : !, ; Dr Jim Cowley, who, as the Department of I Transport’s Surveyor-General, is in charge of the marine inspectorate, told the “Observer” that Mr Justice Sheen’s Irecommendatic n on the old ferries was “very strange.” I He also attacked the proposal for applying regulators retro--spectivejy?; i describing it aS “changing the rules after the game has been played." I; ' How, [then. have ihe shipowners, I been able to persuade Ministers to come roun I to their i point of! .view? !!., i . p As the seamen’s unicn sees if, the owners’ traditions Ily close ties to the Conservative Party may be part of the ansjver. John Prescott-1] Opposition I i frontbencher l and a jUnion-sponsored M.P., said: “[The whole thing ties lin with the extremely cosy relationship that the shipow iers have with the' Goyernmeht. - “You only! have to lo«j>k at hoy/ much the shipping companies give to the Tory Party every year — and! particularly in election year.” 1 [ [.; The ferry operators have already spent] millions cf pounds implementing the most immediate and obvious [ reforms de- - manded by the Shden inquiry to revive| 'the I confidence of the ; travelling public: door indicator < lights,l -television surveillance

I cameras, extra emergency lighting and a new system of individual boarding cards for every passenger. | But Britain’s system for enforcing safety on passenger ferries is increasingly being attacked, even in Whitehall, as antiquated and ineffective. | Jim Cowley, of the Department of ! Transport, has admitted that the system “was not really designed for operating these fer-

! The system, conceived in the middle of the last! century, con-; centrates ! on [making sure that ships are seawoi-thy and that the Officers in charge of them are properly! qualified, then leaves them free to; sail. If something goes wrong, (officers are punished retrospectively., ! This contrasts with the modern approach applied in industry! under which Health and Safety Executive! inspectors concentrate on making sure that factories are being run safely. | Before the Zeebrugge disaster, marine inspectors never, travelled on the, ferries to make sure they were operating safely, although they did carry out.some' checks on the i integrity of the vessels at sea], ; I i Dr Cowley said that the pre- I vailing system, designed for ships «[ that would be away from home I for months or years, not for “shuttles” like the cross-Channel ferries, “worked \ satisfactorily until this particular accident.” Since the disaster, inspectors have sometimes; travelled incognito on the ferries. But their inspections are [ infrequent and, Dr j Cowley says, “not very successful.” ; i ! This approach] mystifies Health and Safety inspectors, who are accustomed to [ turning up ,at factories unannounced and then

■ . . II! I. I I : going through the plants with a fine tooth comb. I ■- i ! : In 1984, at the insistence of the Health and Safety Executive, marine inspectors were given the same powers that its own inspectors had I enjoyed for [lO years: to serve notices on companies, [forcing them ito improve or abandon unsafe practices. [ i[ : But Dr Cowley says these notices are used “very little.” [ Only somb [2O are issued annually — compared to almost 1(0,000 ! issued bjj the Health and Safety I Executive [last year |in Britain’s factories;! I i i " ] The executive] also undertook 2170 prosecutions, obtaining! 1756 convictions. But; Dr Cowleyj says that, in the marine field, “prosecutions are really a wasii-out” I because II I people ■ can “get ; Off.” j H I' *! | I'l | ' ii ;!i 'll!

Rejection of various points

System from nineteeth century