Clause 25.—(INCREASE OF PENALTIES FOR OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH PASSENGER STEAMERS.) (Hansard, 10 April 1967)

§ Mr. Wingfield Digby
I had intended to move an Amendment here, but the point can be dealt with just as readily on this Question. It is fairly easy to see what is aimed at in the Clause. On Second Reading, the Minister explained that it was to try to meet the very sad cases of loss of life, recent examples of which have been the "Darlwyne", the "Prince of Wales" and the "Quesada", and to prevent overloading by more severe penalties. Nevertheless, it is surprising to find in subsection (2) that we are including three classes of vessel which are excluded from the rest of the Bill. The Minister will not be surprised that this point is raised. It is somewhat perplexing, although I have no doubt that he will say that it is a drafting matter.
659 We are including here the various classes of ship excluded under Clause 1, that is, ships of war, ships solely engaged in fishing, and pleasure yachts. One can understand that there may be cases, though probably not very many, of pleasure yachts taking paying passengers, which would, therefore, attract the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1894, 1906 and 1949, which already provide for regulations and prescribe penalties. The effect of this Clause would be to increase the penalties, and, in view of the tragedies which have taken place, it would be difficult to object to that. I understand that the Royal Yachting Association raises no objection.
It is a little harder to understand the inclusion of fishing vessels, though one can understand that there may be cases of fishing vessels taking paying passengers and thereby attracting the effect of the relevant Acts in respect of what are termed passenger steamers.
It is, however, difficult to understand what the Government have in mind in their inclusion of warships. I did not know that warships ever took paying passengers. Perhaps we may be given one or two instances. We are wondering what is happening to the Fleet and how it is being employed, but we never envisaged that it was setting up a new service of pleasure craft which could be covered by this Bill, and, even if it were, one cannot understand why the Government should subject themselves to this kind of regulation covering the overloading of warships used as pleasure craft.
Was it necessary to draft the Clause in this way? I cannot believe that there will be cases to be covered. If it is simply a question of drafting, it is a pity that it could not be done in a more tidy way.

§ Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. Precisely the same thing occurred to me. But this is, as he said, purely a drafting provision. There is, of course, no intention to bring warships within the ambit of the Bill. I understand that, despite the existence of Clause 25(2), warships are still not covered because of the provisions of the 1894 Act.
However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this seems to be an extremely 660 clumsy way of drafting and, if he agrees, we can look at it again to see whether it can be put more specifically. We want to cover pleasure yachts, of course, and as far as fishing vessels are concerned, this is just an additional provision. It is most unlikely that fishing vessels will be used for fee-paying pleasure purposes but it might conceivably happen. Hence the value of this provision in covering them. But with warships such a thing could never happen and they are in fact excluded. I agree that we should look at the drafting again, however.

§ Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
A great deal of work has been done on this Bill by officials and by our own industry and by officials and industries of other countries and I know that the House would like me to express our thanks for all that work. I would also express my personal thanks to the House and to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), for the speed with which we have been able to get this Bill through the House.
I would only add that I very much hope that the special provisions of Clause 25, which greatly increase penalties, will be widely publicised and will act as a deterrent in preventing a repetition of the disasters to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

§ Mr. Wingfield Digby
I need not add much to what the Minister of State has said. As I said on Second Reading, on both sides of the House we would like to see this Bill come into force at the earliest possible moment. We realise that a year has to run from the time when a specific number of States have ratified and perhaps the Minister can tell us whether, following the introduction of the Bill, more States have agreed to the 661 Convention so that the year involved may start to run at an early date and our merchant shipping be able to take advantage of the Bill, which will have the same effect as if our fleet were slightly increased owing to the increased loads that it will be possible to carry under the new rules.

§ Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu
There is no further news yet, except of intentions.