HOVERCRAFT

HC Deb 23 May 1972 vol 837 cc1383-95

11.32 p.m.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble)

I beg to move, That the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved. The purpose of the order is to apply to hovercraft, with necessary modifications, certain enactments and instruments relating to ships, aircraft and motor vehicles. The order is made under the Hovercraft Act, 1968, an enabling Act which has very little practical effect until Orders in Council are made under it. The first Order in Council to be made under the Act, concerning civil liability in respect of hovercraft, was made last year. A further order, the Hovercraft (General) Order, 1972, which makes provision for the registration and safety regulation of hovercraft, was made on 28th April and was laid before this House under the negative procedure on 8th May. The Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order, 1972, for which I am seeking the approval of the House this evening, is the third order.

Prior to the passage of the Hovercraft Act in 1968, hovercraft were often treated either as ships or aircraft, but there was much confusion because it was impossible to say with certainty that they were one or the other. Although the Act defined hovercraft and provided for their treatment as vehicles in their own right, it has still been possible, since the passage of the Act, to treat hovercraft as ships or aircraft, for what it is worth; and for certain purposes, hovercraft have in fact been so treated.

The present order will remove much of this uncertainty by applying to hovercraft, where relevant, the law relating to ships, aircraft and motor vehicles. Having done this, the process of giving the hovercraft an existence in its own right will have been almost completed. Any remaining doubt that the hovercraft, in United Kingdom law, is a distinct type of vehicle will be removed when a further order has been made, as we intend to do shortly, bringing into operation Section 4(3) of the Act, which provides that a hovercraft shall not be treated as a ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, except to the extent that this was already specifically provided for when the Act was passed.

The enactments and instruments which are applied to hovercraft by this order fall into a number of categories which I shall attempt briefly to describe. These enactments and instruments, with the modifications it has been felt necessary to make, are given in Articles 4 to 9 and the associated Schedules 1 to 4. First there are enactments and instruments dealing with shipping and navigation. For instance, the order applies to hovercraft parts of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, dealing with the avoidance of collisions at sea, with the carriage of dangerous goods, and with the investigation of casualties. The modified Collision Regulations applied to hovercraft require, for example, that when under way and supported on the air cushion, they shall carry an amber light flashing 60 times a minute visible all round at a distance of at least five miles. It also brings together the provisions in a number of enactments and instruments relating to wreck, salvage and distress and applies them, with modifications, to hovercraft.

There is another group of enactments and instruments which the order applies to hovercraft. These regulate the carriage of animals and plants in ships and aircraft, and the same regulations will therefore now apply to hovercraft.

Next, the order applies parts of enactments relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force and applies the appropriate National Insurance legislation to hovercraft.

In this connection, I should draw the attention of the House to a slight printing error on page 11 of the draft order. The reference to paragraph (2), in brackets, of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1965, should be without brackets. There should also be a closed bracket after "1972" in the same sentence. This will be corrected when the order is made.

The aviation legislation which the order applies to hovercraft includes parts of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, which will give harbour and conservancy authorities certain powers to make by-laws and will enable the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make regulations on the registration of births, deaths and missing persons on or from hovercraft.

Section 27 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1971, is also applied and the effect of this will be to require the Civil Aviation Authority, which is being given the function of certifying the safety of hovercraft in the Hovercraft (General) Order, 1972, to consult with the Airworthiness Requirements Board on technical matters connected with this function.

Finally, the order applies the Insurance Companies Acts, 1958 to 1967, to hovercraft, thus enabling the business of insuring hovercraft to be classified for the purposes of those Acts, and substitutes the word "hovercraft" in certain existing enactments where the term "hover vehicles" has been used.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness)

The vehicle to which this Statutory Instrument relates has been developed more rapidly than any other form of transport. It has been changed from a highly experimental prototype to a competitive commercial service vehicle on international ferry routes in a single decade.

Those who are developing and operating the hovercraft are enthusiasts. They are convinced that it is a vehicle with a wonderful future, and the spirit one finds in talking to them can evoke only admiration. It is therefore all the more disappointing that the legislation reflects none of this spirit.

In the first instance, the legislation fails to grasp the difficult but vital problem of definition. Article 2 of the order, headed "Application", does no more than to say that hovercraft are not hovertrains. So, for a definition of the vehicle, one is forced back to the Hovercraft Act, 1968, and the definition there is so wide that it can virtually be applied to any air cushion vehicle.

It has been apparent for years that there are many other applications of the air cushion principle than for marine hovercraft. Cross-country hovertrailers have been developed to move loads where conventional methods of transport cannot be used. In fact, the pipes which will carry the North Sea gas through Scotland have been placed on and taken across bog land by hovertrailers as they are able to operate in areas where wheeled vehicles have been lost beneath the surface.

A hovertrailer has been developed for the purpose of recovering disabled aircraft. In fact, prior to this development, sometimes more damage was done to aircraft in trying to bring them in from the places where they had inadvertently landed than by the crashes themselves.

Those developments of the air cushion principle covered by the definition in the 1968 Act are totally inappropriate to be embraced by regulations such as those in the present order. Yet there is no doubt that Article 2 will catch all such applications of the air cushion principle. In addition, there have been methods developed for moving large tanks to position them at oil refineries using the same principle, and these also are caught by the order.

It is essential that an attempt should be made to settle on a satisfactory definition. Otherwise, we shall apply to developments and applications of the air cushion principle undesirable restrictions which would put a brake on a valuable line of advance.

I do not wish to make only destructive criticism, so I come now to a way in which, I suggest, the matter can be resolved. I suggest that a provision be added to Article 2 making clear that the whole order applies only to those hovercraft which have installed within them the means of providing their own airlift and have installed on them the means of providing their own traction. If that were done, it would at once divide those hovercraft with which we should be concerned from all the other applications of the principle which should be subject to a different kind of regulation.

Articles 4, 5 and 6 invoke the provisions of about 57 Acts of Parliament apart from the original Act and 96 Statutory Instruments. It is hardly a tidy way to legislate. Hovercraft operators will need a law library on their shelves to ascertain what constitutes legal operation of hovercraft. The main beneficiaries, it seems to me, will be the lawyers. I do not envy the task of any hovercraft operator who sets out to read all the statutes listed in the Schedules to find out how he is affected.

One is almost tempted to suggest there should be a major consolidation Measure even before we have got through the principal orders to be laid under the Hovercraft Act, 1968.

It is not stretching the truth to say that the only new law which the order brings into force is the requirement to show a flashing amber light capable of being seen 60 times a minute up to five miles away.

Article 7(1) provides that the Insurance Companies Acts, 1958 to 1967, shall have effect as if any reference therein to vessels or aircraft' included a reference to hovercraft". In those Acts, there is one case only where there is not the combined reference to vessels and aircraft. This point was taken up with the Department by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, and it is agreed that the meaning of "vessels or aircraft" is the same as "vessels and aircraft". Therefore, the only exclusion which will apply is the reference in Section 59(4)(e) of the Companies Act, 1967 relating to vessels alone.

That provision of the Companies Act has the effect of excluding aircraft, and, presumably, hovercraft now, from insurance against risks incidental to construction and repair for the purposes of Part II of the Companies Act. Is this intentional? Is it suggested that any contract of insurance for repair or construction of a hovercraft should be carried out without the restrictions applying to insurance under Part II of the Companies Act? If that is the intention it would seem to require some justification, particularly in view of the larger types of hovercraft that are being developed, and that can be envisaged. Since the definition, or lack of it, can be seen clearly in Article 2, this point should be explained before the order is approved.

On Article 7(2) I should like to know what consideration has been given to the need for the sort of expertise which is possessed by marine insurance underwriters in contracting insurance for hovercraft which operate on the sea. As I read the Article it would appear that it makes specific provision to allow a motor insurance company to work in this sphere. This might be desirable for hovercraft operating on land. But there is a special expertise needed in marine insurance, particularly in view of the salvage and other claims that can be involved. In addition, certain car insurance firms have not proved very reliable for car risks and therefore, for the public to feel totally safe about insurance when they travel on hovercraft, particularly over the sea, they might feel happier if they knew that the hovercraft was covered by a highly reputable marine insurance company.

As for the Schedules, I am interested in the application of the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act, 1949. It appears that a part of Section 23(3) is not being applied to hovercraft. That is the part about vessels being unsafe due to improper loading. Why is this provision deleted? Is there any evidence to suggest that loading might not be a factor in the safety of hovercraft? From the advice I was given by hovercraft pilots when I travelled with them to discover their attitude towards legislation. I was convinced that the opposite was the case and that the loading of hovercraft could be a very important factor in stability, in particular conditions of seaway. Its omission appears to require some explanation.

In the light of Article 9 dealing with the investigation of casualties, I hope the Minister will agree that it is appropriate to ask whether the Article has a special significance as a result of the capsizing of the SRN 6 hovercraft in the Solent in March with the loss of life. Hon. Members should know whether this hovercraft was operating in breach of the regulations that were then in force. I appreciate that this argument is equally applicable in other circumstances, but it appears to me to be appropriate here as well. This type of hovercraft was quite rightly considered a very safe vehicle and it capsized in what might well have been freak conditions. This raises serious questions, including that of whether the hovercraft was being operated in accordance with the regulations. It also poses the question whether the regulations then in operation were considered by the operators to be outdated by the fact that the hovercraft had been developed to a higher standard since the regulations were issued. It is fair to ask whether the operators were acting in breach of the regulations believing that they were outdated and that they had a vehicle which could be operated to higher standards.

I want to make it clear that I am not seeking to raise any fears about the safety of the SRN 6 hovercraft or any other hovercraft operated by British operators. Quite the contrary. The operating record, with the single exception of which I have spoken, is very creditable. But the House is entitled to know the outcome of the inquiry conducted by the Department. It is of the utmost importance that any doubt which remains as a result of that accident should be removed.

Legislation can make an important contribution to the development of the hovercraft as a very safe and convenient mode of transport. If we can do this and British developers of hovercraft can prove by operation in the difficult sea conditions around our coast the full potential of the hovercraft, it will not only benefit those who travel in it around our own coasts but will help it realise its proper export potential, to the economic benefit of the country.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Mark Woodnutt (Isle of Wight)

I am sorry the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) even suggested that there is anything in the order that has been put in because of the tragedy on the Solent. We all know that it was the intention way back in 1968, when we passed the Hovercraft Act, that it should be followed by such orders.

I have no doubt that the tragedy was because of freak conditions. I travelled over in another hovercraft exactly 20 minutes later with the managing director of Hovertravel, and although it was not very pleasant we landed without any difficulty. We know the technical explanation for what happened.

I do not think it it is charitable of the hon. Gentleman not to give the order a word of welcome, because his Government had two years to introduce such an order, which should have been introduced long ago. The hon. Gentleman wondered about any breach of regulations There were no regulations. The Act is just a shell, enabling the Government to introduce orders to lay down regulations.

I have taken the trouble since the order became available to send copies to every manufacturer—the Isle of Wight is the home of hovercraft—and to all the operators, asking them for their comments. I have had no adverse comments. I telephoned various people on Sunday afternoon as I had not heard from them to ask them whether they had any comments. They had all read the order thoroughly and had no word of criticism. This is very welcome.

My only criticism is that the order comes rather late. We should have had the situation clarified long ago as to which Acts applying to shipping and aircraft are applied to hovercraft.

The hon. Gentleman said the order should have been wider, and mentioned the air cushion principle that has been applied to moving things across the land—on farms and so on. But the major application of the hovercraft is an operational one across water, to take people across the Channel and across the Solent twetween the Isle of Wight and the mainland. It is clearly in that area that we must have the position clarified. That is precisely what the order does, and I welcome it.

11.55 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester)

For a number of years, there has been discussion about what a hovercraft is, and it is an ingenious solution that it should be both a ship, an aircraft and a motor vehicle. If that it what the Government want, so be it.

There is much good sense in page 15 of the order concerning the provisions of the regulations dealing with collision at sea. It is thoroughly practical and sensible.

One point which has not been made in the debate is that hovercraft are far too noisy. Cowes Harbour is intolerable when they are going in and out. I hope that in future developments manufacturers will devote a lot of attention to making them much quieter. They will be more acceptable to the public if they are.

I must comment on the exoctic titles of previous legislation. For example, the Importation of Cats and Dogs Order, 1928, and the Non-Indigenous Rabbits (Prohibition of Importation and Keeping) Order, are a comment on the way our legislation is handled in this House and show how urgent it is to rationalise a whole mass—or perhaps I should say, morass—of legislation.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest)

I reinforce the comment made by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) regarding cushioned vehicles which do not strictly fall under the heading of "hovercraft". The Managing Director of Air Cushion Equipment Limited, which includes Hover-trailers International Limited and Mackley Ace Limited, lives in my constituency and is responsible for precisely this type of vehicle. I am aware of the very difficult situation regarding the definition of a hovercraft. This sort of thing must arise when one is dealing with a technological innovation.

These hovertrailers have no motive power of their own. They rely upon a segmented skirt which provides a cushion of air on which they can travel, and this is really merely a means of replacing the wheel, the wing, the track or the hull of a normal vehicle. They are not, therefore, self-propelled. They carry no passengers. Nor do they operate on the public highway. They are used for some of the purposes described to us, like the moving of civil engineering equipment and construction material, pipe lines and oil rigs over rough or marshy ground. They are usually towed or sometimes winched.

The fact is that they could never be described as falling within the ambit of these regulations. Has my right hon. Friend given consideration to exempting this type of vehicle, which is really no more than a trailer, since it is always covered, wherever it operates, under a contractor's right of access or way leave and would not fall within these regulations? The company to which I have referred is engaged in a great deal of Government and export work and unless the law can be made clear in its case it may well find its own contracts in some difficulty. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider exempting such vehicles and making sure that they are not unduly affected by the regulations.

12 midnight.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I ought to mention that the hovertrain experiment is taking place largely within my constituency and that it is being speci- fically excluded from the order. The previous Government were mainly responsible for considerable confusion about the hovercraft generally, because they never made up their mind whether for licensing purposes it was to be regarded as a road vehicle or a seagoing vessel. I deply regret that this order does not include any reference to the question of whether a hovercraft should be dutiable from the point of view of fuel as though it were a road vehicle or a vessel. My view is that the future of the hovercraft is perhaps greater over land than over water. This order deals mainly with hovercraft travelling over water rather than land.

As I understand it, the reason for the hovertrain being excluded is that it will have a track of its own and the propulsion will also be different from the hovercraft we know so far. I believe that the form of propulsion will have a huge world-wide application, and I would regard this order as a temporary one at best. Sooner or later we shall have to have an order to cover hovertrains too. The form of propulsion of that vehicle may well be the future form of propulsion for hovercraft, certainly over land.

The great value of the order is that it has brought to the attention of Parliament the importance of this type of transportation, and my belief is that we are seeing this type of vehicle in its infancy. As the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) said, the speed with which this has come upon transportation is absolutely incredible when compared with other methods.

So far as this order regularises transport over sea I suppose it is all right, but I have some sympathy for those who say they are not entirely conversant with the Epizootic Lymphangitis Order of 1938 which I note is one of the orders which have been applied to hovercraft. There is a fantastic list of orders dating back a considerable number of years. I see one for 1919. The Sheep Scab Order of 1938 as amended is another which presumably affects the carriage of animals in a hovercraft. I have yet to learn that they are being used as goods vehicles. Maybe they will be in future.

Sooner or later we shall have to concentrate on carrying passengers at speeds passenger train, over large distances not considerably faster than the advanced only in the United Kingdom but more frequently on the Continent. As long as this order is accepted as being of a temporary nature and it is realised that we will have to debate hovercraft and hovertrains in a great deal more detail I give the order my blessing.

Mr. Noble

I welcome this short and interesting debate. I at once apologise to all those who have made the point tonight and to those reading this order, for the extraordinary complication of it. I was amazed by the hard work of the firms in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) who were able to comprehend it sufficiently to say that they understood it all perfectly on Sunday.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) asked about hovertrains. We will have to draft different regulations for them as soon as they get nearer to the development stage and are likely to be used.

It is true in general, as the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) said in opening, that this whole series of hovercraft projects is extremely exciting and, because they are developing in such a large number of ways more or less simultaneously, this order tries to deal with the immediate problems and to cover in general some of those types which are beginning to be used.

I can understand the worry of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) who asked about the type of equipment being manufactured by Air Cushion Equipment Limited. Many systems are hovercraft within the definition of the Hovercraft Act, 1968, and the orders will apply, and are intended to apply, to them. That is because in this area there is considerable development, but we recognise that the hazards arising from the operation' of some of the equipment my hon. Friend the Member for New Forset and the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness talked about are minimal compared with those associated with other types of hovercraft, and we are discussing with the manufacturers the extent to which we can give exemption to them from parts of the orders because we do not want this type of development to be held up.

The hon. Member for Barrow -in-Furness asked whether I could make a state- ment on the investigation into the recent accident in The Solent. I do not think I can do so yet. The investigation of the accident has taken longer than we anticipated at first, and it is still too early to say definitely why it happened. We are pressing on with the investigations as fast as possible and I will inform the House about them as soon as possible.

In the meantime, such lessons as have emerged from the inquiries have been fed back to the operators in order to minimise the risk of a repetition and appropriate conditions will be imposed in the operating permits, which will be issued under the Hovercraft (General) Order. 1972, reflecting the results of the inquiries.

In answer to other questions, improper loading is a factor in the safety of hovercraft. Great attention will be given to this in granting permits under the Hovercraft (General) Order, 1972, which comes into force on 26th June this year.

The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness asked about insurance. It is correct that insurance of the construction of hovercraft will be classified in the same way as the construction of aircraft rather than of vessels. It will not, therefore, be treated as marine, aviation and transport business, but as property insurance business. This was thought reasonable as the original construction of hovercraft was mainly undertaken by aviation interests. However, I understand that the definition of marine aviation in transport legislation as regards ships and hovercraft is due for revision in future companies legislation.

The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness asked whether we could be more specific about the definition of hovercraft, but to some extent the hon. Member has answered his own question by explaining how rapidly this type of machine is being developed. We have deliberately drawn the definition wide enough to include all vehicles using the principle of air cushion. He suggested an amendment of the order. That is not possible. The order must be accepted or rejected by the House, and I believe the House would like to accept this order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.