HL Deb 07 May 1964 vol 257 cc1333-51

3.22 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD

My Lords, the object of this Bill is to enable this country to accept the 1960 International Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea. I should at the outset declare an interest in this matter, both as a shipowner and as a member of the General Committee of Lloyd's Register of Shipping. But this also gives me the opportunity of assuring your Lordships that all those who, like myself, are interested in and affected by the Bill are, I believe, unanimous in supporting it.

The Convention of 1960 was the fourth of its kind. The first was called in 1914, under the shadow of the disaster to the "Titanic" two years earlier, but came to nothing because of the out- break of the First World War. The second Convention, of 1929, was accepted by 18 countries and lasted until the end of the Second World War. The Convention of 1948, to which effect was given in this country by the passage of the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act, 1949, came into force in 1952. It is adhered to by 71 countries besides this country, and its provisions are what govern these matters to-day.

The text of the 1960 Convention was laid before Parliament last December. It is an extremely voluminous document, and I am sure your Lordships would not wish me to attempt to deliver a lecture to you upon it. I shall, however, mention such matters in it as appear to be relevant to this particular Bill. The Convention will come into force when it has been accepted by 15 countries, including 7 each with more than one milloin tons of shipping. At the present time it has been accepted by 16 countries, but only by 6 with more than one million tons of shipping. When therefore, as I hope will be quite shortly, it can be accepted by the United Kingdom, it can come into force and will do so a year from that day.

Under the Act which I have already named, the provisions of the 1948 Convention were enforced in this country by rules made by Statutory Instrument by the Minister of Transport and subject to annulment by Resolution by the Houses of Parliament. It is proposed that the same general procedure should apply now in respect of the 1960 Convention. Indeed, consultations are, I believe, already taking place about the drafting of these rules between the Minister and the shipowners, the shipbuilders, the seafarers' union, Lloyd's Register of Shipping and other interested parties.

The powers conferred by the 1949 Act cover a great deal of what is required under this Convention, and therefore Clause 1 of the Bill requires that the existing powers under that Act shall give effect to this Convention instead of the Convention of 1948 which, on this Convention coming into force, will be denounced. There are, however, certain major changes, and these result in the need for this Bill. The first applies to cargo ships. Under the 1960 Convention there is a new requirement calling for international regulations in regard to the construction of the hull, machinery and equipment of cargo ships; for periodical surveys to ensure that those regulations are carried out; and for the issue of certificates as evidence that the surveys have proved satisfactory. Clauses 2 to 7 of this Bill deal with the means of giving effect to this.

Clause 2 empowers the Minister to make rules for cargo ships which shall conform to the requirements of the Convention governing surveys and their frequency—the frequency not being laid down by the Convention. It also defines the ships affected. These are British ships and foreign ships while in United Kingdom ports, and, broadly speaking, cargo ships falling into the category of 500 gross tons or more. This clause does, however, go beyond the minimum requirements of the Convention in two respects. The first is that it applies not only to ships engaged on international voyages. It appears somewhat ridiculous that a situation should exist in which a ship plying between, shall we say, Folkestone and Boulogne, requires to be surveyed under this Convention whereas a ship making a long coastwise voyage round the United Kingdom, through waters which are certainly no less dangerous, should not be subject to such a requirement. It is therefore proposed to provide for coastwise shipping equivalent requirements to those needed for international shipping. The second way in which the clause goes beyond the Convention is that it empowers the Minister to apply these rules to ships below 500 gross tons and down to 300 gross tons.

Clause 3 empowers the Minister to allow other persons or bodies to act for him in surveying ships and issuing certificates. The Minister has already stated his intention to delegate these powers to the classification societies—that is to say, Lloyd's Register of Shipping and the British committees of certain other navigation societies who already carry out similar surveys for their own purposes, the purposes of underwriters and others—and also to provide that, generally speaking, the frequency of the surveys called for under the Convention shall be made to coincide with the frequency of those which are also carried out by the classification societies, thus avoiding what otherwise would be a burdensome duplication. I hope the Minister will be able to say that on this matter, as in the matter of drawing up the rules, he will proceed in consultation with those concerned. The certificates issued following the surveys are in general in force for five years, but the Bill provides power to extend the period by one year, if the Minister should be satisfied that technically it is reasonable and proper to do so.

Clause 5 prohibits ships from putting to sea without proper certificates. Clause 6 provides for accepting equivalent certificates issued by foreign authorities of countries parties to the Convention. And Clause 7 provides penalties for non-compliance, of which the maximum is a fine of £500 on indictment. It also gives power to detain ships seeking to put to sea without being in possession of the proper certificates. So much for cargo ships.

In regard to passenger ships, which are perhaps of more general interest, as your Lordships may remember, the rules for their construction already exist under the 1949 Act. Broadly speaking, once that Act is made to apply to the 1960 Convention, all will be done that is needed to continue in that way. There are, however, two additions, one perhaps a minor one but not without its importance, which empower the Minister to make rules for improving the stability of ships when damaged, and in particular for the exhibition in the ship of a damage control plan which will be a guidance to the master as to which compartments in the ship he should flood or pump out in order to maintain the greatest possible degree of stability should he unfortunately suffer damage.

Your Lordships may remember the catastrophe involving the "Andrea Doria" which was in collision off New York some years ago. That was an object lesson in the need for this sort of thing, since it appears to have been established that the loss of that ship was primarily due to loss of stability when in a damaged condition, which might conceivably, had those on board known enough at the time, have been corrected.

Clause 9, which deals with passenger ships, incorporates a major change. Under the 1948 Convention inflatable liferafts were not acceptable. Since that date a great deal of progress has been made in design and in gaining experience in the use of inflatable life rafts, in which indeed this country has taken a lead. It is now proposed under the 1960 Convention that they should be recognised and so take their place among the safety appliances available for both passenger and cargo ships. The 1948 Convention require passenger ships to have boats sufficient for all on board and buoyant apparatus sufficient for a quarter of those on board. That apparatus was of a rigid kind. Broadly speaking, as some of your Lordships may know from painful experience, it is difficult to climb on board it and almost impossible to keep dry when you are there.

The advantage of the inflatable raft is that, under most conditions, it has a canopy over it, and once you are in it you are protected from the elements to a very much greater degree than is possible in a rigid, buoyant life-raft and even more than is possible in a lifeboat. The 1960 Convention, accordingly, allows the buoyant apparatus for a quarter of those on board a passenger ship to be of an inflatable type, and also allows that a quarter of the accommodation required to be provided in boats under the Convention may be provided, instead, in inflatable life-rafts,provided—and this is an important proviso—that suitable launching arrangements for those rafts exist.

For cargo ships, the new rule calls for boats for all on board on each side of the ship, and, in addition, inflatable life-rafts for half of those on board. It is probably true to say that advance in the design and use of inflatable life-rafts was one of the major reasons for calling together this particular Convention at this time. There are two major problems in their use. The first, naturally enough, is that, once having been inflated, they should stay so and retain their buoyancy. For all practical purposes that is solved by the improvement of the materials of which they are constructed, by ready means of repairing leaks, and so on.

The second important problem is to enable those who may need to do so to get into them and, if possible, to get into them dry. That is why the launching requirement is so extremely important, particularly for passenger ships. Many lives have been saved in fishing vessels by inflatable life-rafts, but there you are dealing with hardy men who are not beyond jumping into the sea and climbing into a life-raft if they have to. It would be unreasonable to expect, shall we say, frail old ladies, awoken in the middle of the night and clad in their night attire, to do the same. Therefore, the increased substitution of boats by life-rafts is made conditional upon proper methods of launching being provided for them.

If I may venture to express a personal hope, it is that these means will be rapidly improved and brought to a point where they can in fact be regarded as reasonably satisfactory. I can assure your Lordships that a very great deal of work to that end is being done at the present time. If there be an awkward craft, it is certainly the ship's lifeboat. It is heavy, it is large, it is extremely uncomfortable. Under conditions where it is necessary to abandon a ship, she is apt to be listing to such a degree that it may be difficult or even impossible to launch many lifeboats from one side of the ship. They cannot, as an inflatable life-raft often can, be moved across the deck to the side at which they are required. Therefore I hope that development on these lines will proceed rapidly. Should it be thought that the Convention can be modified to take account of this, there are provisions in the Convention for revision.

I next turn to the part of the Bill which deals with radio. Here the changes include a requirement for radio telegraphic or radio telephonic apparatus in ships down to as small as 300 gross tons. This is important for two reasons: in the first place to enable the ships themselves more readily to communicate, but, even more important, to extend the network of communication between ships at sea, which, as recent casualties show, is one of the principle means of ensuring that when a casualty occurs the victims of it can be quickly picked up, rescued, dried and generally cared for. Anything, therefore, which extends the area of communications between ships at sea has, in that way, an important bearing on the safety of all seafarers. The Bill also has a requirement for portable radio apparatus in lifeboats and rafts, as well as for the inspection of such apparatus in the ships themselves.

The remaining provisions, which are of a more miscellaneous kind, cover such matters as inclining tests to determine stability and a requirement, which may be of interest to your Lordships, to report certain dangerous weather conditions for navigation, of which there are two. The first concerns air temperatures below freezing point associated with gale force winds causing severe ice accretion on the superstructure of ships. Your Lordships will have noticed, I am sure, that more than one fishing vessel is thought to have been lost at sea under precisely those conditions, and anything which can enable such ships to avoid such conditions by knowing where they exist is obviously of great value. The second requirement is rather like the first. It is a requirement to report winds of force 10 or above on the Beaufort Scale for which no storm warning has been broadcast.

Clause 17 of the Bill is not, perhaps, directly concerned with the Convention. It is designed to clear up a point which was possibly left obscure under Section 271(1) of the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act, which is referred to in this Bill as the principal Act, as to the definition of a passenger ship. This point was also raised by a judgment in the Courts in 1961. In order, therefore, to put the matter beyond doubt, the new clause is inserted which makes it quite clear that any ship carrying more than twelve passengers will in fact be subject to the rules for passenger ships. The most likely immediate effect of this will be to bring unmistakably under those rules the small vessels which ply round the coasts, mainly on pleasure trips in the summer carrying holidaymakers, and a few small ferries. Generally speaking, they are what are perhaps more accurately described as very large launches, and this clause will ensure that they carry the safety apparatus appropriate for a passenger ship. This is certainly a step in the right direction, and one which I feel sure your Lordships will welcome.

There is, of course, a great deal more in the Convention than those matters to which I have referred. But, interesting and important as they are, I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with them this afternoon because, in fact, the necessary powers are already in existence to deal with them—at any rate to deal with such of them as are of immediate concern. So, my Lords, this Convention is the latest in a chain which has been progressively increasing the safety of life at sea over a great number of years.

I think, to get the matter in perspective, it is fair to say that life at sea is very often in less jeopardy than life on shore. Indeed, I believe a calculation was made some time ago which showed that a man who spent the whole of his days as a fare-paying passenger in a British passenger ship, without ever exposing himself to the perils of the shore, might have a purely statistical expectation of life considerably in excess of 800 years. That calculation having been made some time ago, I would expect that the figure is even higher to-day.

It will probably never be possible to construct an unsinkable ship. Indeed, if we could do so I should expect it would have to be so subdivided as to be almost incapable of carrying passengers and quite incapable of carrying cargo. It is, therefore, a matter not so much of starting from the point of view that ships ought to be unsinkable, but of starting from the point of view that they have tasks to perform and services to render, and of ensuring so far as possible that these are done in the safest possible way. We cannot avoid trouble completely, but at least we can do more and more to minimise the consequences of it when it comes. This Convention, I think, is a notable step forward in that direction. The passage of this Bill will enable this country to accept it, and thus enable it to come immediately into force after the prescribed delay. I hope very much, therefore, that the Bill will meet with your Lordships' approval. I beg leave to move that this Bill be read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Runciman of Doxford.)

3.46 p.m.

LORD HOBSON

My Lords, I am sure we are all indebted to the noble Viscount for his very lucid speech in moving the Second Reading of this important Bill. With his wide experience and control of a very valuable, modern and safe fleet of ships, I think he has been an admirable choice to move what is, after all, a Private Member's Bill. I want to assure your Lordships that full co-operation will be given by my noble friends in the passing of this Bill, and, so far as I can see, if one or two points are cleared the Committee stage could very well be formal.

This Bill ratifies the International Convention of 1960 dealing with safety at sea, and is therefore to replace the 1948 Convention which was ratified in the 1949 Act. I think the sponsors of this Private Member's Bill are to be congratulated on their success in getting it here for a Second Reading in your Lordships' House. It has certainly not suffered the fate which Private Members' Bills often do. I have had experience of them myself, and such Bills usually get a very polite Second Reading in the other place. Then they are sent upstairs and—I am told, colloquially—they have their throats cut.

I do not want to appear peevish or churlish, but certainly it has taken the Government a very long time to ratify this Convention. I want to pose the question: Would the Government have ratified; it if there had not been a Private Member's Bill readily available? After all, what the Government did was to take up time, Private Members' time, in another place and then they arranged through the usual channels, very conveniently and quite rightly, to put in this Bill a clause which ratifies the Convention. But we are interested to know whether the Government would have intended to do so before the Election, if this Private Member's Bill had not conveniently come along.

I think their action compares very unfavourably with that of the Labour Government, because we had a Convention for Safety at Sea in 1948. The Labour Government ratified it in 1949, which was quick action. I feel constrained to say that, as a leading maritime nation, we should give the lead in these matters. I really feel that it was incumbent on Her Majesty's present advisers to take steps to have this Convention ratified at a much earlier opportunity. After all, there are many Acts which are nothing like so important as this one, and if there had been less time spent on legislation dealing with the legalising of betting, for instance, we could have had this ratified many years ago.

I was particularly pleased to see that the nations which have signed this Convention include Liberia and Panama, which are countries that operate flags of convenience. It is very pleasing to see that they have signed it, because at least trading conditions will be to a certain extent more favourable. It is interesting, en passant, to realise that the Greeks, also, have signed this Convention. I do not want to say anything more than that at this moment, in view of the fact that proceedings concerning a certain disaster are sub judice, but, nevertheless, I think one is entitled to make merely that interpolation.

I want to deal first with Clause 14, which, to my mind, is the only clause that has aroused certain doubts. Clause 14(2) deals with determining the stability of ships by means of the inclining test. This is very important indeed, because I am sure your Lordships will remember that many years ago the s.s. "Waratah", a brand new vessel on its maiden voyage, while sailing from Durban to Australia, just disappeared in very calm water. Why that happened nobody knows, though there were inquiries; but there were conjectures that it was due to lack of stability, and I think that the final proof of that was in the examination of her sister ship.

This is a very important clause indeed, which deals with the inclining test for stability. Clause 14(3)(a) says that the Minister may in the case of any ship, allow the information to be based on the determination, by means of an inclining test, of the stability of a sister ship". That is perfectly understandable because if two ships are alike, sister ships, it is very easy to test one against the other, and to have the plans for the respective ships. But then the Bill goes on in subsection (3)(b) to say that there is not to be the same test with regard to ships carrying liquids or ore in bulk. There is an entirely different phraselogy in regard to them. The phrase used is, in respect of similar ships". I do not quite understand why there has been this deviation and this difference, and I should like some explanation on that.

Clause 3 deals with the safety construction certificate and exemption, but presumably this does not apply to boilers, engines or auxiliary machinery. I take it that it applies only to the hull and to the in-built safety devices. What is the position with regard to engines, boilers and auxiliary machinery?—because all these, particularly boilers, are already subject to annual test. Is the position here to be entirely different? Is the existing legislation, which was really based on insurance, to continue, or is the Bill to include that? I think this is a very important point indeed, because I should not like to think that it was possible for machinery to appear in the same category as hulls in regard to examination.

With the life-saving clauses, of course, we on this side of the House are in complete agreement; and, as the noble Viscount has said, the provision of inflatable rafts is unquestionably a great step forward. We had a tremendous amount of experience during the war not only so far as R.A.F. pilots were concerned, but, indeed, with the men of the Merchant Navy. Thousands were saved as a result, and it is very pleasing to note this that provision has been made.

It was also interesting to hear that, so far as the cross-Channel steamers are concerned, inflatable rafts are already provided as a result of agreement between the British and the French railways. That is most important. There is no doubt that the inflatable raft is in many cases an improvement on the lifeboat. That does not mean to say that we do not need lifeboats, but anybody who has been to sea or who has any experience of the sea knows the difficulties, even in normal conditions, when a ship is not in jeopardy, of lowering a lifeboat. You get a fouling of the falls, and it does not always hit the sea plumb. And, of course, when the ship is in trouble and there is a list it is very often quite impossible to lower lifeboats either on the port or on the starboard sides. There is not the slightest shadow of doubt that, as a result of this provision in regard to inflatable rafts, many hundreds will owe their lives to them should another disaster occur.

There is just one interesting point here on the question of the provision of lifeboats on ships. It seems strange, although I think I know the reason, that, so far as a cargo ship is concerned, there must be adequate lifeboat accommodation for the crew both on the port and on the starboard sides. So far as passenger ships are concerned, of course, that does not appertain. That is understandable, because where liners are concerned it is impossible to provide that number of lifeboats. Therefore, this is where the inflatable raft comes in. But it has always been interesting to me as to why this provision was specially made as regards cargo ships.

On the question of fire, which I consider to be the greatest hazard at sea, I am glad to see that it is now going to be compulsory for new ships to be fitted with sprinklers. There has got to be provision, unquestionably, for foam and CO2 for dealing with oil and electrical fires—and, from a recent review of ships which caught fire, it was seen that in many cases it was due to electrical faults. In one modern ship quite recently, if there had not been up-to-date fire appliances and the provision of CO2 the results of a fire would have been disastrous indeed. Those are provisions which we welcome.

I was very interested to listen to the noble Viscount's remarks—he has wide experience in these matters—on the provision of bulkheads in ships. It is perfectly true that it is almost impossible to build an unsinkable ship, but I think your Lordships and the noble Viscount will agree that the Germans nearly did so when they constructed the "Bismarck". If ever any ship took punishment, she did: it was almost impossible to put her down into the sea. There is no doubt that the honeycombing (compartmentalising, if you like) of ships adds to their safety. By Clause 8 we are to have plans of the bulkheads made available to the passengers. I suppose this it to prevent them from getting trapped if the bulkheads are in some cases automatically closed; but I am not at all sure—and I do not know whether regulations are to be laid before your Lordships' House on this matter—whether there ought not to be some standard so far as passenger ships are concerned with regard to the number of bulkheads that are made available. In the case of dire trouble it would unquestionably preserve the life of a ship for a considerable period. But there do not seem to be any fast and firm regulations contemplated with regard to the provision of watertight bulkheads in passenger ships, and I think this is something to which the Governments in power will have to pay some attention.

We are very pleased to see that the radio requirements are strengthened, for the reasons which the noble Viscount has pointed out. As he rightly says, there would probably have been many lives saved if smaller ships had been compelled to be fitted with radio means of communication, and to lower the tonnage to 300 tons for provision of radio is, I think, a progressive step. I say that because, particularly on the converging trade routes, at the entrances to the major ports of the world, there are very often collisions, particularly in bad weather, and if small ships are there and they have the necessary radio communication, help can rapidly come. We are also very pleased to see that the new standards will apply to existing ships in so far as they refer to life-saving appliances. There is no doubt that many of the recommendations, particularly with regard to fire-fighting, for instance, and built-in safeguards, will be carried out when ships come in for refit or reconstruction, and that they will be assembled in the vessel.

Another interesting point, and one that particularly reassured us, is that we shall have the power to detain foreign ships coming into our ports if they do not have the certificate that every ship whose country of origin is a signatory of the Convention now carries. I think this is a very important point, because we never know which ships flying foreign flags may come in; and it is only fair to our own people, who maintain a high standard, that we should have certain penal powers. That is unquestionably to be welcomed. Finally, I think this is an excellent measure and it will improve the standards of safety for all who go to sea, whether they be passengers or that great body of men, the Merchant Navy, to whom we owe so much and without whom we could not exist.

4.2 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords may I add just a word? I am something of a maritime lawyer, although a very amateur one. I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Hobson said about the importance of this Bill. Obviously it is a very important Bill, and I do not want to take up further time in going over the items expounded to your Lordships by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, this afternoon. I would, however, emphasise what has been said by my noble friend Lord Hobson about the delay over this business. It might well be that as a result of this delay many lives might have been lost. This is not the only occasion on which this Government have been very remiss in carrying out international Conventions in the negotiations of which we have played a very important part, and have left it to Private Members to introduce the legislation to carry them into effect. It is really quite inexcusable that we should have to wait as long as this and for it to be done in this way.

In the past that has not always been so; although it is true that Captain Plimsoll struggled year after year to get the Plimsoll Line established. No doubt this country from that time became a leader in this business of safety of life at sea. I think that from that time our record has been honourable; but we cannot really look with much gratification at what has happened during these last years, when all these other countries have ratified this Convention before we have done so. We shall be merely the seventh of the big maritime Powers—we, with our great history, who were for a long time the greatest maritime State in the world, and even now we are one of the greatest—to ratify this Convention. It is inexcusable that we should have had to wait so long.

I was glad to hear what my noble friend said, and I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, and those with him, in getting this Bill drafted. No doubt the Government have given them help, but it was the least they could do. I do not think the Government have any reason to congratulate themselves, and I hope that in future in a case of this sort they will get off the mark much more rapidly.

4.5 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Runciman of Doxford has introduced this Bill so clearly and so well that there is not much left for me to add. I would say at once that the Bill has whole-hearted Government support and, as my noble friend said, we shall give the terms of the Convention effect by means of rules made by Statutory Instrument. I say that only to repeat clearly the assurance that these rules will be made in full consultation with the people and bodies interested: the Chamber of Shipping, the seafarers' unions, the Shipbuilding Conference, Lloyd's Register of Shipping, and so on.

When new regulations of this kind are made it seems to me that one of the most important questions is the extent to which existing ships will have to comply. The Convention deals with that; and, while leaving certain discretion with the Governments to go further, it says that where a ship's construction is concerned alterations will not in general be required except, of course, where a ship is undergoing major repairs and it can reasonably be done; but that a ship's life-saving equipment will be examined and attempts will be made to bring the ship up to 1960 standards as far and as soon as is reasonable and practicable. That is nothing new. It is a formula, an almost hallowed one now, which has been written in earlier Conventions. Again—and this is what my noble friend wanted to know from me—as in former cases, it will certainly be discussed and debated between the Ministry and the bodies concerned.

I want to say just a word or two about Chapter VIII in the Convention, about the safety of nuclear ships. The mandatory requirements are in general terms; but, as your Lordships will have noticed, there is no corresponding provision in the present Bill. This, in fact, is deliberate, and it arises from the view of the Government that legislation on this matter at the present time would be lengthy, premature and certainly controversial. I am certain that the fact that the provision is not in the Bill will not affect, one way or the other, any future plans for nuclear ships; neither will it, so we are advised, inhibit our acceptance of the Convention. If your Lordships pass the Bill, as I hope you will, we intend to accept the 1960 Convention along with an undertaking that we accept the provisions of Chapter VIII in principle, and also that we will legislate for the safety of nuclear ships when the need arises. On top of that, I can assure your Lordships that this legislation will in any case be laid before you before we operate any nuclear ships of our own.

My Lords, I will refer for a moment to what my noble friend Viscount Runciman of Doxford said about Clause 3(1). From the point of view of the shipping industry one of the most important innovations will be the issuing of certificates relating to the hull, equipment and machinery of cargo ships. We propose to authorise approved Classification Societies to do this on our behalf, and I agree with him that this is in the interests of economy and convenience. I think noble Lords will agree that Lloyd's Register has a world-wide reputation for professional competence and integrity, and, with my noble friend, I can certainly see no advantage in duplicating their work. There is always the safeguard that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport remains responsible to Parliament for all matters relating to safety of life at sea, including, of course, what he authorises the Classification Societies to do on his behalf.

Clause 2(3)(b) seeks powers by Statutory Instrument to extend the application of cargo ship rules to cargo ships below 500 gross tons. I can assure noble Lords that it is not my right honourable friend's intention to use his powers under this clause unless he is satisfied that the interests of safety require it, and then he will use them only after the fullest consultation with all those concerned. There has been criticism from noble Lords opposite. The noble Lords, Lord Hobson and Lord Chorley, chided the Government with being slow in on this matter.

LORD SILKIN

Hear, hear!

LORD CHESHAM

A criticism with which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, evidently agrees. Therefore, I include him when I say to noble Lords that this matter should be seen in perspective. There has been a shortage of Parliamentary time. Your Lordships are fully aware that the Government have had an extensive legislative programme, which has affected not one but almost every aspect of our national life, and of that programme my right honourable friend and his Ministry have had a very considerable share. I did not want to give a riposte to the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, on a Party basis, as he attempted to do, but will merely concentrate my mind on the difference between the programme I have mentioned and what was, or was not, going on round about 1948.

We must not exaggerate this delay. This is a trap into which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has fallen, hook, line and sinker. It is not surprising that he made the maximum of that point. Noble Lords have said that it would have been much better if the Convention had been ratified before now; but if we had ratified it, say, two years ago the Convention would have come into force in August of this year. As it is, the Convention will almost certainly come into force in May of next year. Therefore, if a plea is necessary, I must plead guilty to a delay of nine months, but of a delay of 3½ years, I am not guilty. What is important now is that this Bill should reach the Statute Book as soon as it can, so that we are able to deposit our acceptance of the Convention and make arrangements for it to be applied in this country, when it does come into force. I hope that your Lordships will enable that to be done.

4.14 p.m.

VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD

My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who have spoken, including my noble friend Lord Chesham, for the reception they have given to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hobson, raised a number of technical points and I think that perhaps I can reassure him to some extent. He said that he understood why passenger ships could not have sufficient lifeboats on either side, but rather wondered (if I caught him aright) why cargo boats have. The answer is that it is really largely a matter of space. The noble Lord will find that the average large lifeboat may well be sufficient to carry all the crew of a small cargo ship, but it is only reasonable to have one on each side to give the crew that much extra chance.

The noble Lord expressed fear about maintenance standards and the inspection of engines, machinery and other equipment on ships. I think that I can safely assure him that the result of this Convention will certainly not be to lower those standards, and even, in the unlikely event of the Minister's being so remiss as to seek to do so, I have a shrewd suspicion that the underwriters would bring sufficient pressure on the Classification Societies to ensure that no such thing was done. Therefore, I do not think that in practice there is the least risk of standards being other than improved.

The noble Lord also asked about bulkheads and whether it might be possible to lay down requirements in that regard. Of course, it is extremely difficult, with the enormous variety of types of ship and the number of different purposes for which they are constructed, to draw up rules which could possibly be right for all of them. The most generally adopted criterion, though, for the number of bulkheads is how many compartments of the ship can be flooded without endangering the stability of the whole and I think that the rules will be framed and, indeed, judged by that standard of measurement.

Finally, the noble Lord asked about Clause 14(3)(b) and wondered why ships specifically designed for the carriage of liquids and ore in bulk should apparently be let off more lightly in the matter of inclining tests than other vessels. The answer, I think, is to be found in the Convention itself, which refers to ships whose …proportions and arrangements are such as to ensure more than sufficient stability. In fact, iron ore is a very heavy cargo and any ship which carries it is bound to have a high degree of stability. The same is true for liquids in bulk. This is, therefore, a perfectly safe and reliable, practical solution to what is, as a matter of fact, not a very difficult problem, because in the carriage of iron ore, in particular, one of the problems which besets the shipowner is not to make his ship so stable as to be almost unendurably uncomfortable in a seaway. The opposite extreme, to which the noble Lord referred, is the case of "Waratah", a passenger ship carrying no heavy cargo. I think I must venture to correct the noble Lord, who said that she sank in a calm. It may well have been that there was no great wind blowing, but she was in the Agulhas Current, where the swell is very large, and the best guess that I believe was able to be made of the cause was that she developed a rhythmic roll in that swell, which finally turned her over. I think that the noble Lord may be quite assured that under this Convention there will be no more "Waratahs".

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.