HL Deb 20 April 1967 vol 282 cc341-52

4.40 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I am sorry to have to inflict myself once again on those few remaining of your Lordships who are hardy enough to persevere at this "late hour". I wish now to move that the Merchant Shipping (Load Lines) Bill be read a second time. The object of this Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to accept the International Convention on Load Lines which was signed on April 5, 1966, at the close of an International Conference attended by representatives from 52 countries, while a further 8 countries sent observers. The new Convention will come into force internationally one year from the date when 15 countries have accepted it, including among them at least seven countries with one million or more tons of shipping. So far, ten countries have accepted it, including four—the Soviet Union, Panama, U.S.A. and France—with over one million tons of shipping. Five more acceptances are necessary, therefore, in order for this date to be fixed. If the present Bill is passed the United Kingdom will be able to accept the Convention. This will not only bring forward the date when it comes into force, but also put us into a far better position then to persuade other Governments to ratify.

During the preparation for the Conference, and at the Conference itself, we were greatly helped in preparing and in presenting the United Kingdom contribution by all sides of industry, including the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping, the Shipbuilding Conference, Lloyd's Register of Shipping and the seafarers' organisations. I should like to pay tribute to their co-operation, which contributed significantly to the effectiveness of our arguments and, I am sure, enabled the United Kingdom to play a major part in the Conference discussions. As a result the new Convention is a substantial step forward from the existing Convention of 1930.

Since 1930 there have been many changes in shipbuilding techniques and in other matters which affect load lines, so naturally the 1930 Convention, valuable though it is, is slightly in need of revision. First, there is now the steel hatch cover. Not only is this in itself a vast improvement over the sectional wood hatch cover, but it has the additional advantage—and a very significant one—that it is unlikely to require attention in bad weather. This obviously reduces the occasions when the crew are likely to have to go on deck when the weather is bad. Secondly, there have been changes in shipbuilding techniques which have very significantly improved the strength of hulls. Provided that a ship's hull has adequate strength, and provided that she is provided with steel hatch covers, under the 1966 Convention there is a reduction in freeboard of as much as 10 per cent. for ships of over 500 feet in length.

The 1930 Convention allowed tankers, because of their special form of construction, to be loaded more deeply than other ships, and there is universal agreement that this decision was a right one. The 1966 Convention considered that the larger tankers could be still more deeply loaded. As with other ships, there will be no deeper loading for tankers of less than about 330 feet in length, but for tankers of about 500 feet there is a reduction in freeboard of approximately 10 per cent., rising to a reduction of approximately 15 per cent. for tankers of about 1,000 feet in length. Of course, in 1930 tankers of that size were not heard of. I may mention that the 1930 Convention laid down basic freeboards for tankers of up to only 600 feet in length and for other ships of up to only 750 feet, whereas the 1966 Convention lays down basic freeboards for all ships of up to 1,200 feet in length.

I should like now to turn to an equally important matter, and that is protection of the crew. Throughout these discussions both the Board of Trade and the seafarers' organisations have had very much in mind the effect of these reduced freeboards on the amount of water which can be washed on the deck, and in particular the need for protection for the crew. For this reason no ship with sectional wood covers will be allowed to load more deeply than at present. But where steel covers are used, the number of occasions when the crew will be required to go on deck in bad weather will, as I have said, be much reduced. Secondly, the new Convention lays down for the first time a minimum height of bow so that there will be sufficient freeboard to prevent shipping too much water. Thirdly, the Convention lays down for the first time a minimum height of guard rail—in fact, 1 metre, or over 39 inches. Fourthly, the crew must be protected in getting to and from their quarters and the ship's working spaces. Moreover, special additional precautions are called for on tankers. Now moving on to zones of the sea, the 1930 Convention divided the oceans and seas of the world into seasonal zones in accordance with the weather likely to be met there. These zones have now been revised in the 1966 Convention in the light of our far better meteorological knowledge.

I now turn to the provisions of the Bill itself. Clause 1 applies the provisions of the Bill to all ships other than warships, ships solely engaged in fishing and pleasure yachts. Load line requirements never have applied to these ships, and they are specifically excluded from the application of the Convention. Annexed to the Convention itself are fifty-two detailed Regulations, and these technical requirements will be given effect to in load line rules which the Board of Trade may make under Clause 2. These rules will be drawn up in full consultation with all concerned, including, of course, the Chamber of Shipping, the Shipbuilding Conference, Lloyd's Register of Shipping and the seafarers' organisations. Under Clause 30(3) these rules will be exercisable by statutory instrument and subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of parliament.

Clauses 3 to 11 contain what are in effect the enforcement provisions of the Bill applicable to ships registered in the United Kingdom. They will ensure that ships are surveyed, marked and comply with the technical requirements of the rules, hold the required certificates and are not overloaded. Clause 9 will ensure that they produce the right certificates before they leave port. Clauses 12 to 17 apply with the necessary modifications these earlier provisions to ships other than those registered in the United Kingdom when they are in the United Kingdom ports. But, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, the full requirements will not apply to them if they can produce a valid Convention certificate.

There are certain powers of exemption in the Bill. These give the Board of Trade certain limited powers of exemption. The classes of exemption fall into two categories. First there are the circumstances where the Convention itself calls for exemption. These are set out in Clause 18(1) (which is a repetition of an existing power under Section 40 of the 1932 Act), and in Clause 19(2) and 19(4) which are new. I think there will be general agreement that the Board of Trade should take these powers, since they will be available to other countries and will undoubtedly be used. The second category covers an exempting power applicable to ships not covered by the application of the Convention.

These powers of exemption are both modest and useful. Powers of exemption from load line requirements all together under Clause 18 will be by Order which will need to be laid before the House and will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament. Under Clause 19 the exemption will be in respect of named ships, and is much more likely to be used as an exemption from an individual requirement than from load line requirements as a whole. In any case, exemptions will not be given unless the ship has been surveyed by a surveyor, and an exemption certificate will be needed which will lay down adequate conditions of safety.

Now let me turn to the question of fines. All the maximum fines in the Bill, compared with those in the 1932 and 1937 Acts, have been at least doubled, and the maximum fine for submersion of the load line mark has been increased four times. The maximum penalty under the 1932 Act is £100, plus an additional fine of up to £100 for every inch of submersion. Clause 4(2) and 4(3) propose to increase these fines to four times their present level. There is an additional offence under Clause 4(4) which is a repetition of the offence under the Merchant Shipping Act 1937. Here the offence is taking a ship to sea overloaded, or being party to doing so. The punishment has been changed from imprisonment to a fine, in order to bring the penalty more into line with other penalties in recent Merchant Shipping Acts. It is, in effect, the same fine as that proposed under Clause 25 of the Bill for carrying a number of passengers in excess of the number permitted by the passenger certificate. The maximum fines for overloading a ship and for overcrowding a ship have therefore been substantially increased and made the same. Clause 24 empowers the Board of Trade to make regulations governing the carriage of deck cargo. It doubles the penalty, and, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, it will apply not only to timber deck cargo but to any deck cargo.

There is one matter in the Bill which is not directly concerned with load lines but is a matter of some public concern. Last summer there were three disasters to small boats covered by the requirements governing passenger certificates under the Merchant Shipping Acts. The "Quesada" sank of Campbeltown in May with the loss of eight lives. In July the "Prince of Wales" sank off North Wales with the loss of fifteen lives. Finally, the "Darlwyne" sank off the Cornish coast with the loss of all thirty-one on board. In all, fifty-four lives were lost. The "Quesada" and the "Darlwyne" should each have had a passenger certificate, but did not. The "Prince of Wales" had a passenger certificate, but was exceeding her permitted numbers.

The present maximum fines were laid down in 1894 (for exceeding passenger numbers) and in 1906 (for not having a passenger certificate when a ship carries more than twelve passengers). Clause 25 and Schedule 1 increase the fines to £400 if the case is taken summarily, and to a fine without limit on conviction on indictment. I believe that if your Lordships agree to these increases it will be a powerful endorsement of the view that these offences are serious, and (which is even more important) will act as a powerful deterrent to the future. It will be seen from Clause 34(3) that the load line provisions of the Bill will come into force on an appointed day. This will coincide with the date when the 1966 Convention comes into force. But the increase in passenger certificate fines in Clause 25 and in Schedule 1 will come into force on the passing of the Bill.

Again I apologise for having detained your Lordships for so long, but I believe this is an important Bill which has a great deal of "meat" in it, and it is something to which we should give a good deal of thought. Much thought has been given to it already, as is apparent from the form the Bill now takes. I am convinced that it is in the interests of all those who go to sea. I believe it is also in the interests of this country as the leading maritime nation of the world, and I very much hope that your Lordships will approve it. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Walston.)

4.55 p.m.

LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for the extremely interesting description he has given of this Bill. From this side of the House we certainly welcome it and give it our full support. The noble Lord has made its considerable range of provisions admirably clear, and therefore my comments can be brief.

As the noble Lord has told us, this Bill implements the new Convention in which Great Britain took a leading part last year, and we are glad to hear that our country continues to take a leading role in maritime affairs. Although we are no longer the leader in maritime tonnage, we are among the leaders, and I believe we in this country still carry a prestige which is second to none. In this context I particularly welcome the noble Lord's statement that when we have put this Bill on the Statute Book our country will be in a position to exert its influence to encourage others who have not yet ratified the Convention to do so, in order that the Convention may become a reality as soon as possible. Clearly, it is in the interests of everyone that this should be so.

I do not think the noble Lord said so, but I imagine that the effect of establishing the new standards for load lines will be to allow the modern ship to carry more, because, as the noble Lord has said, it will be allowed to lower the load line by as much as 10 or 15 per cent. in the case of the larger tankers. I imagine the effect will be that probably some of the smaller, older ships, with wooden hatch covers and old hulls, will probably find themselves carrying less than they are to-day because of the effect of the new regulations. In any event, I have no objection to this change. It seems quite right that where shipping lines have gone to the expense and shown the enterprise of building new merchant ships they should get all the advantages which can safely go with them. The noble Lord gave us an indication of the benefit that will accrue to the large, modern tanker and how the Bill caters for these huge modern vessels. He told us that the limit for the standards will be ships of 1,200 feet in length. I should like to ask whether that will cover the new tankers that are being built to-day, of 200,000 tons. Perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten us on this when he answers. Then I understand that there is a modern technique of transporting oil in huge plastic bladders which are towed through the water behind the ship. Will this Bill lay down any safeguards for those?

A further point which occurred to me when considering this Bill has also, I am sure, occurred to other noble Lords, following the unhappy disaster with the "Torrey Canyon". We are already conscious of the dangers that flow from breaching the load line regulations and from a vessel sailing too low in the water. But following the "Torrey Canyon" incident we must also be conscious of the dangers that flow from the moving of these big vessels through channels which are not deep enough for their very deep draught. Now that these giant ships are becoming the most economic form of transport for oil, the danger

seems to be less of sinking through overloading and far more of sinking through going aground, just as the "Torrey Canyon" did. The noble Lord told us that the seasonal concessions have been revised by the Convention. This seems to be a wise move, and they will be provided for in the regulations, but I wonder whether thought has been given to whether standards or criteria should be laid down regarding the channels which should be used by these enormous new, modern vessels with their very deep draught? It will be interesting to hear the noble Lord's views on this point.

I welcome the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, of the provision made to provide for the safety of the crews who operate the modern giant tankers which travel much lower in the water than ships have done in the past, and I was particularly glad to hear that there will be specific provision for guard rails as well as for higher bows to deflect the water. This is obviously of great importance in the interests of safety. The noble Lord just touched upon the provision for deck cargoes. The carrying of deck cargoes has greatly increased to-day and I imagine may much further increase with the use of containers on ships. I should welcome an assurance from the noble Lord that the regulations will be completely adequate to meet this type of freight.

I notice that the Bill is drafted in a way which avoids the voluminous detail of the 1932 Act and relies on the making of a series of regulations by the Minister. As the noble Lord knows, this is a form of legislation to which Her Majesty's Opposition normally object, but in this case I fully recognise the good sense of proceeding by regulation, particularly when you are dealing with such a mass of detailed technical complexity, and all the more so as I understand that all shipping interests will be fully consulted as regulations are made. Perhaps the noble Lord would repeat the assurance which was given in another place when he replies to the debate. I was delighted to hear that every aspect of the shipping industry gives full support to the Bill. I am sure that that is right and is in everybody's interests.

Turning lastly to Clause 25, which is an appendage added for a special purpose, to improve the safety arrangements for these coastal pleasure vessels, I welcome this

clause, and I am sure that the Government are right to provide for this very steep increase in penalties for contravention of the regulations by pleasure boats. The three disasters to which the noble Lord referred, resulting in a total loss of life of 54, shook the whole nation, and I am sure the Government are right to act quickly and in time for the next summer season. I give this my very full support, and hope that it will deter hirers of craft from such wretched conduct in the future. I am sure most of the owners of these pleasure vessels are careful and responsible men, but it is right that penalties should be increased.

I wonder if the noble Lord could tell us whether it has been possible to have any consultation with the representatives of these pleasure vessels, and whether, indeed, there is any national organisation that speaks for them. If there is not, clearly it would be in their interests, and that of the whole community, if the Government used their influence to encourage the formation of such an organisation so that all those who run these pleasure vessels could be made fully aware of just what the safety regulations are. With those few observations, I have much pleasure in giving my support to the Second Reading of the Bill.

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question before he replies? If I understood him correctly, he gave us to understand that certain nations had not yet seen fit to comply with the terms of this Convention. Can he tell us whether any leading maritime nations are included in that list, and, if they are, what steps are being taken to encourage them to comply?

5.4 p.m.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. It is not so much a question of nations which have not complied as a question of nations which have hitherto not ratified. They have to take positive action, which, partly, in certain cases, through slothfulness, in other cases through pressure of business, or for reasons of administrative organisation, inevitably takes some time. After all, it is only twelve months since the Convention was signed, and in our own case—as one of the leading maritime countries in the world—it has taken twelve months to fit it into our legislative programme. Those nations which have not yet ratified the Convention are not necessarily being in any way obstructive.

I do not think I can give the noble Lord the actual countries who have signed it already, other than the four I have mentioned, who are the big shipping countries; that is, those with over one million tons of shipping: the Soviet Union, Panama, the United States and France. There are, of course, other large shipping countries—Germany, Holland, Italy, Liberia, Japan—and I believe that several of them will very shortly be following our example and ratifying. But as I have said, once we have ourselves introduced our own legislation enabling us to ratify we shall be in a far stronger position to encourage them to speed up their ratification.

To come to the various interesting points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, the 1,200 ft. limit, which is as far as the Convention goes at the present time, certainly covers all tankers at present under construction. Undoubtedly, in the years to come, as things get larger, there will be a need to increase the total length; but these Conventions have to be re-negotiated and rediscussed in the light of length, size, constructional matters, and so on. So I do not think it in any way weakens the adequacy or effectiveness of the Convention that this limit has been put on.

Plastic bladders are not included. I should not like to go on record as saying they are not, in the strict sense of the word, ships, though they are not in fact ships, as they have no motive power of their own and no crew on board. The object of this Convention is primarily to increase safety at sea, meaning the safety of human beings at sea. The fact that there are no people on board these plastic bladders, even should they become widely used, which at the moment seems somewhat remote, means that there would be no question of increased hazard to crew or sailors.

The observations of the noble Lord on the "Torrey Canyon" are extremely valuable and, I am sure, very sound; but I would respectfully suggest that it is not primarily a question dealing with load lines, with which this Bill concerns itself. The matters he has raised are being considered, both domestically in this country and in conversations with other seagoing Powers. I am sure he is quite right: we must give increasing thought to the actual channels of navigation and various other methods of control, particularly when they are close to territorial waters, if not specifically within them.

I can assure the noble Lord, that so far as deck cargoes are concerned, the regulations are adequate to cover the new development in containers, and any other future types of deck cargo that we can envisage in the relatively near future. I can also assure him that before any regulations are made by the Minister, all shipping interests will undoubtedly be consulted.

The noble Lord made a very interesting suggestion about pleasure vessels. So far

as I know, there is no organisation representing the owners of pleasure vessels. They are a very varied—I was going to say crew, but I am not sure that is the right word—group of people. Some of them, of course, are simply fishermen who at certain times make their living by fishing and at other times earn an honest penny by taking trippers out to sea. It would not be easy to embrace them all in any particular organisation. However, I will certainly bear in mind what he has said, and will consult those more closely concerned with it than I am. I thank both noble Lords for what they have said and for the support given to the Bill.

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

House adjourned at nine minutes past five o'clock.