HL Deb 15 May 1972 vol 330 cc1248-54

4.49 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK) rose to move, That the Draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972, laid before the House on May 4, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of the Order is to apply to hovercraft, with modifications in some instances, certain enactments and instruments relating to ships, aircraft and motor vehicles. This is being done in order to continue, and almost to complete, the process of giving the hovercraft an existence in its own right. The process was started by the passage of the Hovercraft Act 1968, the enabling powers in which this draft Order uses. The Act gave a definition of the hovercraft and provided for its treatment as a distinct type of vehicle. Before the passage of the Act, there had been much uncertainty. The hovercraft was frequently treated as a ship or an aircraft, and yet it was not possible to say definitely that it was one or the other. But it has still been possible, since the Act was passed, to treat the hovercraft as a ship or an aircraft, for what it is worth. Indeed, not only has it been possible to do so, but for certain purposes this has been the practice.

Under a separate Order, the Hovercraft (General) Order 1972, provision is made for the registration and safety regulation of hovercraft including certification by the Civil Aviation Authority. This latter Order was made on April 28 and was laid before this House under the Negative Resolution Procedure on May 8. Having now provided a separate system of registration and safety regulation for hovercraft, it is desirable that any remaining doubt about the status of hovercraft, in United Kingdom law, should be removed.

This the present Order will help to do by applying to hovercraft, where relevant, the law relating to ships, aircraft and motor vehicles. Any remaining doubt that the hovercraft is a distinct type of vehicle will be removed when yet another Order has been made 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 unless this was already specifically provided for when the Act was passed. It is intended to make such an Order, which is not subject to Parliamentary approval, to come into operation on the same date as this Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order.

I turn now to the enactments and instruments which are applied to hovercraft by this Order. These are given in Articles 4 to 9, which are to be read in conjunction with Schedules 1 to 4. They fall into a number of categories. First, there are enactments and instruments dealing directly with shipping and navigation. For example, 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. It also gathers together the provisions in a number of enactments and instruments relating to wreck, salvage and distress and applies them, with modifications, to hovercraft.

Secondly, the Order applies to hovercraft a wide range of enactments and instruments relating to animals and plants which in general regulate the carriage of animals and plants in ships and aircraft. Next, the Order applies parts of enactments relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force and applies the National Insurance legislation to hovercraft in much the same way as it applies to ships. I should mention, in this connection, that a minor printing error appears on page 11 of the draft Order, where the reference to "paragraph (2)" of Part I of Schedule 1 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 should be to "paragraph 2", without the brackets. The bracket starting with the words "as modified"' on the same line should be closed after "1972" three lines below. These slips, together with two trifling spelling mistakes, will be corrected when the Order is made.

Some of the aviation legislation which the Order applies to hovercraft includes Section 52, subsections (3) and (5) of the Civil Aviation Act 1949, thus giving harbour and conservancy authorities certain powers to make by-laws; Section 55 of the same Act enabling the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make regulations concerning the registration of births, deaths and missing persons on or from hovercraft; and Section 27 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971, thus requiring the Civil Aviation Authority, in connection with the functions it is being given in the Hovercraft (General) Order 1972, to consult with the Airworthiness Requirements Board on technical matters connected with the safety certification of hovercraft.

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

Moved. That the Draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972, laid before the House on May 4, be approved.—(The Earl of Limerick.)

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for explaining this Order. I should like also to thank those responsible for the way in which they have contrived to comb through all the conceivable legislation which ought to be applied to hovercraft. I am bound to say that my researches into the Poultry Pens, Fittings and Receptacles (Disinfection) Order and the Landing of Unbarked Coniferous Timber Order 1961 have not been very thorough: and I have not gone very closely into the Glanders or Farcey Island Order 1900. But I take it that all this has been properly researched and that, with one or two minor misprints, we are confronted with a good piece of legislation. I understand from the noble Earl that the process of giving the hovercraft a character and personality, legislatively speaking, in its own right is now almost completed.

I understand therefore. I hope correctly, that the C.A.A. now have the responsibility of certification of hovercraft. May I ask whether it is proposed to carry the analogy of the air transport industry any further and whether it is intended to require the holding of an operator's certificate for hovercraft? Is it at the moment possible for anyone to take a certified hovercraft and ply for hire or operate on a scheduled service? And when the legislative process is completed, will an operator's certificate be required? The only other point I would put is this. As I understand it now, the responsibility for safety rules and regulations will rest with the Department of Trade and Industry. I am also right (am I not?) in saying that the authority responsible for accident investigation will also be the same Department. In the past, there has been a certain amount of doubt and apprehension when the same authority and the same Department have been responsible both for the drawing up of safety legislation and its implementation and for its investigation in the event of an accident. I wonder whether this point is under consideration.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK

My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord on the first of his questions, and I hope also on the second. The answer to the first point is that certification and safety are dealt with under the Hovercraft (General) Order 1972. There is in that Order a requirement that operators of hovercraft used for reward or in connection with trade or business must have operating permits. These are similar to air operators' certificates but not exactly so, since there is less examination of the operator's past record and more emphasis on the future safe operation of hovercraft. In view of the comparative newness and safety record of the industry, it has not been thought necessary at this stage to place any further restriction on operators.

The noble Lords second question dealt with the investigation of casualties. Investigation of casualties will be dealt with under the merchant shipping procedure, as I mentioned in introducing the Order. The noble Lord will see that Article 9, which is to be read in conjunction with Schedule 4, applies, with modifications, the appropriate sections of the merchant shipping legislation. Under this procedure, casualty investigations can be carried out in two stages. In the first stage, a preliminary investigation is carried out by an officer appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. This will normally be a technically qualified marine surveyor from the Department of Trade and Industry. In the second stage, a formal inquiry may be ordered by the Secretary of State; and independent wreck commissioners are appointed by the Lord Chancellor to conduct any such inquiry. The situation in the case of hovercraft is broadly similar, except that the first reference will be to the civil aviation authority which, of course, is independent of the Department of Trade and Industry; so that there will be more independence in the case of the investigation of accidents to hovercraft than in the case of accidents to shipping. I am not aware that the shipping procedures have in the past given rise to any particular problem.

5.0 p.m.

LORD WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to explain what is the nature of the vehicle to which this Order is to apply. It is described as "Hovercraft". but I have not been able to find in this Order any definition of "hovercraft". The only definition which seems to be available is in the Hovercraft Act 1968. Is that correct? If so, I find the definition as given in that Act not very helpful. It says: 'hovercraft' means a vehicle which is designed to be supported when in motion wholly or partly by air expelled from the vehicle to form a cushion of which the boundaries include the ground, water or other surface beneath the vehicle. That refers to only two surfaces, and it is not possible to insert a cushion of air between two surfaces. The side surfaces have been excluded completely from this definition. If you think of the side surfaces, there is then the possibility of the hovertrain, but that is deliberately excluded by this Order. In other words, the Order has modified the original definition or hovercraft by saying that the hovertrain is not to be included. But it does not make any reference to the fixed-wall type of vehicle, which is one that has a propeller normally working in the water. Is this to be regarded as a hovercraft?

It seems to me that this is rather a serious matter. The fixed-wall type of hovercraft cannot, I believe, operate over land because it has no flexible skirt but has a fixed wall. Therefore it is really entirely a water-going! vehicle and is in no sense amphibious. I find the present definition, as it is given in the original Act, so loose that it is difficult to understand the type of vehicle to which this Order will apply. I suggest that it is very undesirable for us to adopt an Order which is not clear and definite in its purpose. I hope that it will be possible for the noble Earl and his Department to consider this matter to see how they can modify the definition of "hovercraft" in order to make it more clear. I must say also that, without any understanding of the finenesses of legal terminology, I find the Order rather difficult to understand because it seems to me that it ends by making a hovercraft liable to every conceivable type of regulation rather than defining clearly the sort of regulation's which are applicable to hovercraft. If the noble Earl could help us on this matter I think it would be very valuable.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will give what help I can. On the last point I think that what the application of these many regulations does is to apply to hovercraft legislation which is already applicable to ships operating in a comparable manner. On the question of definition, a hovercraft, as the noble Lord stated, is defined in the Hovercraft Act. Article 2 of the Order we are considering limits the application. It is indeed Intended—this I can confirm—that the Order should apply to fixed-wall or side-wall hovercraft. The side-wall craft has certain affinities to other amphibious types of hovercraft. It is a little difficult to predict the various forms which the ingenuity of man will take. We now have situations where a hovercraft is defined as a hovercraft. No doubt it will emerge in various forms, and I think we may have to rely on the proposition that, although we cannot sit down and define it with great accuracy as with an elephant we shall probably recognise it when we see it.

LORD WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that the fixed-wall type of hovercraft is in no sense amphibious? The ordinary hovercraft with the skirt, and with a propeller or air screw above the water, is amphibious; but the fixed-wall one has a propeller in the water, and therefore cannot be amphibious.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK

My Lords, this is so. But I do not see that it creates any great problem. The side-wall vehicle is defined as a hovercraft and will therefore be subjected to what is laid down in the Order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.