HL Deb 05 July 1977 vol 385 cc315-9

10.26 p.m.

Lord ORAM rose to move, That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1977, laid before the House on 20th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment order will bring hovercraft within the ambit of the new collision regulations which come into effect on 15th July under the provision of the Collision Regulations and Distress Signals Order 1977. It may help if I briefly remind your Lordships of the background.

A set of international collision regulations proposed by the Inter-Governmental Consultative Organisation (IMCO) in 1960 was applied to British ships by means of a collision regulations order in 1965. These regulations proved valuable in improving safety of life at sea, but within a few years of their introduction it was evident that they did not cover some of the more recent developments in the marine world. These included not only a considerable increase in the speed and draught of many ships, but also the introduction of an increasing array of special purpose ships plus non-displacement craft such as hydrofoils and hovercraft. It became clear that new regulations were needed. These were drawn up at an international conference under the auspices of IMCO in London on 20th October 1972 and come into operation on 15th July for ships and seaplanes. However, special arrangements have to be made for British hovercraft, as I will explain. This need arises from the Hovercraft Act 1968.

When that Bill was before Parliament difficulty was experienced in determining whether hovercraft should be treated as ships or aircraft, and the decision was then taken that they should be treated as vehicles in their own right. Nevertheless, hovercraft operate in the marine environment so that it was appropriate to apply to them also the then current international collision regulations applicable to ships and seaplanes on the water with such adjustments as were necessary. This was done by the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972. The latest international collision regulations specifically include air cushion vehicles and other non-displacement craft. It is therefore necessary to amend that 1972 order so as to extend to hovercraft the provisions of the 1977 Collision Regulations Order. Those regulations taken on their own embody the revised international regulations only in respect to ships and seaplanes on the water. Hovercraft have to be specially dealt with, as they are in this order.

At the same time the references in the 1972 order to the 1965 collision regulations will be revoked. They are being replaced by these 1977 regulations, and I should like to say just a few words about them. They are the result of considerable thought based on recent experience, preparatory work and discussion, both nationally in the United Kingdom in the Department of Trade's Safety of Navigation Committee, and internationally, particularly in meetings of IMCO. I believe they will help to improve safety at sea still further.

I do not need to compare in detail the 1977 collision regulations with those of 1965. Perhaps the most notable change, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, is the incorporation of a new rule, Rule 10, governing the behaviour of vessels within traffic separation schemes adopted by IMCO. This rule follows the development over the past decade of a practice aimed at reducing the risks of collision by separating into two defined lanes vessels travelling in opposite directions in congested areas. It was on our initiative that the IMCO Assembly in October 1971 adopted a resolution: that Member Governments of the Organisation should make it an offence for ships of their flag which use any traffic scheme adopted by the Organisation to proceed against the established direction of traffic flow". We in the United Kingdom gave effect to this resolution through the Collision Regulations (Traffic Separation Schemes) Order in 1972. It has been unfortunate that less than a dozen other countries have been able in the interim period to follow our example with their own legislation. This omission from the legislation of other States who are parties to the IMCO resolution as well as the Collision Regulations Convention will now be repaired when Rule 10 becomes mandatory on their vessels. This is particularly important to this country, since there are no fewer than nine IMCO-adopted schemes around our coast, the most important of which covers the narrows of the Dover Strait; and in this connection the regulation of hovercraft is very important, because it is widely evident that there has been a steady growth in the number of hovercraft in operation worldwide and, in particular, in the number of passages of the Channel undertaken by such craft. In fact, by the end of last year hovercraft were reported to be carrying 30 per cent. of the passengers and 25 per cent. of the vehicles using the Dover Strait ferry services. Non-displacement craft such as hovercraft and hydrofoils are specifically included in the definition of "vessel" in Rule 3(a) of the revised International Collision Regulations, and if it were not for the particular requirements of the Hovercraft Act the new United Kingdom regulations would have been applied to this type of vessel as to other descriptions of watercraft included in the definition of "vessel". It is therefore important that hovercraft should be obliged to conform to the "rules of the road" followed by more conventional vessels, and it is that which this order is designed to achieve. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1977, laid before the House on 20th June, be approved. —(Lord Oram.)

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for that patient and careful exposition of the order before us. I must say to your Lordships that I am not going to speak for anything like the length that he did, but I believe this order to be wise and appropriate, and I hope that your Lordships will approve it.

If I may, I feel I should sound one caveat. We are here applying quite strict requirements—and properly so—to the operation and equipment of hovercraft operating particularly in the congested waters the noble Lord has mentioned, such as the Dover Strait. While that is certainly right, speaking in general terms, we ought to take care that we do not strangle the hovercraft in a mesh of regulatory red tape, particularly of the type that is applied to the aircraft manufacturing industry. I do not want to decry what is done in the aircraft world, because that, too, is right and proper. But whether it would be equally so if applied to the construction of hovercraft is a question of considerable doubt.

If we are to nurture and nourish the hovercraft and hydrofoil manufacturing industry, we must take care to ensure that those vessels are regulated in a way more appropriate to ships than to aircraft. Happily, the order that we have before us tonight does just that, because it is designed and intended to ensure that these new and modern vessels can be integrated into the traffic patterns around our shores. But in the basic concepts of construction and manufacture, we are running a risk of setting down standards of construction and design more appropriate to aircraft than to ships and, therefore, of being unduly restrictive on hovercraft. That is a digression from the precise point of this order, but it is a point which I felt it appropriate to make on this occasion. Having said that, however, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that this new order is appropriate and I hope that your Lordships will approve it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.