HL Deb 14 December 1982 vol 437 cc536-45

7.7 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The principal purpose of the Bill is to simplyfy the process of registration for small ships under 24 metres in length—mainly pleasure craft—to enable them to obtain proof of their nationality, and therefore of their right to fly the British flag, at considerably less cost than under the current arrangements, which have been in force, as I am sure your Lordships are aware, since 1894.

Certificates of registration are becoming an essential requisite for pleasure craft visiting foreign ports, particularly in France, where the authorities intend to enforce this provision of international law on British boats from 1st January 1984. As your Lordships will know, sailing has become a widespread leisure activity in this country and an increasing number of pleasure craft are taken abroad during the holiday season often without the proper papers. The Government's aim in introducing this Bill is to provide a simple system of registration which will enable small shipowners to regularise their position without undue difficulty.

From the consultations we have undertaken, the Government have been left in no doubt that this long overdue measure will be unreservedly welcomed by the large growing community of small boat owners. I trust that your Lordships too will welcome this proposal and give it your approval.

Before outlining the detailed provisions of the Bill, I hope that your Lordships will find it helpful if I briefly explain the present arrangements and the reasons which have led us to conclude that they should be amended in this way. The registration provisions for all ships are contained in the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and are based on similar provisions enacted half a century earlier, at a time when the British merchant fleet was growing rapidly. It is indeed a tribute to the foresight and the skill of the original drafters that the legislation has continued to serve the main purpose for which it was created for more than 140 years without a major change.

However, there have been many political, commercial and social changes which make it difficult to reconcile the framework contained in the 1894 Act with present-day circumstances and requirements. As your Lordships will be aware, the Government have had it in mind for some time to revise the registration provisions, and in 1981 a consultative document was issued on the matter. However, a substantial Bill would be required to modernise the arrangements as a whole. It has not been possible so far to find the parliamentary time needed for such a major undertaking, but. I am glad to say, agreement has been reached to deal with this more modest measure, which as your Lordships are aware is urgently needed, by the Second Reading Committee procedure. It is my privilege and duty to bring it to your Lordships' attention this evening.

One change which was unforeseen at the end of the last century was the use of boats for leisure purposes. The point has been reached where over 80 per cent. of vessels on the United Kingdom register are pleasure craft. Only some 34,000 such vessels are registered, out of a total estimated to be between a quarter and half a million boats used for leisure activities. Of course, the vast majority of these boats are very small—for this purpose we classify them as being under 15 tonnes net—and are used only in our inland or coastal waters, so they are exempted from registration under the 1894 Act. But a substantial number would register if it were possible to do so at reasonable cost and without the complicated procedures which are necessary for merchant vessels.

These procedures require the measurement of tonnage, which is costly and largely irrelevant in the case of pleasure craft, and the provision of technical documents and proof of title for recording the particulars of the ship and its registered owner. Registration under Part I of the 1894 Act, as I shall refer to this process henceforth, is an obligation placed on owners of all British vessels unless they are under 15 tonnes net and are used outside our inland waterways and coastal waters. Failure to register deprives them of the benefits of flying the British flag, and, as I mentioned earlier, it can cause them problems abroad.

There are particular advantages in Part I registration: it provides a convenient way of recording evidence of ownership, mortgages and transfers. This is certainly important in the case of the larger, more expensive boats, and as it is not intended to maintain such a detailed record on the new small ship register, to which I shall refer shortly, it is proposed that Part I registration will continue to be available to those who require it, but with the option of measurement for length rather than tonnage.

At this point I should like to explain that we have chosen 24 metres as the cut-off point because under the International Tonnage Convention of 1969, which came into force on 18th July this year, and to which indeed we are a party, ships under 24 metres in length need not be measured for tonnage. We are taking advantage of this provision. In the light of this, it would not be sensible to retain the provision whereby ships under 15 tonnes net are exempted from registration in the present form. Our proposal in the Bill is to replace this by 13.7 metres as the lower limit, since length is easier to measure than tonnage, I am reminded that tonnage, which in shipping is a volumetric measure rather than one of weight, may have been derived from "tuns" or barrels of wine that could be stowed in a ship's hold. Unless British yachts wish to enter the race to get the Beaujolais Nouveau, to Britain each year, I am sure your Lordships would agree that tonnage is of little relevance to them!

I hope I have shown that the changes we have in mind are consistent with the existing registration rules. Certainly they do not affect the eligibility of boats for registration in so far as British ownership is concerned, nor any other of the basic requirements which have governed the right to fly the red ensign for more than a century. The system we propose will not need to be substantially changed if major new legislation is introduced at some time in the future to amend the master Act of 1894.

I will now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. The first change to the existing system which is proposed is that owners of small ships who wish to obtain registration under Part I of the 1894 Act will be given the option that the vessel may be measured for length rather than tonnage for registration purposes. This will reduce the cost of registration, because length can be quickly and simply established whereas the measurement of tonnage is more complicated and, indeed, time-consuming. For an average-sized pleasure craft tonnage measurement by a qualified surveyor could cost about £90; length measurement considerably less. The option of length measurement under Part I will bring it into line with the new small ship register, where only length will be recorded.

The second change is a provision in Clause 5 of the Bill to enable the setting up of an entirely separate central small ships register. Its purpose will be to provide an alternative to full registration under Part I. and it is one which we believe will be taken up by the majority of owners of small ships. An important feature of the new register will be that it will cost far less to obtain a registration certificate than under the 1894 Act. Further detailed work is required to establish what the precise fee should be to cover the costs of operation, but it is likely to be no more than a fraction of the present fee. Registration under this scheme will confer nationality on a ship but, since title and mortgage facilities are available under the 1894 Act to those who require them, there will be no need to duplicate them here. This is, of course, one reason why the scheme will be much cheaper to operate.

Another change is the simple procedures which we intend to introduce in accordance with the schedule to this Bill. It is envisaged that an owner will apply for the registration of his ship on a simple form which would provide brief details about the vessel and its owners. If he or she qualifies to be an owner of a British ship and is resident in the United Kingdom, and the ship is less than 24 metres in length, he or she would be issued with a registration certificate. It is intended that the certificate would remain valid for a maximum period of time, possibly five years, and would then need to be renewed. If the ship is sold, the new owner would need to make a fresh application for registration. Application would be made to a central point and not, as at present, to one of the 112 ports of registry, as in the case of the 1894 Act. This is another feature which will keep down the cost.

Finally, it is proposed to invite organisations outside of Government to submit bids for the operation of the small ships register. The scheme will be designed to minimise the cost to the customer, but for the reasons I have mentioned it will have no significant manpower or expenditure implications for the Exchequer. It will be run under the supervision of the Government to ensure that the same high standards are maintained as for registration under Part I of the 1894 Act.

I have given only a brief outline of the scheme because we are still considering detailed questions, and, as I am sure your Lordships will understand, we would like to develop these ideas in full consultation with those who will use the scheme and, above all, those who will operate it. I can assure your Lordships that work is proceeding on the preparation of draft regulations so that they can be laid before Parliament as soon as possible after the Bill is enacted.

However, this is perhaps the time to mention the limitations which will be imposed on the small ships register. Owners will have to choose between it and full registration under Part I. Dual registration will not be permitted, as it would cause confusion. Fishing vessels fishing for profit will not be able to register under the simplified small ship register, irrespective of their size. The proper place for them is in the fishing boat register under Part IV of the 1894 Act. Those which also register under Part I may have extended to them the facility of length measurement instead of tonnage, but this will be considered after consultation with the fishing industry, and their preliminary view is that they prefer the present measurement provisions to remain unchanged.

Another point your Lordships may find of interest is that although boats under 13.7 metres in length will be exempted from registration, it will be possible for them to register under Part I or under the new scheme if they wish to go abroad. I do not think there will be many such cases, but those who take their boats abroad on trailers need not have any worries about their ability to register.

Finally, the Bill deals with another separate issue: it provides, in Clause 6, for the appointment of registrars under the 1894 Act to be detached from a particular port of registry. It is many years since the ports of registry were designated for the purpose and in some cases, because of the cessation or decline of their commercial trading activities, there is no longer a need for customs work to be performed there, and consequently all customs staff have been withdrawn. Also there are other ports where the volume of registration work is now minimal, and having regard to the many other duties which are laid on the customs official who is required to undertake this somewhat specialised function, we regard it as sensible to reduce the number of registrars and thereby improve the efficiency of the work of registration. I should emphasise that this power could not be used to abolish a port of registry; it is not the intention to do so. The effect would be that one registrar might become responsible for registrations at two or more adjacent ports where a higher level of service cannot be justified.

The purpose of the Bill that we have before us this evening is to offer a solution to a specific problem. I believe that it will be accepted as such by your Lordships, and I hope that the Government will have the support of all of your Lordships in carrying through this measure. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lyell.)

7.22 p.m.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining this Bill to your Lordships in such detail. The first comment I am led to make about this Bill is that the title of the Bill does not really reflect its contents. As the noble Lord informed your Lordships, the Bill is mainly concerned with the licensing of pleasure craft between 13.7 metres and 24 metres in length; boats which are judged to be of sufficient size to cross the Channel, and therefore may have to be able to confirm at the other side of the Channel that they are properly licensed before they are able to enter the ports on the other side.

This is not, as the noble Lord said in his closing remarks, the whole purpose of this Bill. It also proposes to change the registry arrangements. Clause 6 of the Bill, as the noble Lord informed your Lordships, would enable the registration functions to be carried out at two or more adjacent ports. I know that there has been some concern expressed by the General Council of British Shipping concerning the question of registration, and as to whether it is the thin end of the wedge, as they see it, that registration can be carried out at two or more ports and that this may lead to the institution of a central registry, which they feel would cause great difficulty for shipowners and their advisers as they would not have ready access to a local registrar.

I am bound to ask myself why in fact a central registry would not be a good idea. One recalls that when the licensing of the motor-car started it was on a local basis, but in the course of time it was found to be more effective that all motor-cars should have their licence details held on a central register, to which access was given to all those who needed to have access. One reflects in this age of technological innovation on whether in fact there would be something to be said for the creation of a central registry for small craft of this kind. Inevitably people will move around the country and take their boats with them, and if they were centrally registered it would still enable those who needed to obtain particular details of particular boats registered in particular areas to get those details recalled to them from a computer. I should have thought that this is something which the Government might have in mind in dealing with this case.

I was perturbed to hear that the Government are considering that the administration of the registry should be privatised. A register of this sort is held in the public interest. If one has cases of smuggling or other forms of illegal activity, there should be something to which the enforcement authorities might have access, and it might be wiser if this was kept under the control of a Government department rather than be privatised to the highest bidder. The noble Lord cleared my query about whether shipping vessels from overseas would be able to be brought within this particular clause. I would say that, but for this particular point of the central registry, we have no objections in principle to the proposals in the Bill.

7.28 p.m.

Lord Greenway

My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for introducing this Bill this evening for a Second Reading. I also share some anxiety with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, over the title of the Bill. It seems to me rather strange in this day and age that we should have a Bill called the Merchant Shipping Bill which basically refers to pleasure yachts. Perhaps some form of simplification could be brought about whereby the "QE2" could be treated somewhat differently from a sailing dinghy.

Basically I welcome this Bill this evening because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has said, something has to be done on this problem. As I understand it, it has arisen out of the French action about two years ago to curb their nationals from having a tax loophole in the form of registering their yachts under the Red Ensign as a flag of convenience. I have a certain amount of sympathy with France in this matter. Nevertheless, when it was first instigated it caused immediate alarm among the yachting fraternity in this country. This Bill, therefore, is the answer to the problem.

At present I understand that the temporary arrangements which were arranged between our Government and the French Government consist of the acceptance by the French authorities of a customs certificate which an English yacht obtains when it leaves a port on the South coast, or wherever, before proceeding to France. This arrangement expires, I understand, in 1984, and therefore I welcome the speedy introduction of this Bill.

The noble Lord explained why they chose the lower limit of 13.7 metres, so I need not question him further on that. He also said that 80 per cent. of vessels at present registered were yachts, and he mentioned the figure of 34,000. Do the Government estimate that an equal number will be re-registered under the new system? The noble Lord said he did not think many yachts under the lower limit would register. In my experience, a great number of yachts cross the Channel to France every year, and I rank myself as one of their number, even though I am not a yacht owner. I should have thought the figure was somewhat larger than he suggested; 12,000 has been suggested to me as the number.

The noble Lord mentioned dinghies, saying that if the French authorities insisted on a dinghy being towed through France having to go through the same formalities, that might increase to quite large proportions the number of yachts having voluntarily to make use of the scheme.

That brings me to my next point, which is to ask who will run the scheme. We certainly do not want another Swansea appearing for yachts. That would be a disaster. No doubt the Government have made arrangements in the matter—arrangements which, I hope, will be satisfactory—and whoever will do the job may find that they are taking on a little more than they bargained for. As the noble Lord said, the number of yachts in this country is in the region of a quarter of a million and growing daily. He mentioned cost. I understand that a figure of £ 15 has been arrived at, which seems reasonable when one considers that to register a yacht properly under the present arrangements costs about £100. If that is the figure, it is satisfactory and I welcome it.

The Government have been consulting with various interested bodies—the Royal Yachting Association and the Ship and Boat Builders' Federation, among others—and I would like to think that the Government will do all they can to persuade those bodies to advertise what is happening to the yachting fraternity. That is most important. After all, this measure appeared this evening as the Merchant Shipping Bill and could well have slipped through without anybody knowing what was going on, and I hope the Government will pass that on to the various bodies with whom they have been dealing.

There are a few small drafting points in the Bill which I think—I would hope not—might provide fodder for my noble and learned friend Lord Denning presenting a maritime Bill in future years; a few points could be cleared up at a later stage. In the schedule I see under the regulations that provision is made in paragraph 2(k) for the discharge of functions under the regulations by persons appointed by such organisations as may be authorised in that behalf by the Secretary of State". Whenever the Secretary of State's name appears in Bills certain noble Lords leap to their feet amid cries of alarm. In this instance, I feel that, as this is partly a voluntary register, the persons whom the Government will appoint should be allowed to get on with it themselves. I am always a little wary when the Secretary of State is mentioned because, after all, who can tell what will happen under future Administrations? I understand the present Government are happy to let this go through with minimum interference, but once the machinery for any organisation has been set up, there is always a danger when new Administrations take over that they may take advantage of it, and we may see a new form of backdoor registration coming in for yachtsmen; and I should not like to see that happening.

While recognising that the Bill is necessary, it is regrettable that such action has to be taken at all. We cannot always take due care of what might happen with our Common Market partners. This has been brought about for reasons which I explained at the outset of my remarks, and it is regrettable. However, I feel that the Government have been consulting with the right bodies in this instance and that the Bill as it stands is the simplest way of going about it, and the most acceptable to all.

7.36 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I wish at the outset to express my warmest thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Greenway, for, to put it politely, giving me such an easy ride with the Bill, since it is very complicated, with its references to measurements such as 13.7 and 24 metres, measurements which are, of course, familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, with his great expertise and long experience afloat, whereas to Lord Ponsonby and myself, who are very much aware of the term "pleasure craft"—indeed, many of us are not too sure of our footing once we leave dry land—the measure is veiled in considerable mystery.

The mystery begins with the title, and I must admit that when I first came to examine the Merchant Shipping Bill I did not think we would be covering what are classified as pleasure craft. I am not able to give the two noble Lords the definite reason why that title was chosen. I would advance the hypothesis that we are amending, in some small and minor ways, the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, the master Act; but I shall, with permission, seek further elucidation and either cover the point at a later stage or write to the noble Lords.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about the central registry and whether there should be such a registry. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise already administer registration under the 1894 Act on behalf of the department, and at present they have no intention of setting up a centralised registry. But where few ships are registered at a port and the number of transactions which arise is very small, there can be no justification for keeping that registry office open. But before removing registry work from any port the commissioners will seek the views of their local officers and, above all, the needs of the local community, and that would cover all sections of the community, including the interests of fishermen. They will take all those interests fully into account before making any decision as to centralising any registry or altering the registration provisions.

I will attempt to cover the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, but first I wish to thank him for his general support for the Bill. As your Lordships are aware, the noble Lord has spent a large part of his life afloat and has great experience not just of the sea but of the problems of what we technically call in the Bill pleasure craft. As the noble Lord is aware, those craft cross to France, and indeed, cross the oceans. They are probably not less than 13.7 metres in length.

I would stress to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, that in my earlier remarks I mentioned that the purpose of the Bill is to offer a solution to a specific problem which, I am sure your Lordships will be aware—and, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, will be aware—is not entirely of our making. It is the proximity of the French coast and, indeed, the popularity of that country as landfall for many of the yachts, ships and other craft which can be classified as small craft, even those less than 13.7 metres in length, which normally are not required to be registered. However, after 1st January 1984 there will have to be shown some evidence of registration in this country. That is what the Bill is designed, in the main, to assist—and, I would stress, at the minimum cost to the interests concerned; namely, the pleasure yachtsmen.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, also raised one other point, about the financing and the proposed system of registration. I hope that in my opening remarks I outlined the way that the scheme will operate. We would want it to be administered by a non-government body, and we would hope that it will be self-financing. We would hope that registration will be based upon a simple declaration. But, obviously, there will have to be powers to obtain some corroborating evidence in doubtful cases. There will be penalties for making false declarations, and the Government will retain overall control of the scheme.

It would be wrong for us to decide every little detail of the scheme before we have the benefit of the consultations with those who are most closely concerned, and, equally, it would be very foolish to have a rigid system. We believe that if from experience we learn that certain changes need to be made, it would be better to make them by means of subordinate legislation, rather than to require a new Act of Parliament. Once we have worked out the details of the registration scheme, and we have discussed them, they can be given expression in a statutory instrument, which would be subject to annulment by your Lordships' House, or the other place.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to the number of smaller yachts crossing to France. That is the kind of point that we very much have in mind in terms of what we hope will be the simplicity of the scheme. The noble Lord pointed out that with the Bill many of us have been given more than we bargained for. I would totally agree with him—especially in view of the Title of the Bill. The noble Lord went on to mention a figure of £15. I hope that that figure was not mentioned by me; I do not think that it was. Whether that is a fair stab or guess as to the final figure, I am not in a position to say. I think I mentioned that we hope that the registration fee will be a fraction of the present cost, which, as the noble Lord pointed out, is in the region of £100. But we would hope to keep the cost of registration as low as possible.

The noble Lord also mentioned various pleasure craft going across to France. In my speech I referred to them as being on trailers. I am sure that when at ports many of your Lordships see British tourists with their motorcars, pulling trailers on which are fairly small craft. We do not believe that those craft will need to be registered, so long as they qualify under the French rules relating to what, in their own inimitable tongue, they call engins de plage. I have here some regulations in French which set out the details of what are considered engins de plage, but I shall forbear from relating them to your Lordships. I see the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, egging me on, but he will be aware that the dinner hour approaches for us, as indeed for our colleagues across the Channel. I am advised that a very large proportion of the smaller pleasure craft that are taken on trailers across the Channel would come into the category of engins de plage. In no case are these small craft—inflatable dinghies, sail boards, or something of that nature—allowed to go beyond 300 metres of the shoreline.

Finally, I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, about bringing the measures contained in the Bill to the attention of those who are most likely to be affected. I take the noble Lord's point that the yachting fraternity and the sailing community have come to see the measures in the Bill as affecting them, and with my department I shall look to see what we can do to bring the contents of the Bill to the notice of these people. But, above all, I wish to stress that we want the Bill to be as simple as possible, and we want registration to be simple and uncomplicated.

The noble Lord drew my attention to paragraph 2(k) of the Schedule, on page 8 of the Bill. I am not tonight able to give the noble Lord an example of what the Secretary of State might have in mind. Indeed, the mind boggles as to what the Secretary of State could do with the engins de plage, the small craft, the large craft, sail boards and other sailing vessels. I shall look into the meaning of what is stated in paragraph 2(k) and get in touch with the noble Lord if there is anything to report.

I hope I have gone through the Bill in reasonable detail. I am most grateful for the welcome that it has received from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and indeed for the detailed scrutiny that it has received at this early stage from the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. That said, I would commend the Bill to your Lordships.

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

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until eight o'clock.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.48 until 8 p.m.]