HL Deb 14 May 1982 vol 430 cc439-42

12.37 p.m.

Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th April be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the approval of the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1982. I should start by saying that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the order and has made no comment on it whatever. The order provides for the amend- ment of the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972 to apply to hovercraft revised regulations relating to the carriage of dangerous goods by ships.

I shall begin my main explanation by pointing out that the 1968 Hovercraft Act provides that hovercraft should be treated as vehicles in their own right, rather than as ships or aircraft, The Act does, however, recognise the important need to ensure that relevant safety rules are appropriately observed by hovercraft which operate in a marine environment. For that reason the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972, made under the Act, applies to hovercraft a number of enactments and instruments relating to ships. These include provisions which relate to the carriage of dangerous goods.

At the beginning of this year (1982) these regulations—the 1978 Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Rules—were replaced by the 1981 Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Regulations. The 1981 regulations re-enact the 1978 rules, but they widen their application to take account of international agreements and to make new provisions for health and safety aspects in carrying dangerous goods on board ship. To provide that the revised regulations apply to United Kingdom-registered hovercraft and all other hovercraft operating within United Kingdom territorial waters, it is necessary to substitute the existing reference to the Dangerous Goods Rules in the 1972 Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order, through a change in Part B of Schedule 1 to the order.

I should like to point out briefly that the dangerous goods regulations will have only limited effect on hovercraft operations. The major use of hovercraft in the United Kingdom is in the cross-Channel ferry service. Very little cargo is carried by hovercraft, and only on rare occasions will this be affected by the regulations. All the same, I am sure your Lordships will readily appreciate the need for this amendment to ensure that maritime safety regulations are applied to hovercraft engaged in maritime operations, and also that they relate fully to modern-day demands. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th April be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)

12.41 p.m.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining this order. I must say that in this case I have found the order itself singularly uninformative, without any explanation at all attached to it other than a very brief one. I am glad to know that this order has in fact been approved by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but one wonders what regulations in fact apply if the hovercraft are operating in a non-marine environment. Do similar regulations apply, or not? One also wonders what steps are being taken to ensure that operators comply with the regulations now being laid before Parliament.

I understand that the Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for issuing certificates for hovercraft, and one wonders whether they should not also be responsible for issuing certificates with regard to the carrying of dangerous cargoes. Indeed, one wonders whether, as hovercraft operate generally in a marine environment, it would not be more sensible and more cost-effective for the responsibility for construction and maintenance, as well as for operations, to reside with the Department of Trade. I wonder whether the noble Lord could enlighten your Lordships on these points.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I should like to express my deepest gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his traditionally warm welcome to the rather detailed measures that he and I seem to discuss at length. Indeed, any of your Lordships who have had the opportunity to study the 1968 Act together with the 1972 orders will have found a fascinating list of enactments which are apparently covered by the orders—enactments relating to diseases of animals, including equine diseases, and all sorts of foot and mouth orders. One finds marvellous lists of diseases which are of interest to the medical profession as well as to ourselves.

The noble Lord had one particular query. The first of his questions concerned hovercraft which might be operating outside what we call the marine environment. By that (I think we must not be dragged into a legal definition) I would take it is meant over land entirely. My Lords, in what I would call the explanatory legislation following on the 1968 Act—both in the 1972 general order relating to hovercraft and in the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972—we find a little section headed "Application", and in both cases it says: This order applies to hovercraft which are used—

  1. (i) wholly or partly on or over the sea or navigable waters; or
  2. (ii) on or over land to which the public have access or non-navigable waters to which the public have access; or
  3. (iii) elsewhere;
for the carriage of passengers for reward". I am given to understand that the query which the noble Lord had about hovercraft operating entirely overland would be covered by sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph 2 of the section dealing with applications in both the 1972 orders, since it seems that the reference to hovercraft operating "over land to which the public have access" really would cover all the possibilities of dangerous goods causing damage or possible or prospective injury to any members of the public. If I have missed anything in my legal short-circuit, then indeed I shall write to the noble Lord on that point, but I am given to understand that paragraph 2 of the section designated "Application" in both orders covers the first point raised by the noble Lord.

The noble Lord raised two more points concerning the Civil Aviation Authority and the relevance of my own department, the Department of Trade, to the operation of hovercraft. First of all, the Civil Aviation Authority is concerned with the safety of hovercraft in terms of their construction and performace, but what I would call the day-to-day operational requirements in the marine environment are a different matter, and they come tinder the aegis of a separate department.

There is no clear-cut answer to the query that was raised by the noble Lord, because historically the construction of hovercraft developed from the aircraft industry in this country. Indeed, the Civil Aviation Authority has long-standing expertise over the whole field of, first of all, aircraft and aircraft construction, and (if I may so call it) this fascinating and, I hope, lucrative branch of the industry. But in practice the present arrangements seem to work efficiently, and we are not aware in any way that the industry would welcome a change from the existing arrangements for certification. Above all, we do not think there is any reason to suppose that any change from the existing arrangements would provide any savings in the costs which the industry would have to bear.

With that, I hope I have covered the query that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. If there is anything I have missed, then, of course, I shall write to him.

On Question, Motion agreed to.