Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1983

HL Deb 11 May 1983 vol 442 cc470-2

3.12 p.m.

Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st April be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak to the two orders, standing in my name on the Order Paper, together. I beg to move the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1983, and I shall speak at the same time to the Draft Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1983.

I have to inform your Lordships that both of these instruments have been examined by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and I understand that they are satisfied as to the legal basis for the instruments. If I may detain your Lordships but briefly in explanation on these two orders, the substantive matters before your Lordships' House are the 1983 Regulations. These update the collision regulations which are agreed internationally through the International Maritime Organisation which is an agency of the United Nations and recognised the world over as the competent international authority on maritime matters.

The detailed rules are set out in the draft regulations at Schedule 1. These are the Merchant Shipping Regulations. Your Lordships will see that they cover such important requirements as the steering and sailing rules and the provision of sound and light signals. The first set of rules were agreed by the International Maritime Organisation as long ago as 1960, and the present rules were agreed by the IMO in 1972. They have been applied internationally since 1977. The rules are now observed by more than 80 maritime nations.

After very careful consideration, the IMO has agreed that some changes are necessary to the rules drafted in 1972. At the same time, the IMO did not wish to make extensive changes which might well cause confusions and uncertainties within the shipping world. Therefore, only a limited number of amendments have been adopted and these are listed for your Lordships' reference in the explanatory note to the regulations. Your Lordships will find that on page 31. They deal with such matters as exemptions for certain types of vessels from the effects of Rule 10(d). I should explain to your Lordships that Rule 10 on page 8 of the 1977 order which we are considering in conjunction with the draft order before us today is concerned with the special provisions for ships passing through traffic separation schemes—the Dover Strait is but one example. Rule 10(d) deals with those ships that can use inshore traffic zones. There are also important amendments to the provisions for lights and sound signals.

The International Maritime Organisation has agreed that these amendments should come into force on 1st June 1983. Therefore, the approval of your Lordships' House is being sought to this country fulfilling its obligations to the IMO to ensure that United Kingdom ships wherever they may be, and other vessels in our territorial waters, comply with the new rules.

At the same time we are taking the opportunity to make the regulations under Section 21 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 which gives my right honourable friend the Secretary of State powers by regulations to deal with safety matters on ships. I hope your Lordships will agree that it is sensible that the collision regulations are dealt with in this way. The draft regulations therefore revoke the earlier collision regulations and the Distress Signals Order of 1977 as it applies to ships. This was made under powers contained principally in the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. One of the consequences 'of making these important amendments which apply to ships is the need to ensure that they are applied also to hovercraft. It is for this reason that the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper is before your Lordships this afternoon.

The 1968 Hovercraft Act provides that hovercraft should be treated as vehicles in their own right rather than ships or aircraft. The 1968 Act, however, recognises the important need to ensure that relevant safety rules are observed by hovercraft operating in a marine environment.

The Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972, which was made under the 1968 Act, applies to hovercraft a number of enactments relating also to ships. These include, to take as examples, provisions relating to the carriage of dangerous goods, to distress signals and also to the prevention of collisions. The purpose of the amendment order is to bring the existing provisions in line with the changes to be introduced in the new 1983 collision regulations relating to ships.

With that brief explanation of the two orders before us today, I hope your Lordships will agree that the changes proposed in these two instruments are sensible and also that they have particular regard for the general safety within the marine environment. These have been carefully considered by the International Maritime Organisation and we are content with the conclusions of the IMO. For that reason, I commend them to this House, and beg to move the first order, dealing with hovercraft, that stands in my name.

Moved. That the draft order laid before the House on 21st April be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining so succinctly the purposes of these two orders, and for dealing with them together, which I am sure is for the convenience of the House today. I am glad to know that the Joint Committee have approved both these orders. I wonder whether the noble Lord could say, with regard to the existing orders, how many prosecutions have been made for contravention of the existing rules, and what has been the level of success of those prosecutions? At the same time, can the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, say whether prosecutions have been taken against foreign flag vessels, and whether or not such prosecutions have been proceeded with in United Kingdom courts?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, we are very grateful for the close attention and the detailed scrutiny paid to these orders by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. We are also grateful to him for the reception he has given to these orders. I hope I did not detain your Lordships for too long. As the noble Lord noted, they are a trifle complicated, but very important. The noble Lord put to me a triple-headed question, and I will attempt to answer the three parts of his question. He asked me about contraventions of the rules. Since 1977, the Department of Trade has taken some 50 cases in respect of infringements which were made by United Kingdon flag vessels. Most of these have been in respect of offences in connection with the traffic separation schemes and, of course, when the department has definite evidence that a foreign flag vessel has contravened these rules, the facts are reported to that particular flag state. Again, we are advised that since 1977, which we are conveniently taking as a base here, proceedings have been taken in approximately 450 reported offences.

Referring to the arrangements for taking action against foreign flag vessels, all the relevant facts are reported to the foreign Administration, who are then required to consider what action should be taken under their own national legislation. We consider that this procedure has worked well over the years and the IMO takes a special interest in ensuring proper consideration by all flag states of any offences which are reported in this way.

Referring to the third supplementary question by the noble Lord—the taking of proceedings against foreign flag vessels in the United Kingdom—as the noble Lord will have noticed, the regulations give specific statutory authority to take such action for contraventions in territorial waters of the United Kingdom. We reserve the right to do so, but the assumption is made that the ship is coming to, and will berth in, a United Kingdom port, and that the master can be located swiftly and a summons served. As your Lordships will understand, there can be practical difficulties as regards enforcing the law in this particular way.

I hope I have been able to give some satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in replying to his questions. We are very grateful for his detailed scrutiny and for the reception this order has received from your Lordships this afternoon.

On Question, Motion agreed to.