Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1987 (Hansard, 30 November 1987)

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1987, that were laid before the House on 6th November 1987, be approved.
These regulations, made under Section 21 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 as modified by Section 11(1) of the Safety at Sea Act 1986, will apply certain safety requirements to non-United Kingdom roll-on/roll-off pasenger ships from 1st March 1988 while they are in United Kingdom ports. The requirements are identical to those applied to United Kingdom registered ships by the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction) (Amendment) Regulations 1987, Statutory Instrument 1987 No. 1886, which were also laid before Parliament on 6th November 1987 under the negative resolution procedure and which come into effect on 1st January. I shall say more later about the reasons for affirmative and negative procedures, but first I should explain the background and the substance.
Your Lordships will recall that during our debate on the Merchant Shipping Bill on 10th November, I referred to the substantial number of measures that the Government intend to introduce to implement the recommendations of the report of the court of formal investigation that examined the circumstances attending the tragic capsize of the "Herald of Free Enterprise". The regulations before us today, in 875 association with those to which I have just referred which apply to UK-registered ro/ro passenger ships, are the first of a series of statutory instruments which the Government have in preparation to give effect to the court's recommendations. Others, to name just a few, are measures to require the installation of draught gauges, the introduction of boarding cards, and making it mandatory to close the main vehicle deck doors before leaving the berth or as soon as it is physically possible thereafter. Those and others are being prepared as quickly as possible having regard to proper and necessary consultation to ensure that the measures taken to improve the safety of ro/ro passenger ships are appropriate and will be effective.
The effect of the regulations now before the House will be to require the installation of certain items of equipment upon which the report of the court recommended that immediate action should be taken. Your Lordships will recall that the primary cause of the loss of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" was the ingress of water on to the vehicle deck through open bow doors. To assist in preventing a recurrence of such an event, the regulations call for an indicator light system to be installed on the doors and on all other closing devices in the superstructure which, if left open, could lead to major flooding of the vehicle deck. The system would provide indication on the navigating bridge showing when the doors are open and when they are closed and secure. In addition, facilities to monitor the vehicle loading doors by television from a position at the navigating bridge will be required.
A particularly harrowing aspect of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" incident was the conditions inside the ship after the capsize, the passengers' difficulties being exacerbated by the absence of light from the emergency lighting system which, as is normal, was only required to operate at angles of list up to 22½ degrees. The regulations will require the installation of supplementary emergency lighting that will operate at angles of list up to 90 degrees in all public passenger spaces and alleyways. The lighting will be self-contained with accumulator batteries within each fitting so that illumination of escape routes will be provided for at least three hours. Similar lighting with, in This case, the option of rechargeable battery-operated handlamps will be required in the crew spaces.
The last item of equipment that these regulations require is again a television surveillance system or its equivalent but, in this case, of the entire vehicle space. This was proposed to ferry operators in statutory consultation as a valuable addition to safety precautions as recommended in the report of court. The advice received from industry coupled with the results of an investigation made by my department led to the conclusion that effective television surveillance was impracticable on many ships, particularly when highsided freight vehicles were loaded. There is simply not a clear line of sight across the vehicle deck. The regulations therefore permit the operator an alternative, which is to maintain continuous patrols of the vehicle spaces whilst the ship is on voyage.
Finally, I come to the legal background. Statutory Instrument 1987 No. 1886, the negative order 876 applying to UK ships, took effect by amending the voluminous 1980 and 1984 regulations on the construction of passenger ships, whose full titles are given in the explanatory note. The 1984 regulations impose, in certain respects, higher standards than the 1980 regulations, reflecting more recent amendments to the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, and apply to new ships. The 1980 Regulations apply to other ships. SI 1987 No. 1886 made identical amendments to the two sets of regulations in respect of the new equipment I have just described, but only in respect of UK ships.
The instrument now before the House extends those amendments to foreign ships, and is required to be made by affirmative procedure by the terms of Section 21(1) of the 1979 Merchant Shipping Act, the enabling power, and by Section 49 of that Act which sets out the parliamentary procedures for Section 21 orders; modified in both cases by Section 11 of the 1986 Safety at Sea Act. In summary, the requirement of the enabling legislation is that orders applying to foreign ships must be made by affirmative procedure unless the requirements are the subject of an international agreement.
Your Lordships will be aware that the normal procedure for improving the safety of ships plying internationally is to submit proposals to the International Maritime Organisation. With this in view, the United Kingdom during October urgently communicated proposals to the secretary general of the IMO that are essentially the same in content as the draft regulations before us today. These proposals will be considered for adoption as amendments to the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS '74) by the Maritime Safety Committee during April 1988. The UK Government have offered to cover the cost of two additional days of that meeting to enable a decision on our proposals to be reached. Pending such agreement however, it is necessary for any UK action to be by the affirmative procedure. We have also offered to pay for a week's consideration of our further proposals by the appropriate subcommittee.
Your Lordships will no doubt observe that, for similar reasons, the other measures that the Government plan to take will also have, in relation to foreign ships, to be made by the affirmative procedure. For the convenience of the House, it will be the Government's intention where possible to group such affirmative measures so that a number or more may be considered simultaneously.
In making the present regulations, we will be enhancing the safety of foreign roll-on/roll-off passenger ships which visit our ports and the persons on those ships, many of whom are Her Majesty's subjects. I commend these measures to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the regulations. We welcome the action taken by the Government both in the original 877 regulations and in these regulations applying now to non-UK ships. I am delighted to learn what the Minister has said about action to be taken with the International Maritime Organisation. We welcome that because it must not be overlooked that there have been some ferry tragedies in overseas countries as well as our own disaster at Zeebrugge.
I do not want to nit-pick, but I am very interested in what the Minister has said about the need for affirmative resolutions as against the negative procedure for others. In the light of our discussions last Thursday on the Merchant Shipping Bill, I shall look very carefully to see whether or not some of those might not have been covered by the affirmative resolutions, if we so pressed it. Otherwise we welcome the new regulations applying to non-UK ships.
I wonder whether the Minister could explain the question of dates? There must be a good explanation. So far as I can understand it, the dates when the No. 1886 regulations come into effect for the access door indicator lights and the TV surveillance system are 1st January 1988 and for the supplementary emergency lighting it is 31st July 1988. However, when I read the memorandum on the regulations before us tonight I see Item 1 of the regulations, states, These regulations may be cited as … and shall come into force on 1st March 1988". That would imply, from my elementary way of looking at it, that the supplementary emergency lighting for non-UK ships will come into operation on 1st March, whereas the original regulation, (which so far as I can see has not been changed) for the UK ships, will not come into operation until 31st July. Is there some explanation for this? Having put those two points, we welcome these regulations most wholeheartedly.

§ Lord Greenway
My Lords, I also welcome the regulations. It seems to me to be only right that the same things that apply to our ferries should apply to those foreign ferries which regularly operate from our ports. I take it that this is meant to refer only to those regular ferries that operate to the Continental ports. I wonder whether the Minister can tell me what would be the position until such time as a general ruling is given by IMO were a ro-ro passenger ship to visit one of our ports either on a one-off cruise or perhaps with a floating exhibition. This is something that takes place from time to time.
I particularly welcome the fact that the indicating systems apply to all access doors and not just the bow or stern doors through which vehicles drive on or off. It is just as important, with these types of ro-ro vessels, for all doors to be treated in this way because even the leaving open of a comparatively small door in the hull can indeed produce the same sort of tragic results as we witnessed recently.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, on this order. It is, as I said, the first of several which will come before your Lordships over a period of time covering the 878 measures which we have undertaken in the light of the Zeebrugge disaster.
With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about IMO, of course we would very much rather have proceeded through the usual channels and done everything through IMO. However, in this case we felt that because the cross-Channel routes were so busy and such a large number of people used them, we had to proceed unilaterally. As I have said, we very much hope that the IMO will adopt our measures next year. We have offered, as I say, to pay for extra consideration for that purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me about the dates of applications. The explanation is that the order that is now before the House has the effect of extending the amendments already made by negative order to the 1980 and 1984 regulations, so that from 1st March they apply also to non-UK ships. The result of that is that from 1st March all the measures in the 1980 and 1984 regulations that are already in force (including the requirement for indicator lights and TV introduced on 1st January 1988) apply immediately to foreign vessels. The emergency lighting amendment which applies from 31st July 1988 is also extended to apply to foreign vessels and therefore applies to them as soon as it applies to UK vessels; in other words, not until 31st July. I hope that that explains that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, asked about a ro-ro ship not on a regular passenger service visiting this country. This order only applies to passenger services. It would not apply to a ro-ro which, for instance, was driven here by adverse weather or for some other reason. It applies only to regular passenger services. As regards doors other than vehicle doors, yes, these regulations refer to closing devices—a term which includes hatches, weathertight ramps and other potential sources of major flooding.

§ Viscount Simon
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I do not quite understand how one can have regulations which apply only to regular services. Surely the regulations must apply to any passenger-carrying ro-ro vessel even if it comes here only once in its life.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, it is my understanding that it would only apply on passenger services. If the vessel came here on a passenger service it would apply, but if it came here for another reason, such as was outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, then it would not.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, raised is very important. The regulations refer to ro-ro passenger ships while they are within a port in the United Kingdom". There is no qualifying statement there about services and so on.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I can say that it applies on all passenger services. It applies also to irregular services, but not if the ship is used for 879 another purpose, such as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, when passengers are not carried.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten past eight.