Merchant Shipping (Safety Standards for Passenger Ships on Domestic Voyages) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

19:34

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 July be approved.

Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under powers conferred by the Merchant Shipping Act 1992. These regulations are not EU related and are caught by Schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 only by virtue of the fact that they amend a definition which was previously amended using Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The term in question is “approved”, the meaning of which is currently limited to meaning approved under the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2016, but these regulations broaden its meaning and that is why they are caught.

The regulations are the last of several measures which have been introduced over many years following the “Marchioness” tragedy in 1989, when 51 lives were lost—a figure which could so easily have been higher. Since that disaster, we have seen published Lord Justice Clarke’s Thames Safety Inquiry into that incident, a Marine Accident Investigation Branch report on the same and a more general formal safety assessment study into domestic passenger ship safety. These reports and their recommendations have driven a raft of measures to improve safety in this area. The recommendations covered a wide variety of situations and have resulted in a significant number of safety improvements between then and now, culminating in the regulations covering older ships under consideration today.

Early safety developments following the “Marchioness” tragedy covered the categorisation of inland and inshore waters according to risk, the creation of the boatmaster’s licence and qualifications, and higher bridge-visibility standards to make navigation safer. Some enhanced stability standards, which aid survivability, were introduced in 1992 and standards for modern domestic passenger ships were introduced in 2010 for ships built from that year onwards, but applying similar standards for existing, pre-2010, and particularly pre-1992, vessels was more challenging. These standards have now been developed in conjunction with industry through the Government’s domestic passenger ship safety group and are set out in these regulations.

The Government have undertaken extensive and almost unprecedented engagement on these regulations. They were developed within the main government and industry safety group and also benefited from two public consultations and five interactive workshops with industry, conducted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—MCA. The regulations have also been discussed in other meetings with industry over a period of several years and Ministers have engaged with stakeholders on these matters. I believe that this engagement was crucial, despite the inevitable additional delays that have arisen because of it.

Every person, whether native or tourist, using passenger transport in the UK has a right to expect—and I believe does expect—that whichever vessel they choose to carry them will meet consistent standards fit for the 21st century. If we do not grasp the nettle and improve the standards, certain vessels will be allowed to remain in the last century indefinitely. These regulations increase the life jacket carriage requirements and life raft capacity for ships operating in all but the safest waters. We believe that the assumption of passengers is that there are enough life jackets for everyone on board and likewise enough space in life rafts for all, but this is currently not the case for many vessels.

While these regulations cover a number of safety areas, including fire-protection measures, life-saving appliances, bilge pumping and warnings, one of the most important aspects of the standards for applicable ships is damage stability, perhaps more easily understood as survivability, which must be sufficient to keep the ship afloat for long enough for passengers and crew to escape in an emergency.

Some have argued that older ships should not have to meet modern safety standards because of historic interest. Some have said that this is an attack on Dunkirk “little ships”, although the overwhelming majority of them are unaffected by the regulations. I am not against the preservation of older ships which are of genuine historic interest, but I argue that government has a responsibility to ensure that all passenger transport meets modern safety standards, including those on vessel stability, or survivability.

Some older ships, if holed below the waterline, can sink in seconds. Those on board would not have time to ascend to the upper decks, let alone put on life jackets. In this type of situation, there is barely time to make a call to the emergency services, let alone wait for them to arrive. We must ensure that these vessels stay afloat long enough so that people are not trapped inside a submerged vessel or cast into fast-flowing water.

I hope I have highlighted the importance of these regulations. They fulfil our duty as government to ensure that appropriate maritime transport safety standards are in place. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

At the end insert “but that this House regrets the delay of up to 20 years in the introduction by His Majesty’s Government of these Regulations, which affect just over 600 vessels requiring safety related changes to fire protection equipment, life raft and lifejacket requirements.”

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive and, I thought, excellent explanation of why these regulations are necessary. She has given some very good reasons for them. My concern tonight is, first of all, to express concern at the delay—it is over 30 years now since the “Marchioness” accident—and to explore a little bit further what changes are covered by these regulations and where they apply. I note that, even at this late stage, the sister ship of the “Marchioness” is still sailing around, I believe, without some of the protection that the Minister has outlined and which I shall come to. I was pleased to hear her emphasise the need that the first stage must be to protect human life and to ensure that there is nothing in these lovely historical old ships that will excuse the provision of proper life-saving equipment and other things. I also congratulate the Minister on the documentation that has come with this SI, which is very impressive and detailed. I am also pleased that there has been a lot of quite good consultation—I have met some of the people who have been involved in some of it, and I think that it is really good that we have got to this stage.

As the Minister said, this standard covers life rafts, lifejackets, lifejacket lights, the fitting of fire detection and extinguishing equipment, bilge-pumping arrangements, bilge alarms for alerting of water ingress, and vessel stability. I find it extraordinary that this has not been a requirement for ships for many years. I am very pleased, of course, that it is in today, but the idea that you did not have to have enough life-raft capacity for all passengers on board is quite extraordinary. Whether we are talking about the upper River Thames, the tidal Thames or, in the other extreme, out to the Solent or something, the expectation from passengers must be that there is proper equipment and everything aboard. I think it is very good that the things we do not see in a ship, like fire detection, machinery failures, and bilge pumping—we discussed bilge pumps a few years ago in your Lordships’ House—are all here.

I want to ask the Minister a few questions about this damage stability issue. It is clearly important. In simple terms, in the event of a collision, will the boat fill up and sink? What is the risk of the collision happening, and what is the risk of it sinking or being damaged after the collision? I think that this is mainly to do with ships covered in these regulations in class C. I was also interested in her statement about the number of ships involved. Paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum talks about “mitigating factors” for some ships which the MCA and Ministers will allow to continue to operate, because they have presumably taken the risk assessment which says that their existing design is satisfactory under the new regulations. The figure quoted is 120 vessels. It would be good to know the sort of areas where these vessels operate, whether they operate at day or night, and how big they are, et cetera.

But I think what is probably even more important is how many vessels are not covered by the mitigating factors, and who will have to actually go through the process of compliance, which may involve quite a few internal works, a lot of dry-docking and things like that. In certain circumstances, as is alluded to in the Explanatory Memorandum, it may be uneconomic for these vessels to continue the way they are.

19:45

It would be very good to know why these vessels in particular cannot pass the new safety test. I am a bit worried about compliance. In paragraph 6.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, it says that compliance will be required to be

“achieved by the date of the first survey after the second anniversary of the date on which these Regulations come into force”—

so probably at least two years after they come into force—

“unless the Secretary of State grants an exemption from the requirements.”

Could the Minister explain the circumstances and reasons for any exemption?

I worry that the wording has obviously been written very carefully here, intending that if there is a survey and it does not work, the owner can agree with the surveyor that they will do the work later. There is a quote at the end of paragraph 6.3, which refers to an implementation plan being

“in place to ensure later compliance with the updated requirements.”

Knowing some of the people and owners involved, I can see them trying to persuade the surveyor, the MCA and finally the Minister that it will be all right and they will do it next year. I hope the Minister can give us comfort that that will not be the case, and that there will be absolute clarity as to what is needed and not needed. If one or two of the ships end up like the “Cutty Sark”; in a lovely place in Greenwich, but not able to go to sea and with no risk to passenger lives, then I think that is really important. I am pleased that the Explanatory Memorandum says that

“the impact on public safety is an enhancement of passenger safety on older vessels which is more in line with the levels of passenger safety on more modern vessels.”

If we stick to that, I think that we are there.

I have one final question for the Minister: does this apply to foreign-flagged vessels operating within UK waters? I do not mean going across to other countries; will it apply if they are able to operate from Dover to Portsmouth or something, or will there be similar regulations to which they have to apply?

My final “final question” is—and I hope that the answer from the Minister is no—whether this and all the other regulations she mentioned will be part of the bonfire of EC regulations referred to by her right honourable friend, Mr Rees-Mogg, a few weeks ago. I hope that the answer is no.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a moment. I pick up a thread raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the time that this has taken since the “Marchioness” disaster. The Minister will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that I chair has been concerned about the backlog of regulations that await promulgation by her department. The then Minister, Robert Courts, came to talk to us and gave a very impressive report on how action would be taken to close this gap, bring forward the regulations and make sure that we are up to date in all respects.

I am not asking my noble friend to give an answer now; that would be unfair. However, it would be helpful if she could go back to her department and let noble Lords who have participated in this debate know what progress has been made in bringing the department up to date. It has been a—if I may use the police phrase—“serial offender” in this regard. I am not asking her to tell us now, because it is not part of the issue tonight, but it would be helpful for us to know what progress is being made.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for drawing our attention and concern to the situation behind these regulations. I thank the Minister for her introduction and for an excellent impact assessment, which I know her department will have been working on for a long time. I also draw attention to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which expressed our deep concern very effectively and succinctly.

As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made clear, this all relates to—perhaps we should say “was sparked by”—events 33 years ago: the “Marchioness” disaster in 1989. There were 130 people on board, of whom 51 died. It is a source of national disgrace that it has taken this long to get to this point. I lay no blame at the Minister’s door. We are at last getting to the end of this horrendous saga, but the fact that there was no inquiry in 2000, and that it has taken 22 years since then to get to this final stage, should be a source of concern to all of us. This relates to very old ships that predate 26 May 1965—which, if I can be personal for a moment, was my 17th birthday. That gives your Lordships a perspective on how old the ships are that are affected by these regulations.

The interesting thing that is revealed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report is that there are still large numbers of these ships being used. Some 600 vessels will be required to make changes to their fire protection equipment, 285 will need to comply with life raft requirements, and 86 will need to comply with life jacket requirements. Those numbers are significant. As a nation, we have a fascination for old vessels. I live in south Wales and we are endlessly interested in the paddle steamer trips between south Wales and north Devon. I see the noble Lord, Lord Davies, nodding because he is well aware of that.

We are all familiar with the details of the tragedy of the “Titanic”. I realise that it would not have been affected because it was not in inland waters. However, the point I am making is that what horrifies us about that disaster are the details—and one detail that everyone picks up on is that there were not enough life rafts for the number of people on that ship. If the people who enjoy trips on historic vessels nowadays realised that they do not need to have life jackets for everyone on board, I am sure that they would be horrified, and probably it would reduce the number of customers they have. So I say to the Minister, “Be strong in the face of opposition to this”. To those people who think that they cannot afford to do it, I say, “You can’t afford not to”. They must provide modern and effective means of saving lives.

Of course we all support this, but I will finish very briefly by echoing the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I am worried that even more time will elapse before this has to be introduced. We have had 33 years to think about this. The idea that it will take even longer to be done worries me considerably. I urge the Minister to ensure that there is no question of the Secretary of State’s discretion being brought into play to delay it even further. I cannot envisage why anyone owning a ship such as this and using it should not be prepared to make what seem to be fairly limited adjustments and modifications to bring it up to modern safety standards. So I support this entirely.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this SI, my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his amendment, and all Peers who have taken part in this discussion.

This instrument, to apply safety requirements to certain passenger vessels built before 1965, has my full support, but my noble friend is right to ask why it has not been brought forward until now. These are important requirements relating to fire safety, bilge alarms, lifeboats, lights and life jackets, which have been called for over recent decades. I hope that the Minister will explain why they have not been introduced sooner. Until now, the regulations have applied only to vessels built since 2010, which has left over 600 vessels not meeting the standard.

I hope that the Minister can account for the delay and confirm whether the department has received reports of any safety incidents which may have otherwise been prevented had this instrument been brought forward sooner. Can the Minister also confirm whether any further vessels are in any way exempt? Finally, what steps will the department take to monitor compliance with these regulations?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords for this short debate and am relieved and delighted that all noble Lords agree that these regulations are necessary. All noble Lords—including the Minister—agree that they have potentially taken too long. That should concern all noble Lords and I will start by addressing the timeline.

I mentioned in opening that there has been an inordinate amount of engagement on this, because the types of vessels and ships that we are covering in these regulations are hugely diverse. They operate in very different categories of water. The Government received an enormous amount of pressure and representation from Members of your Lordships’ house, from Members of Parliament and from local elected officials—and, of course, they are all absolutely right to bring these matters to our attention. However, it caused some delay in reaching the right balance, which I believe we have got to today.

We had two public consultations, which was good, and five workshops between 2016 and 2019. Since then, we have focused on some of the more challenging vessels, where safety was not necessarily 100% proven and there was a case to be made, which is why we ended up taking so long on these regulations. However, we are where we are, and we have to play on the pitch we are on. We are now putting them in front of your Lordships’ House, and I hope they will be passed today.

20:00

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the matter of the types of vessels. Again, these regulations are about two things: first, the type of vessel, and secondly, the category of water that they tend to operate in. During the course of the discussions, reference was made to 120 class VI vessels, all of which have the new stability requirements disapplied to them—it is not an exemption but a disapplication of part of the regulations. Class VI vessels are seagoing passenger ships which have a lot of operational restrictions placed on them anyway, in that they operate only in the summer and only in favourable weather, and therefore an assessment was made such that the stability requirements would not apply to that entire group of vessels.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and others mentioned exemptions. I want to be absolutely clear that there is clarity in these regulations, but I would be remiss if I did not raise the fact that there is a very limited—I reiterate that—facility for exemption from the new stability requirements, which are the most challenging aspect of the regulations to implement. However, we expect the successful use of any exemption to be extremely rare. It would be in quite unique circumstances and would relate to operators on the tidal category C waters, places such as the Thames, where we receive the most challenge from representatives and other people within the system.

Getting any sort of exemption would involve a detailed risk assessment. I am happy to write to noble Lords about what that would look like. It would have to satisfy the MCA that the exemption in question is one of lower operational risk. I put on record now that it is not our intention to create a category of a large number of exempted vessels in these circumstances; it is very much about specific circumstances where it would seem reasonable and, dare I say it, right that they receive a certain exemption. However, obviously, we expect the vast majority of the vessels to comply, and if they cannot they will have to stop sailing as passenger transport. It is as simple as that.

It is quite surprising how many incidents there are on our waters. For example, there are more than 100 every year, on average, on the Thames alone. In a serious incident in 2014 the “Millennium Time” sustained structural damage to its bow in a collision. In 2011 the “Moon Clipper” hit the Tower Millennium Pier and was breached both above and below the water line. The engine room of “Millennium City” was flooded after a collision with Westminster Bridge in 2008. None of these were older vessels but, of course, it is simply a matter of time before an older vessel is involved. Although the risk of occurrence is considered to be medium, the potential severity of the outcome of an incident is high and it could lead to a significant loss of life. That makes the risk unacceptable. I am not aware of any incidents involving older vessels, but as I say, we need to make sure that we do not leave a loophole and the possibility of a risky outcome.

Turning to compliance and enforcement, as ever, with all maritime matters we look to the wonderful people at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, because they have responsibility for doing the annual surveys for ships. Compliance with these regulations will be checked. As noted, there is a two-year phase-in period, but the industry has known that this is coming for a very long time, and I would expect it to make sure that it is well ready, if it has not done so already, because as I said earlier, exemptions will be very few and far between. I can say that because I am the new Maritime Minister and I intend to stay in my post for as long as possible, so I will ensure that we do not do the wrong thing in that regard.

Finally, I want to try to make my noble friend Lord Hodgson happy. First, I intend to continue the fine work of Robert Courts, who was a superb Maritime Minister. We will continue to fight the backlog. These regulations are not in the backlog; they are slightly separate, but I know that we are making good progress, and my noble friend will have seen a couple of SIs go through recently. Nine statutory instruments remain out of the total of 13; two have been approved by Parliament and will be made shortly, and another has been laid in draft. We are getting there, and I again commit to him that we will get there by the end of 2023. We will clear the maritime backlog where those regulations relate to the International Maritime Organization’s III instruments. We will then be in the SLSC’s good books and I, for one, will be very grateful. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her response. She has given me a lot of confidence that in her new role, on which I congratulate her, she will be robust in ensuring that there is no backsliding on these new regulations. As she has alluded to, collision is of course one of the greatest risks, and it happens on the Thames and on other major rivers, but there are probably more passenger services on the Thames than on many others.

I hope I understood her correctly in saying that the let-out that it was too expensive to make changes, for example, would not be acceptable. I am afraid I got the impression that the commercial side would have to give way to safety whenever there was a debate as to which was more important. I think she also said that whatever changes are possible for the 120 or so, everybody would still be required to comply with the new rules on lifejackets, bilge and life rafts, and all the other rules that apply across the board.

I look forward to the Minister writing to us about anything else that she has not covered, and I congratulate her again. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

Motion agreed.

20:07

Sitting suspended.