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

Motion to Approve

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

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.

Moved by

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.”

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.

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?