Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments Second Report


APPENDIX III

Memorandum by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

MERCHANT SHIPPING (PASSENGER SHIP CONSTRUCTION: SHIPS OF CLASSES III TO V1(A)) REGULATIONS 1998 (S.I. 1998/2515)

The Committee requested a memorandum on the following points:

(1) Please explain whether these Regulations are intended generally (apart from the provision made for Part IV by regulation 21(1)) to apply not only to United Kingdom ships but also to non-United Kingdom ships whilst they are in United Kingdom waters. Compare regulation 3(2) of the corresponding Regulations for ships of Classes I, II and II(A): S.I. 1998/2514).

Yes, they are intended to apply also to non-UK ships when in UK waters. The definition of the Classes of ships means that in the large majority of cases the ships will always be in UK waters.

(2) Both regulation 8 and regulation 32(2) require subdivided ships to be subdivided

  by bulkheads into compartments of a length calculated in accordance with Merchant Shipping Notice MSN 1699 (M) and impose the same requirements as to watertightness and design for other portions of the internal structure. Please explain the apparent duplication.

The two provisions are duplicates. Regulation 32(2) will be omitted.

(3) Explain, in regulation 30 (stability criteria) the words "After correcting for the effect

of free surface of liquids in tanks".

The phrase is a term of art in naval architecture. Roughly speaking it means that the fact that water slops about in tanks has to be taken into account.

(4) Regulation 51(3) requires every ship with multiple propellers to undergo trials to determine the ability of the ship to manoeuvre with one propeller inoperative. The corresponding regulation 64(3) refers to manoeuvrability with one or more propellers inoperative. Is this distinction intended? If it is, explain why the provisions differ.

The distinction was not intended. It should be one or more.

(5) In regulation 73 -

(a) is it intended that contravention of regulation 25 does not constitute an offence?

(b) is it intended that no offence is committed by the officer appointed for the

purposes of regulation 23 who reports a door to be closed and locked when it is not in fact closed and locked? (Compare the corresponding regulation 91(5)).

(c) in paragraph (3) which creates an offence triable either way, ought not the summary fine to be expressed by reference to the statutory maximum (as with the intended reference to that maximum in paragraph (1))?

(a) Yes. But if gangway doors are opened other than in an emergency or when, in spite of emergency, the master considers that opening the doors would put safety at risk, the offence committed is contravention of regulation 22 or 24 rather than 25.

(b) There should be such an offence.

(c) Yes.

The errors are very much regretted and will be corrected at the first convenient opportunity.

23rd November 1998


 
previous page contents

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 17 December 1998