Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 2025

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:15

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 2025.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to amend the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1989 and thus to ensure that the full suite of maritime legal powers currently available in relation to ships is also available, where applicable, to regulate hovercraft operating in the United Kingdom.

Noble Lords will wish to know that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered a draft of the order before it was laid and then gave informal pre-laying approval. After the draft order was laid on 1 July, it was formally cleared by the Joint Committee in its Thirty-second Report of Session 2024-25. Likewise, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee formally cleared the draft order as an instrument not drawn to the special attention of the House in its 32nd Report of Session 2024–25. Prior to this, the MCA responded to preliminary enquiries from the committee’s clerk to the satisfaction of the committee.

The background to the order is that the United Kingdom currently has one commercial hovercraft operation comprising two hovercraft which operate in in-shore waters between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight. Those hovercraft are regulated as high-speed craft and comply fully with the existing relevant legislation.

The principal piece of legislation governing hovercraft is the Hovercraft Act 1968. The Act enables Orders in Council to be made to bring hovercraft within the scope of any relevant corresponding ship requirements under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. This is because hovercraft operate at sea in the same way as ships.

Using the powers in the 1968 Act, an order was originally made in 1989—the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1989—and this is the basis on which current relevant ship requirements are applied to hovercraft. This new order, if approved, will amend the 1989 order to make it possible in future to apply relevant legislation made in or under the 1995 Act to hovercraft as it already applies to ships.

We intend to make this order now because, for the purpose of extending the current Merchant Shipping (Fees) Regulations in November 2025, it is necessary to ensure that, in relation to all possible future hovercraft operations, the department will be able to charge fees for regulating hovercraft in the same way that it charges fees for regulating other types of ships. The statutory instrument will contain powers, through the use of provision for ambulatory reference, to ensure that, where necessary, legislation for hovercraft can keep pace with changes to the corresponding legislation covering ships.

This order includes provision relating to safety requirements, pollution prevention measures and inquiries and investigations into ship casualties, ensuring that hovercraft will remain subject to the same modern regulatory standards as ships where this is necessary. This supports consistency, safety, the protection of the marine environment and growth across maritime operations. The order also updates some provision in the existing 1989 order to bring it up to current drafting standards.

Although the department considers that there is no gap in legal powers in respect of the existing hovercraft operation in the United Kingdom because that operation is regulated under the legislation governing high-speed craft, the department nevertheless acknowledges that the existing 1989 order has fallen behind in its alignment with current regulations for ships and considers it appropriate to take steps to resolve this. This order will ensure that the department’s ability properly to regulate future hovercraft operations in the United Kingdom is not impeded by regulations designed for a previous generation of craft.

Since the existing 1989 order was made, it has been amended twice to align it more closely with requirements for ships. As well as introducing the power to enable the department to charge fees fully in line with the fees structure for ships, this order, if approved, will also update provisions for safety regulations and casualty investigations. Notably, the order will also update the pollution prevention provisions when it comes to the availability of powers for the prevention of pollution of the marine environment by sewage and garbage, oil, liquid chemicals, dangerous goods, harmful substances and air emissions.

The order also makes specific provision to apply the ambulatory reference powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. This will mean that, where there is provision in regulations for ambulatory reference to ship requirements, and where those ship requirements are applied to hovercraft by this order, the ambulatory reference provision will also cover those requirements as they apply to hovercraft. This will, in turn, ensure that the relevant legislation for hovercraft will keep pace with international standards in the same way as it does for ships, ensuring that safety and pollution prevention standards are maintained and that there is a level playing field for UK industry and international competitors.

Before concluding, I would like to mention two further points. There was no public consultation, simply because this order does not by itself impose requirements on the public or businesses. Similarly, this order does not represent a change in policy but merely ensures that all relevant existing maritime powers for ships are also available for hovercraft in future.

In conclusion, I have highlighted the importance of this Order in Council in ensuring that hovercraft operating in the United Kingdom are subject to the same regulatory regime as ships and that the department has appropriate powers to ensure compliance with relevant safety and pollution prevention standards. I therefore beg to move.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I shall intervene reasonably briefly on this matter and, in doing so, I declare my interest not as someone who has captained or flown a hovercraft but as a holder of a private pilot’s licence in aviation. In probing this matter, I first refer to the definition of a hovercraft, not from a maritime document but from Aviation World, which says:

“A hovercraft is a type of vehicle that is designed to travel over a variety of surfaces, including land, water, and ice, using a cushion of air. The vehicle is propelled by one or more fans, which create an air flow that lifts the hovercraft off the ground and allows it to ‘float’ on the surface”.


“One of the key features of a hovercraft is its versatility. Unlike boats, which are limited to water, and cars, which are limited to roads, a hovercraft can travel over a wide range of terrains”—


this is getting to my point—

“including mud, sand, grass, and even shallow water. This makes them ideal for rescue operations, transportation in marshy or wetland areas and for military uses”.

The Minister has rightly mentioned that, at the present time, there is very limited commercial use of hovercraft in this country. He referred to the Solent, where hovercraft are in use, but I point out to him that there is considerable and increasing use of hovercraft on the land and in the military, and their uses are always being looked at and developed. I am proud to say that this was a design patented by a UK citizen, Christopher Cockerell, in 1955. For a long time, we developed the commercial use of these craft, particularly in the channel and elsewhere. The world did not directly follow us in that way, but it then started to look at alternative uses.

I come to the points of probing that I would like to make to the Minister. First, these are inevitably maritime regulations. In fact, looking at the commercial use of hovercraft, I assume that they are always of the feminine gender, because they follow ships and boats, which tend to have that designation—it is not quite the same with the Army, which I do not think would do that. I would like a little explanation on the following. We are making maritime law apply to the use of hovercraft, yet the use of hovercraft in a maritime setting is diminishing while their use across land and other surfaces is increasing. Can the Minister help me understand how the regulations apply to hovercraft that are not on the sea or water?

Also, in relation to the issues he mentioned of pollution, casualties and safety requirements, what measures are there to protect people? What measures are there in relation to pollution in the environmental setting as they relate to these vehicles or crafts?

Finally, on insurance, it is interesting that in the maritime setting ships tend to be insured through Lloyd’s Register and tend to be insured specifically on a maritime basis. Is the insurance of hovercraft required to fit in with maritime law in this way, or is it covered in some other manner?

I hope that my short contribution has not confused anybody, but it seems to me that these narrower provisions before us today, which are drafted on a maritime basis, do not necessarily reflect the reality of the use of this wonderful invention of Christoper Cockerell.

[Lord Greenway (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order, on which I have no complaint— I think it is all very sensible, but I would say that, as a mariner. Following on from what the noble Lord who has just spoken said, I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this movement of hovercraft from sea to land. The RNLI already uses small hovercraft for dealing with waters where the tide goes out a long way and there are a lot of mudflats, where they find them very useful.

However, in terms of general passenger carriage, as the Minister referred to, the service between Southsea and Ryde is in fact the last all-year-round service in the world that uses hovercraft for carrying passengers. In some ways, it is very welcome that it uses hovercraft—as we have heard, invented by Christopher Cockerell—but it is also rather sad because, in many ways, the hovercraft was a brief flash in the pan in maritime history. It developed quite considerably from small hovercraft, such as the SRN6, up to the SRN4, which was quite a large hovercraft—in fact, it was even lengthened for service across the channel from Dover to Calais.

However, hovercraft were not without their problems, and in fact there were at least two fatal accidents. One of the smaller SRN hovercraft flipped over in a gale just off Southsea and nine people were drowned. One of the larger ones, also in a gale, hit the breakwater coming into Dover, which put a 60-foot gash in its side, and a number of people fell out, four of whom, sadly, were pronounced dead.

The hovercraft was, in many ways, an interesting and wonderful invention, but I am afraid that it was overtaken, first, by the huge fuel-price hikes in the 1960s and 1970s and, then, of course, by the introduction of the Channel Tunnel, which really killed off the larger hovercraft that crossed the channel. They went out of action in the year 2000.

As I said, I have no complaints about this order, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the Minister on retaining his place in the recent reshuffle.

Following my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate’s speech, which I thought was fascinating, it may be that, as a result of that speech and the points made by him and, to some extent, by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, the Minister might now prefer to withdraw this statutory instrument on the grounds that the department has probably miscategorised hovercraft as properly falling under maritime law and come back with an instrument that acknowledges the richer context in which hovercraft are increasingly used and—if we are to believe my noble friend and the noble Lord, who have some expertise—are likely to be increasingly used, so that the statutory instrument can be pertinent, robust and what is called future-proof. If so, we would completely understand why the Minister would wish to withdraw the instrument and we would not object to its withdrawal.

16:30

The updates in the instrument are largely technical, it must be said, but there are a few points I should raise. First, on fees, we must be anxious that fees are not set at levels that are prohibitive for operators of hovercraft. I ask the Minister whether there is some limitation on fees—for example, one that requires that, taken together over a period of, say, a year, the fees do not in total exceed the costs of delivering the regulatory service for the department or the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—so that at least they cannot be used in a way that interferes excessively with the operation of any services that are proposed.

Although the Minister has said there was no public consultation and he has given a reason for that, which is that the instrument does not impose any new requirements, I wonder whether the sector—which is, of course, one company—was consulted on this question of fees. Although it is not a requirement, it is an expanded power and therefore exposes the sector potentially to a greater range of fees than exists at the moment. Perhaps he can explain whether the sector was consulted on the fees provisions and whether there was any response. If it was not consulted, again, he might prefer to consider doing so before pressing ahead with the instrument today.

The next issue is the use of ambulatory references under Section 306A. I have to confess that I had never before come across the concept of ambulatory references. I had to make some inquiries. In fact, in my original query to those whom I consulted, I was not sure whether the ambulatory power related to the hovercraft itself or to the regulations—was it the hovercraft that was ambulating about, so to speak? Apparently not; it is what we would know in a different context as dynamic alignment. It is troubling because we have got rid of dynamic alignment from the regulatory regime of this country, mercifully, but here we are apparently embracing it.

It appears that ambulatory references, or dynamic alignment, relate to the regulations made by the International Maritime Organization. The purpose of this provision is that those regulations would apply directly in UK law without further reference to Parliament or further law-making; there would be neither a statute, in primary legislation, nor a statutory instrument for those regulations to apply. I find this slightly concerning because we are in this House keen to ensure that parliamentary oversight of the making of new law and regulation should be crucial. That is something I should like to know. I think I am right in saying that this is the only example of ambulatory reference in UK regulatory law. If I am wrong about that, the Minister can tell me and I am happy to be corrected about it.

That is significant, as a matter of principle, in relation to the whole question of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. I remind the Minister—I know that he does not need reminding of this—that parliamentary scrutiny is the Government’s friend, because it keeps everybody on their toes when they know that they are subject to questions and examination by Members of this House and the other place. The Government should not worry about parliamentary scrutiny in the slightest; it is their friend.

I think therefore that the Government have probably come at this issue—I say this especially in the light of the comments by the two preceding speakers—on a very narrow basis, possibly a flawed basis. It may be the case that, if the order is not withdrawn, it will have to be rewritten again quite soon in any event to take account of the expanded use of hovercraft away from a maritime setting. In the meantime, providing the implementation in relation to the one existing operator is proportionate and involves an appropriate level of consultation, we do not object to the Government’s intention at the moment.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this draft order. I am grateful for the scrutiny and interest shown in ensuring our maritime legislation remains coherent and fit for purpose.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, spoke eloquently about the varied use of hovercraft other than in the circumstances in which they are currently principally used for marine purposes. My assurance is that these regulations cover the use of hovercraft in the sea and near the sea; the use of them on land is outside the scope of this legislation. I will write to him further about what I can tell him about the use of hovercraft on land. Of course, we have to, and should, take proper account of their use in commercial service in the remaining service within which they operate. It is important, therefore, that the regulations are up to date. The intention is to keep them up to date in order that that service can continue for as long as possible.

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, gave us a very clear understanding of the history of hovercraft. He referred to two serious accidents, which is, of course, the reason why these regulations should be kept up to date and that the hovercraft in service that the public are currently using are properly regulated.

We do not intend to withdraw the order, because it is necessary to ensure that we have continuous and proper regulation of hovercraft. This order is the means of doing that.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked about the fee calculation. The fees are calculated at a cost recovery level. There are no new fees or increases to fees. There would be full consultation before there were to be any new or increased fees. I believe that answers the point raised by the noble Lord.

As I said, there was no consultation because there was no material difference, but the department is in constant discussion with the operators of the remaining hovercraft service—principally, as noble Lords may know, about the controversy over the level and quality of all services to the Isle of Wight.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister mid flow. He very kindly suggested that he would write to me. I know that the maritime regulations are narrow, as he said, in that, according to this, they cover the operation of the hovercraft only on the sea or, presumably, on water. But a lot of the hovercraft now deployed, particularly military and others, combine running on water, land, across mud and across ice. That is the whole joy of the air cushion. They do not run on roads, so we cannot talk about Road Traffic Acts or anything like that. It is of great interest to me to know how these regulations are applied, particularly in a multi-use case such as that or, indeed, where they never go near water. That is what I am puzzled about. I realise that this measure is not about that, and I do not want to spoil it like that, but if the Minister could ask officials and so on to write to me about that, I would be so grateful.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a valued point, and I will write to him fully. The intention of this order is only to cope with their maritime use and the marginal use of the slipway at each side of the Solent. I will write to the noble Lord separately about his valuable point, because it is clear that some regulation ought to apply. But I am assured that the intention of the order is to regulate these craft in respect of their use on and absolutely near the sea, on the slipways. So I completely understand his point. I will write to him as fully as I am able about what applies in the circumstances in which those craft are used on land.

Suffice it to say that, although safety and other environmental protections are absolutely needed, the primary intention of the order is to continue to regulate hovercraft in public service—on the remaining public service in which they are used—in an up-to-date manner. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to two serious incidents over the course of the years, and I am sure that noble Lords would agree with me that it is absolutely essential that the regulations are kept in order so that, were there to be any such incident, it would be properly dealt with.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised the question of ambulatory reference. I am not able to tell him whether this applies anywhere else, but I handily have some remarks about ambulatory reference in this particular circumstance. It is a reference in domestic legislation to an international instrument that is interpreted as a reference to the international instrument as modified from time to time and not simply the version of the instrument that exists at the time that the domestic legislation is made.

The Deregulation Act 2015 gave a power, through an amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 by inserting new Section 306A, to include ambulatory references in domestic maritime legislation implementing international agreements—namely, ones not derived from the European Union. Using ambulatory references in merchant shipping legislation is a useful means of ensuring that secondary legislation gives full effect to future technical amendments to existing international maritime conventions that are adopted by the International Maritime Organization—IMO—and that the UK has already implemented. These include, but are not limited to, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974 and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973. These conventions are regularly updated.

It is to the benefit of the UK shipping industry to have a mechanism whereby domestic shipping legislation can remain up to date with the international standards. It maintains an international level playing field and ensures that UK shipping complies with the requirements of any other International Maritime Organization member state to which that UK shipping travels.

Although ambulatory reference provision in domestic law allows future amendments to international conventions to be incorporated automatically into domestic law, the United Kingdom will nevertheless be able to continue to scrutinise and, if necessary, object to proposed changes in the international arena in the International Maritime Organization and assess their impact well before any amendment is due to come into force, which will inform decision-making.

United Kingdom industry and worker stakeholders will also be involved at the stage that the United Kingdom negotiating strategy is formulated, and they will be able to influence it. Some principal stakeholders representing industry and workers are affiliated to non-government international organisations, which have been granted consultative status at the IMO and make substantial contributions to the work of the IMO, contributing sector knowledge, insight and expertise.

If an amendment is objected to by the United Kingdom, it will come into force internationally. The Secretary of State will make amending secondary legislation to prevent that amendment coming into force domestically. An amendment that is accepted will, before coming into force in UK law, be publicised by means of a parliamentary Statement to both Houses of Parliament and the subject of guidance issued by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would not want the UK’s shipping industry to be burdened by the failure to comply with the IMO. I believe that the statement I made in respect of ambulatory reference deals with the necessary scrutiny, both to amendments that are objected to by the United Kingdom and to those that are accepted.

I have attempted, at least, to deal with the points raised by noble Lords this afternoon. This order is necessary to ensure that hovercraft remain subject to the same safety and pollution prevention requirements as ships, where applicable. It strengthens our maritime regulatory regime and ensures consistency across vessel types. I will write to the noble Lord on the subject that he requests further information on—I am very happy to do so. I hope that noble Lords have found this informative and that they will join me in supporting these measures.

Motion agreed.