Graham376
Well-known member
The government has, today, laid the resulting Merchant Shipping (Watercraft) Order 2023 before Parliament
Merchant Shipping (Watercraft) Order 2023
- Thread starter Graham376
- Start date
dunedin
Well-known member
Thanks for posting this. This follows their “Consultation” 15 months ago on so called PWCs and “dangerous watercraft”, after which nothing further had been heard.
On a very brief first reading it looks like they didn’t pay much heed to the consultation feedback - as rather than covering PWCs and similar fast craft, it looks to cover ALL watercraft with any form of mechanical propulsion - even a tiny 1hp motor.
Meaning of “watercraft”
3.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), “watercraft” means any type of craft which—
(a)is capable of moving under its own mechanical power,
(b)is used, navigated or situated wholly or partly in or on water, and
(c)is capable of being used to carry one or more persons.
(2) “Watercraft” does not include a ship or fishing vessel within the meanings given in section 313(1) of the 1995 Act.
Seem to have removed the small sailing dinghies and canoes though, which is one change ?
On a very brief first reading it looks like they didn’t pay much heed to the consultation feedback - as rather than covering PWCs and similar fast craft, it looks to cover ALL watercraft with any form of mechanical propulsion - even a tiny 1hp motor.
Meaning of “watercraft”
3.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), “watercraft” means any type of craft which—
(a)is capable of moving under its own mechanical power,
(b)is used, navigated or situated wholly or partly in or on water, and
(c)is capable of being used to carry one or more persons.
(2) “Watercraft” does not include a ship or fishing vessel within the meanings given in section 313(1) of the 1995 Act.
Seem to have removed the small sailing dinghies and canoes though, which is one change ?
Graham376
Well-known member
Here's a copy of the email I received today from Maritime Safety. The very limited feed back they received to the draft proposals would I think indicate that most were in favour.
We are extremely grateful to everyone who took the time to consider our proposals and have reviewed these in detail to inform the further development of the draft legislation. A total of 491 responses were received which overwhelmingly supported the rationale for legislation in this area but raised a number of questions about how, and to what, it would apply in practice.
A summary of those responses, outlining key themes, specific issues raised in relation to the 12 questions asked in the consultation paper, other issues not related directly to the consultation itself and the government’s response can be found here. The summary notes the improvements we have made to the draft legislation as a result, key amongst which are the:
We are extremely grateful to everyone who took the time to consider our proposals and have reviewed these in detail to inform the further development of the draft legislation. A total of 491 responses were received which overwhelmingly supported the rationale for legislation in this area but raised a number of questions about how, and to what, it would apply in practice.
A summary of those responses, outlining key themes, specific issues raised in relation to the 12 questions asked in the consultation paper, other issues not related directly to the consultation itself and the government’s response can be found here. The summary notes the improvements we have made to the draft legislation as a result, key amongst which are the:
- removal of all unpowered watercraft in favour of a definition based on the presence of an engine or motor; and
- removal of the application of the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2016.
Praxinoscope
Well-known member
Very difficult to criticise government, when according to Maritime Safety they only received 491 responses to their draft proposals.
dunedin
Well-known member
The Department of Transport’s summary of the Consultation response and their actions as a result is also here Strengthening enforcement of the dangerous use of recreational and personal watercraft: consultation response summary and next steps
This confirms that the joint feedback from the RYA, Cruising Association, canoeing association etc have successfully removed unpowered watercraft from the proposals (had been any unpowered vessel above 2.5m).
However the don’t mention proposals to have a minimum power level for these so called “dangerous watercraft” - eg I think some had suggested below 4kW/5hp should be exempt, but this was not mentioned.
It does also confirm the concern raised that the statistics of accidents related purely to jet ski style PWCs, yet the coverage of the proposed rule includes ALL powered watercraft - which are massively more numerous, and for which there was no evidence of any risk presented.
One change is that all powered watercraft, however low powered, will be able to be formally registered “on a voluntary basis”. They add that the Government “does not believe there is currently a case for the mandatory registration of all watercraft”. But “currently” is an important caveat, and this clearly makes it much easier to mandate registration for all small powered craft, including tenders etc, in future.
Finally, they asked for evidence of any accidents due to drugs or alcohol. They conclude that “it is clear from the evidence supplied that there has been an increase in the number of reports of incidents, accidents and near misses where alcohol and drug use is strongly suspected”. No specific changes to the law as yet, but one can see a clear direction of travel in future?
The original cause of this was an arguably bizarre judge deciding arbitrarily that a jet ski / PWC was not legally a “watercraft” (quite what he/she thought it was then remains unsaid). That was clearly unhelpful. But with all the PR messaging and the few statistics relating purely to fast “dangerous” PWCs, the result is a legal framework now embracing all powered craft.
In short term there may be no immediate consequences - but as was made clear in the consultation responses, there may be unintended consequences when laws aimed at large ships are suddenly able to be applied to small rubber dinghies and the like.
One mentioned is if SOLAS lifejackets for all passengers were required, these bulky devices could be dangerous on small craft (and where do you stow equipment on an electric powered surfboard?)
Looks like the longer term forecast might be more legislation on boating
This confirms that the joint feedback from the RYA, Cruising Association, canoeing association etc have successfully removed unpowered watercraft from the proposals (had been any unpowered vessel above 2.5m).
However the don’t mention proposals to have a minimum power level for these so called “dangerous watercraft” - eg I think some had suggested below 4kW/5hp should be exempt, but this was not mentioned.
It does also confirm the concern raised that the statistics of accidents related purely to jet ski style PWCs, yet the coverage of the proposed rule includes ALL powered watercraft - which are massively more numerous, and for which there was no evidence of any risk presented.
One change is that all powered watercraft, however low powered, will be able to be formally registered “on a voluntary basis”. They add that the Government “does not believe there is currently a case for the mandatory registration of all watercraft”. But “currently” is an important caveat, and this clearly makes it much easier to mandate registration for all small powered craft, including tenders etc, in future.
Finally, they asked for evidence of any accidents due to drugs or alcohol. They conclude that “it is clear from the evidence supplied that there has been an increase in the number of reports of incidents, accidents and near misses where alcohol and drug use is strongly suspected”. No specific changes to the law as yet, but one can see a clear direction of travel in future?
The original cause of this was an arguably bizarre judge deciding arbitrarily that a jet ski / PWC was not legally a “watercraft” (quite what he/she thought it was then remains unsaid). That was clearly unhelpful. But with all the PR messaging and the few statistics relating purely to fast “dangerous” PWCs, the result is a legal framework now embracing all powered craft.
In short term there may be no immediate consequences - but as was made clear in the consultation responses, there may be unintended consequences when laws aimed at large ships are suddenly able to be applied to small rubber dinghies and the like.
One mentioned is if SOLAS lifejackets for all passengers were required, these bulky devices could be dangerous on small craft (and where do you stow equipment on an electric powered surfboard?)
Looks like the longer term forecast might be more legislation on boating
Last edited:
dunedin
Well-known member
But to be fair I know that included the RYA, the Cruising Association, canoe associations etc. The “number of responses” on a percentage basis is rather dismissive of the expertise and number of boaters that some of these organisations represent (hundreds of thousands of boaters). One personal input counts the same as the canoe association for example?
And at least me personally
Sandy
Well-known member
Given that Plymouth have successfully prosecuted a couple of PWC riders/owners is there any need for yet more laws.
I understand that the prosecutions were under local by laws, but I rarely see PWCs far from a harbour.
I understand that the prosecutions were under local by laws, but I rarely see PWCs far from a harbour.
Praxinoscope
Well-known member
Agreed that various organisations made representations, but it would perhaps have ‘looked’ better if a substantial number of boat owners/ users had also made representations.
I certainly took time to register my thoughts through the consultation.
I certainly took time to register my thoughts through the consultation.
Boathook
Well-known member
I don't remember seeing anything about it. Was it publicised much ?
Graham376
Well-known member
Yes, couple of years ago IIRC, big discussion about proposed legislation brought about by antics of some idiots on jetskis.
penfold
Well-known member
Much like falling trees, if PWCs are outside the earshot of other watersports enjoyers do they make a noise?
More generally if PWCs are the problem why not identify them specifically or at least specify a power to unladen weight ratio? An avon redstart with an eggwhisk is a PWC by that definition. Commercial shipping regulation has separate provision for high speed craft, that model would seem a useful place to start for demarcation.
LittleSister
Well-known member
The trouble is that the existing situation required every harbour and navigation authority where there was or might be a problem to make new bye laws, with the associated expense, complication and resource/time implications, and not every such authority has the ability, powers or inclination to do so. (I am guessing it would also preclude controls on areas of the sea (e.g. off popular beaches), which are not within a designated harbour authority's area. Perhaps also affecting e.g. Border Force's powers to board and seize vessels?)
As I recall the court decision hinged upon the definition of a vessel in the Merchant Shipping Act as being something that was 'navigated' on or in the water The court interpreted the term 'navigated' (presumably after hearing learned argument about the issue) as implying a degree of deliberation about direction, etc., and considered that PWCs thrashed about hither and thither without necessarily having intention to go anywhere in particular.
The new definition quoted in Post #2 apparently expands the relevant definition to 'used, navigated or situated wholly or partly in or on water'.
This presumably extends the powers existing harbour and certain other authorities already have over 'vessels' to include such 'watercraft'.
Paradoxically, as best I understand it navigate originally meant simply to go/move about in a ship/vessel (a sense it is still retains but not favoured by the court), and only later came to also mean the art involving determining/plotting courses etc.
The question now arises was Henry the Navigator really a 'navigator' when he didn't know where he was going?
Last edited:
Dellquay13
Well-known member
“Formally registered on a voluntary basis” opens a route to;
Compulsory registration of watercraft
Licensing of watercraft
Fees for licensing of watercraft
Taxation of watercraft
Licensing of Skippers
Mandatory qualifications for Skippers
Fees for licensing of Skippers
I’ve paid 22years of membership fees to the RYA to help keep that list in abeyance.
What is wrong with sticking to the UKSR pt3 SSR as a formal register on a voluntary basis, rather than new legislation?
Compulsory registration of watercraft
Licensing of watercraft
Fees for licensing of watercraft
Taxation of watercraft
Licensing of Skippers
Mandatory qualifications for Skippers
Fees for licensing of Skippers
I’ve paid 22years of membership fees to the RYA to help keep that list in abeyance.
What is wrong with sticking to the UKSR pt3 SSR as a formal register on a voluntary basis, rather than new legislation?
penberth3
Well-known member
I'm actually surprised there were so many responses - usually a lot of apathy to these things.
The important thing isn't the total number, it's the nature of the contributions i.e. intelligent and constructive comment, And they do listen!
Concerto
Well-known member
For those who find the Watercraft Order difficult to read, then this summary is worth reading.
Reckless jet skiers to face prison and unlimited fines after law change - Marine Industry News
Reckless jet skiers to face prison and unlimited fines after law change - Marine Industry News
Pump-Out
Active member
A huge raft of Civil servants, from all departments, would be made redundant if government stopped finding the need for the drafting of new legislation.
Dellquay13
Well-known member
I think the UKSR might be glad of the work if more people used their system. They turned around my application for the SSR in less than a week; application sent in on Monday and completed today, including having to inform me of rules on boat names leading to a resubmission of my application, so they aren’t too busy at the moment.
Tranona
Well-known member
The SSR is not appropriate for this purpose as it there solely to identify your boat as a British Ship when outside UK waters. All the new proposal is saying is that the voluntary registration as required by many harbour authorities should be widely used as a means of identifying boats. a more comprehensive compulsory system has been suggested before, for example when there was a proposal for an EU wide system and more recently when considering ways of raising more money to finance navigation aids by levying light duties on private vessels. In both cases it was not pursued mainly because there was no appetite in government (as well of course because of lobbying). for more regulation, not least because enforcement is a major cost.
Boathook
Well-known member
Maybe they could be transferred to HMRC after training HMRC trials answer by text system to cut call queues - BBC News
oldharry
Well-known member
Seems to me on a quick glance through that they are closing loop holes used by lawyers to get the idiot fringe off the hook after an accident or fatality, in order to simplify the process when prosecution is appropriate but confused by lack of clear legislation.
From the Instrument:
12. Impact
12.1 There is no, or no significant, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.
12.2 The impact on the public sector is not expected to be significant and will fall largely
on the MCA as the relevant enforcement authority. MCA has an established
enforcement team and there is no change to the offences within the Merchant
Shipping Act 1995 which have remained applicable to ships.
12.3 A full Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because no, or no
significant, impact is foreseen
From the Instrument:
12. Impact
12.1 There is no, or no significant, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.
12.2 The impact on the public sector is not expected to be significant and will fall largely
on the MCA as the relevant enforcement authority. MCA has an established
enforcement team and there is no change to the offences within the Merchant
Shipping Act 1995 which have remained applicable to ships.
12.3 A full Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because no, or no
significant, impact is foreseen
