Consultation outcome

Consultation Outcome Report

Updated 16 November 2023

Section 1: Introduction

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), an executive Agency of the Department for Transport (DfT), carried out a public consultation from 1 to 28 August 2023 on an Amendment to Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 627(M) to enhance the clarity and better reflect the legislative changes brought about by the Merchant Shipping (Safety Standards for Passenger Ships on Domestic Voyages) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022 (“the 2022 Regulations”) (sometimes colloquially known as the “Grandfather Rights Regulations”) and its associated Marine Notices.

The MGN is designed to help the reader with understanding the Regulations and associated documents. It is not intended to be a substitute for reading the substantive provisions and therefore gives a high level, rather than a detailed view, of the changes the “Grandfather Rights Regulations” make, and are not designed to cover every eventuality.

The amendments to the MGN are driven by early experiences arising from the scrutiny of the of Grandfather Rights regime, and are designed to give greater clarity and enable the MGN to better reflect the legislative changes the Grandfather Rights Regulations implemented.

Section 2: Consultation

The consultation was carried out between 1 August and 28 August 2023.

A total of five responses were received, three from vessel operators, one from an industry representative body and the other from a law body.

Section 3: Consultation outcome

The following questions were posed during the consultation. Government responses are also shown below.

Questions posed

Question 1 – is the MGN free of typographical errors?

Responses

Three respondents agreed, one did not answer, and one respondent disagreed with this question saying they believed that the word “Amendment” in the title of the MGN should be capitalised.

Government comments

The government agrees with this and will correct the typographical error.

Question 2 – Do you believe the content is clear?

Responses

Two agreed unconditionally that it was clear. One did not respond to the question. One respondent said it was clear if all changes were included. Another disagreed but referred to their response to question 5.

Government comments

It is believed the respondent said it was clear if all changes were included was alluding to the fact that the MGN only provides an overview of the requirements brought about by the new Regulations. However, the government’s intention behind the MGN is to give a high-level introduction and overview of the changes, and not to go into all the changes in great detail, as it is felt that this would undermine the purpose of the MGN.

The comments of the other respondent who did not think it was clear will be considered with Question 5.

Question 3 – Do you believe the content included is appropriate for an MGN?

Responses

All respondents who answered this question agreed that content was appropriate.

Government comments

The government appreciates this confirmation.

Question 4 – Do you believe any potentially helpful guidance has been omitted?

Responses

a) Four respondents offered suggestions of things that could also be included, two of them outlining their issues in their responses to Question 5.

b) One expressed a view that guidance should be provided, in the context of fixed firefighting systems, for solid fuel steam vessels in relation to non-Category A machinery spaces which are permanently manned.  

c) The same respondent as per the comment at (b) also requested guidance on Bilge Alarms on Class V vessels of less than 50 passengers with no watertight subdivision which are manned or clearly visible. 

d) A respondent requested guidance around type of bilge pumps to be fitted. He said that clarification had been requested from the MCA but not received.

Government comments

a) The comments raised in Q5 will be responded to in Q5.

b) The Regulations state that situations where non-standard methods of propulsion are used will be considered on a case-by-case basis. This means that scope for providing additional general guidance is limited, and the MGN is high-level and should not go into detail about arrangements on ships which have non-standard methods of propulsion.

c) The MGN mentions that bilge alarms are required wherever bilgewater can accumulate, but the government plans to enhance the text of paragraph 2.7 of the MGN with material from Schedule 6 of MSN 1699(M) Amendment 3 to say that this excludes void spaces, where water cannot accumulate.

d) This matter has been discussed within the MCA and the MGN will be revised to include the following text on the functionality of bilge pumps:

“Once activated the alarm must continue to sound until acknowledged by positive action, and not automatically cease sounding its own accord. For clarification, such a system does not require a mute button, and does not require the alarm to “latch on”, i.e., when the water level drops back down it is acceptable for the alarm to stop sounding.”

Question 5 - Do you have any additional comments to add to the response?

Responses

a) An operator commented that the revised MGN was an improvement, but asked if it covered all the items.

b) The government’s understanding is that one respondent thought that the possibility that the buoyant apparatus capacity requirement may have changed if the liferaft capacity requirement has changed and this should be mentioned in paragraph 2.1.

c) A respondent requested that consultations were not carried out during their “busiest month of the year”.

d) A (non-operator) respondent expressed concerns about the use of surveyor judgement in the context of lifejacket lights in paragraph 2.3 of the MGN, particularly in the context of exemptions, and suggests that the MCA provide examples of to reduce subjectivity.

e) An operator raised the above issue of subjectivity and examples in the context of fixed firefighting in paragraph 2.5 of the MGN.

f) A (non-operator) respondent suggested carrying out a risk assessment in relation to the policy of using 1 hour before sunrise and 1 hour after sunset as parameters for daylight operation.

g) A (non-operator) respondent reports concerns being expressed about a range of MGNs being available with overlapping content, causing confusion. They recommended one fully up to date document to include all requirements.

h) A (non-operator) respondent expressed the view that it is undesirable that MGNs are required to clarify uncertain issues, and that legislative provisions should be as clear as possible so that further guidance is not required.

i) An operator requested more guidance on Bilge alarms in Class V vessels without subdivision.

j) An operator asked if the MCA needed to write Instructions to Surveyors to only follow stated MGN 627(M) requirements.

k) An operator suggested the MCA should produce a non-exhaustive list of what they will be looking for as proof that they can safely dry shod evacuate a little like they have done for the exemption on damage stability.

l) An operator requested additional guidance on bilge alarms, in particular concerning whether it was acceptable to an alarm to “latch-on”, ie. continuing sounding when the water level has dropped back down.

Government Comments

a) The MGN does not cover all the detail of the changes made in the “Grandfather Rights” Regulations and its associated Merchant Shipping Notice (MSN) amendments, as it is designed to be high-level - the full requirements are given in the Regulations and MSNs. 

b) The government notes that the MGN does not mention that the buoyant apparatus capacity requirement will normally have changed when the liferaft capacity requirement has changed - the government will address this by adding the following text to paragraph 2.1:

“It should be noted that the buoyant apparatus capacity requirement will normally have changed when the liferaft capacity requirement has changed, so it is strongly recommended that the relevant table in the above Regulations is consulted.”

However, it may be worth noting that in any cases where the liferaft capacity requirement has increased, the buoyant apparatus capacity requirement will normally have deceased, so the new buoyant apparatus capacity requirement is normally less onerous than it has been previously.

c) The government notes the comment, but the timings of consultations are driven by a number of procedural factors, and the additional constraint of waiting until particular times of year to consult would further protract the process. Also, various passenger ship operators tend to be busy over most of the summer months, and it is not practical to delay all consultations until all operators are in their quiet periods.

d) Many obligations are closely prescribed in merchant shipping legislation. The government feels that further prescription would be unhelpful, and reduce what flexibility the MCA has when applying standards. In particular, on the topic of exemptions, they are by nature departures from the Regulations, so can take many forms. Providing examples is not thought to be helpful as on many occasions an example which would work well on one vessel would not be acceptable on another.

e) While the law sets certain parameters, the surveyor’s opinion in some cases is necessary. The revised MGN includes at Annex A a list of indicative standards for fixed firefighting systems (as requested by industry) which would normally be acceptable. However, offering examples of particular systems would be problematic, as a fixed firefighting system suitable for one vessel may not be suitable for another.

f) The parameters of 1 hour before sunrise and 1 hour after sunset are already established in merchant shipping legislation for daylight operation. The amendments need to be in keeping with this and assessment of risks took place when the policy was originally established. 

g) The MCA welcomes stakeholder information on specific examples of where they consider MGNs overlap. However, it is worth noting that different categories of Marine Notices, namely Merchant Shipping Notices (MSN), Marine Guidance Notes (MGN) and Marine Information Notes (MIN) perform different functions. There may necessarily be some perceived overlap in these. In the context of “Grandfather Rights” Regulations, two MSNs have been amended (these are mandatory documents on construction and Life-Saving Appliances) a Marine Information Note (MIN) has been produced about risk assessment relating to exemption requests from the new stability requirements and this MGN has been published to give a high-level overview of the new requirements. However, the MCA is keeping the Marine Notice system under review and is open to alternative approaches.

h) Merchant shipping legislation is drafted with the aim of minimising ambiguity and is rigorously checked to ensure it is well drafted prior to being laid before parliament. It is also scrutinised by parliamentary committees in both Houses of parliament. However, it is not possible to eradicate all areas of uncertainty because legislation needs to be written in a particular way which precludes the inclusion of guidance, which is provided by the accompanying M notices.

i) It is not clear what sort of additional guidance is referred to here. Any issues regarding the specifics of fitting bilge alarms will be dealt with MCA Marine Offices on a case-by-case basis. (But see comments on bilge alarms in the responses in Question 4 above.)

j) MGNs are available to surveyors as well as Instructions to Surveyors. If there is a conflict between them the MCA would be interested to have this brought to our attention.

k) The MCA does not intend to produce any further guidance on the lifejacket exemption mentioned in in section 2.2 of MGN 627(M) Amendment 1. This is a concession for operators and the onus is on the operator to prove that they can carry out a dry-shod evacuation with their vessel in the context of its operation. The MCA will consider the situations on a case-by-case basis by viewing the plan drawn up and executed by the operator, but does not wish to make it a complex process. MCA surveyors cannot get involved with the design of such an evacuation.

l) some additional wording has been added to section 2.7 of the MGN to enhance clarification. As follows:

“Once activated the alarm must continue to sound until acknowledged by positive action, and not automatically cease sounding its own accord. For clarification, such a system does not require a mute button, and does not require the alarm to “latch on”, i.e., when the water level drops back down it is acceptable for the alarm to stop sounding.”

Section 4: Next steps

The government published MGN 627(M) Amendment 1 on 1 November 2023.

The government would like to take this opportunity to thank all who responded to this consultation.