Consultation outcome

MGN 306(M) Consultation outcome report

Updated 3 March 2022

Consultation Outcome Report

Summary of consultee comments and government responses to them

Section 1: Introduction

*1. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), an executive Agency of the Department for Transport (DfT), carried out a public consultation from 5 January to 5 February 2022 on the updating of Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 306(M) - Designing and Operating Smaller Passenger Vessels: Guidance on Meeting the Needs of Persons with Reduced Mobility.

*2. The intention of the MGN is to assist designers and operators of smaller passenger vessels to take account of the needs of persons with disabilities when designing and operating the vessel.

*3. The title of the original MGN 306(M) was “Designing and Operating Smaller Passenger Vessels: Guidance on Meeting the Needs of Persons with Reduced Mobility”. Although the intent behind that title is understood to be inclusive of all persons with disabilities which may affect their ability to navigate their way around a ship, following feedback received, the government is minded to change the title to make it more obviously inclusive of persons who have non-physical disabilities which can affect their ability to navigate around the ship and understand safety information and announcements, whether their impairments are, or might be, associated with any physical, sensory or mental impairment.

Section 2: Consultation

*4. The consultation was carried out between 5 January and 5 February 2022. It can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-to-update-mgn-306m-designing-ships-for-persons-with-reduced-mobility

*5. The consultation was posted on GOV.UK so was available to all, but a number pf persons and organisations were personally notified of the launch of the consultation. This was a mix of industry members of the relevant government/industry safety groups, ship operators, a sample of organisations representing disabled persons, representative groups of operators and the devolved administrations. This amounts to around 50 individual notifications. Most did not respond.

*6. Five responses to this consultation were received. These were from: one small shipping company; one organisation specialising in a particular category of craft; one Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) with particular focus on persons with disabilities; one UK law body; and one of these being from a part of central government.

Section 3: Consultation outcome

*7. The following questions were posed as part of the consultation, and respondents were also given the opportunity to make comments in free text.

a) Do you believe that the MGN is accurate?

• Four respondents answered this question, with one agreeing and three disagreeing. The government has reviewed the reasons given for disagreeing and has made editorial changes where this is considered necessary.

b) Do you believe the MGN is free of typographical errors?

• All four respondents who answered this question agreed that the document was free of typographical errors.

c) Do you agree with any non-statutory advice or statements given in the MGN?

• Of the four respondents who replied to this question, three agreed and one disagreed and made some suggestions for improvement, although some made suggestions for improvement.

*8. A number of respondents supplemented their answers to the questions with fuller textual comments. One which particularly featured was to make the title of the MGN more inclusive to reflect the fact that person with all types of disabilities needed to be taken into account. This was the intention anyway, and the original title had been qualified in the text of the MGN, but the government agrees that the title should be clearer that this is the case.

*9. I was noted that physical changes to a ship was not the only way to make services accessible, and reversible solutions should be considered. It was also voiced that consideration should be given to the impact of adaption for wheelchair users on the historical nature of the vessel – not that wheelchair users shouldn’t be catered for, but that the ship designer or operator should take this impact into account when selecting the best option for accommodating person with disabilities. This could include providing staff to aid disabled persons rather than making permanent physical changes to the vessel to allow self-service.

*10. There were some suggestions relating to replacing the word “should” with “must” in some places. The protocol that the government uses in Marine Notices is that if something is mandatory in law, the word “must” is used, but if it is advisory only, the word “should” is used.

*11. It was noted that the application of the advice in the amended version of the MGN was less clear than in the original version. While it is understood that clarity of application is normally important in merchant shipping legislation, given that this MGN contains much general guidance that applies on any passenger ship, it was considered that it should not be restricted in application, but that all passenger ship designs operations should use the advice if practical.

*12. Respondents made a number of other ad hoc suggestions which the government considers very useful, most of which have been incorporated into the MGN where they are not considered prejudicial to safety.

Section 4: Next steps

*13. The government will finalise the revised MGN with a view to publishing it during the first or second quarter of 2022.