27
GENERAL SURVEY
72
73
(Denmark, Finland, Rumania1, Sweden); under 60 cubic meters (Estonia); under 200 tons (Latvia, Yugoslavia); under 500 tons (Germany).
Mechanically propelled vessels not exceeding 100 tons in respect of navigating officers in charge of watches (India) 2.
Vessels manned exclusively by members of the shipowner's or master's family (Finland).
Vessels not having a crew of more than five (France).
(v) Horse power.
Vessels with main propelling machinery under 70 m.i.h.p. in respect of chief engineers and engineer officers (Japan)3; cargo vessels having engines of under 250 i.h.p. which do not proceed in the course of their voyage more than 200 miles from the nearest land -in respect of engineer officer in charge of a watch (India); mechanically propelled vessels with engines of less than 10 h.p. (France); vessels whose engines are less than 1,000 h.p. in respect of engine-room officers (Germany).
(d) The replies of a number of Governments, though such detailed proposals as are made in them have already been mentioned under (c) above, propose such very small exceptions or contain such special observations that, in spite of the slight, repetition involved, they should be referred to into a special group apart.
Thus the French Government, as already noted, considers that exceptions should only be allowed for really small vessels, such as sailing vessels of 25 tons or less, mechanically propelled vessels with engines of less than 10 h.p., and vessels with a crew of not more than five. In making these proposals it emphasises that the object of the Draft Convention is to avoid or minimise the risk of collision, that the consequences of such occurrences are greater in proportion to the tonnage and speed of the vessel and the number of persons on
1 Rumania also refers to the possibility of a distinction between passenger and other vessels.
2 See also post, p. 78.
3 See also post. p. 78.
QUESTION 3
board, and that accordingly on all but really small vessels the control of the movements of the vessel, whether on deck or in the engine-room, should only be entrusted to persons, whether officers or not, whose capacity for the proper performance of such duties has been publicly recognised.
Similarly, the Australian Government, as has already been seen (ante, p. 56), considers that all vessels (including fishing vessels) over a certain size should carry a person or persons of such certificated professional capacity as to ensure as far as possible the safety of all concerned, and refers to the limit of 15 tons laid down in Australian regulations while the Spanish Government, also empha- sising the generality of the risks involved, considers that there are grounds for exceptions only in the case of small coastal fishing vessels.
The Italian Government goes even further. It takes the view that national law should not be free to allow exceptions from the principles of the Draft Convention, except in regard to the grading of the minimum require- ments in relation to differences in ships, trade and traffic. This suggestion as to the possibilities of grading certificates according to requirements as an alternative to exceptions is also made in the Belgian reply, which proposes that all vessels over 25 tons (including fishing vessels) should be covered by the Draft Convention. As further means of facilitating the ultimate adoption of this limit, the Belgian Government also proposes that the Draft Convention (1) should leave it open to each country to issue transitional regulations for a certain number of years and (2) might allow for the issuing of licences for a limited period, or even permanent licences, to persons who for a number of years had, without holding a certificate but without committing any serious technical mistake, been in charge of a ship or permanently in charge of its machinery or had exercised the functions of mate in either capacity. This second suggestion is considered more in detail post, p. 84.
3. In the light of this analysis of the replies, what proposals on the question of exceptions would appear to be calculated at this stage to form the most suitable basis for submission to the Conference ?
78