Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 May 1939

Vol. 75 No. 13

Committee On Finance. - Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Bill, 1939—Second Stage.

I beg to move that the Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Bill, 1939, be read a Second Time. The purpose of the Bill is to make certain comparatively minor changes in the law relating to Merchant Shipping. These are (1) contributions of seamen to Pensions Fund, (2) overloading of ships, (3) life saving appliances and shipping boats, and (4) fees. As regards the first point, arrangements for a superannuation scheme for navigating and engineering officers of ships have been agreed on between ship owners and officers' organisations. Contributions to the superannuation fund are to be made partly by the ship owners and partly by deduction from officers' wages. Under existing law the assignment of a seaman's wages made prior to their accruing is not binding on the seamen. Consequently, it is proposed to amend the law in order to facilitate participation by an officer of an Irish ship in the superannuation fund contributed to by members of his organisation. There are no corresponding schemes in respect of other grades of seamen and no contribution from State funds is involved in the case of the officers' scheme.

As regards the overloading of ships the position is that, under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1933, it is an offence punishable by a substantial fine to overload a ship, that is to load her until the appropriate load line on each side is submerged. Under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, it is an offence punishable on conviction on indictment to send a ship to sea in such an unseaworthy state that the life of any person is likely to be endangered thereby. It has always been assumed that the taking of an overloaded ship to sea would justify proceedings under the 1894 Act. A contrary view has, however, been taken by a United Kingdom court, which has held that to send an overloaded ship to sea is not in itself an offence under the 1894 Act. To rectify the position as regards British ships, the British Merchant Shipping Act, 1937, provides that any person sending an overloaded ship to sea shall, in addition to any other penalty for overloading under the Safety and Load Line Conventions Act, be liable to imprisonment not exceeding two years on conviction on indictment and not exceeding six months on summary conviction. It is proposed to make similar provision as regards Irish ships.

The provisions of life-saving appliances on ships is regulated by rules made by the Minister under Section 427 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Fishing boats are, however, excluded from the application of those rules. The application of the requirements of Section 375 of that Act to all classes of fishing boats has in practice been found to be very unsatisfactory and it is proposed that fishing boats should now be brought within the scope of rules to be made under Section 427 in the same way as are all other vessels.

The point concerning fees is that it was proposed some years ago that the fees for surveys and other services under the Merchant Shipping Acts should be reconsidered with a view to increasing them. The scale of fees at present in force corresponds for the most part to that in force in 1922 which was the scale then chargeable in the United Kingdom. Fees in the United Kingdom have since been increased, such obstacles as maximum fees laid down in the Merchant shipping Acts of 1894 and 1906 have been removed by another Act passed in 1923. It is considered that the fees charged in this country should, generally speaking, be brought up to the British level with a view to effecting a better balance between revenue and expenditure on the marine service and accordingly a new scale is being prepared and will be submitted to the Department of Finance for approval. It is estimated that the variations proposed will result in an increase of about £500 per annum in the receipts.

The provisions in the Merchant Shipping Acts in which fees or maximum fees are fixed are numerous, and individual modifications or repeal would involve detailed references in the proposed legislation. It is, therefore, proposed that the provision of new fees and the removal of obstacles to an increase in fees beyond the limits fixed in the Acts should be accomplished by a provision in general terms to enable the Minister for Industry and Commerce with the consent of the Minister for Finance to determine by order the new fees and charges. In order to provide for the receipt from intended parties of objections to proposed increases in fees, provision has been made whereby the order and the list of fees shall be laid before the Oireachtas when made.

On this Bill there does not seem to be much to be said except to recall that, on Section 3 of the Bill which we are discussing now, it took Plimsol many years to get the original Bill through the British House of Commons. It took him many years' agitation to get that Bill made an Act. Plimsol was not infrequently carried out of the House physically rather than hold his tongue when vested interests tried to silence him. In this we may learn that vested interests in 1939 are just as indifferent to the consumers in this country as the vested interests and silencers in Plimsol's day were indifferent to the welfare of the sailors in Great Britain, but Plimsol fought those silencers. I hope there will emerge from the ranks of Fianna Fáil a Plimsol who will fight for the agricultural community against the vested interests of to-day.

Question put and agreed to.

I propose to take the Committee Stage next week.

Does the Minister wish to take the Committee Stage now?

Yes, if there is no objection. There is nothing controversial in the Bill.

I am against taking the Committee Stage now.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 17th of May.

Top
Share