At certain stages of the Bill it is indicated that certain prescriptions will be needed and will be in order. Do I take it that we will have these prescriptions before the commencement of the Bill?
Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill, 1987 [ Seanad ]: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I understand that they will be available before the commencement.
If the Minister will confirm that on Report Stage I will be satisfied.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. a1:
In page 5, subsection (1), between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
"or
(e) in the case of a harbour under the management of Iarnród Éireann — Irish Rail, Iarnród Éireann — Irish Rail;".
This amendment is being brought in to cover Rosslare Harbour. It was originally intended to refer to CIE but as the harbour is legislatively one of the railway functions of CIE, the appropriate body is now Iarnród Éireann — Irish Rail.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Deputy Avril Doyle. Amendment No. 2 is related. Amendments Nos. 12 to 15, 21, 23 to 30, 34 and 35 are cognate and amendment No. 1 is consequential to this grouping. These amendments may be taken together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (1), to delete lines 32 and 33, and substitute the following:
"`Harbourmaster' includes a person appointed by a harbour authority to enforce the provisions of section 33 of this Act;".
Many amendments are contingent on the first two. I have a basic objection to the involvement of harbour masters along with the inspector in the various sections of the Bill where they have been included. The Act essentially imposes a civil liability and requires a ship to carry an insurance certificate. The Act in no way affects operational matters such as are dealt with by the Oil Pollution of the Sea Acts, 1956 to 1977. For this reason I feel that it serves no purpose and does not increase their powers in any useful way to give harbour masters a role in enforcing this Act. The person in a port traditionally responsible for checking certificates and who has the duty of granting clearance to ships to sail from the State is the officer of customs. It seems to me that he or she, if there were any female officers of customs, is the appropriate person in addition to any other inspector for enforcing this Act and detaining ships without certificates of insurance.
I refer the Minister to an officer of customs power under section 6 (3) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1966. In so far as harbour masters require more powers, which this Act purports to give them, the Oil Pollution of the Sea Acts, 1956 to 1977, should more properly be amended. For the purpose of clarity I would like to point to the fact that the definition of "inspector" in this particular Bill inter alia includes, and I quote. “a sea fisheries protection officer”. In section 3 “sea fisheries protection officer” means a person declared by section 220 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, to be a sea fisheries protection officer. In section 220 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, a sea fisheries protection officer includes inter alia“every officer of Customs and Excise authorised in that behalf by the Revenue Commissioners”. What I am trying to achieve is that the various powers of detention and other powers in this Bill, with the exception of section 33, should be given to customs officers. I will accept the expression “inspector” as defined in this Bill to include customs officers and I am satisfied with that. I am not prepared to accept the harbour masters' role to be amended by this Bill as I do not think it can properly be done that way. As I said the Oil Pollution of the Sea Acts should be amended if we intend now to change the clearly defined role of harbour masters. I will not be pressing my amendment this evening due to the late hour of the night but I would very much like to hear the Minister's response to the case I have put. If we cannot meet minds on this tonight I would like leave to press the amendment on Report Stage. I look forward to the Minister's views on this as I consider it an important aspect of the Bill.
With regard to amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Doyle, if this amendment were accepted it would debar a harbour master and his deputy from enforcing the provisions of section 13 which empower them to stop or detain ships, and also of section 16, that is, the powers of inspection in their own harbour. It is essential in my view that they should be entitled to these powers, in addition to those in section 33, in their own harbour.
Since the Second Stage debate we have had consultation with the Attorney General's office and the advice given to us is that we cannot accept this amendment. The intention of our own amendment No. 2 is to make it clear that both the harbour master and any other person enforcing the provisions of this Act must each be appointed by a harbour authority as defined. I would envisage in certain cases that the harbour master and his deputy might each be appointed by a harbour authority to enforce the provisions of this Act in their own harbour. If we were to accept Deputy Doyle's amendment it would, in effect, mean that a harbour master would be debarred from enforcing the law relating to this in his own fishery harbour.
I feel that the Minister is making a case for extending the role of harbour masters. As I said, this Bill does not deal in any way with operational matters. It deals with civil liability and the necessity for ships to carry certificates of insurance or identity of insurance and adequate insurance. Under the present Acts this is over and beyond the role which harbour masters now have. Perhaps the harbour masters should have this role included in their remit or terms of reference. The point I am making is that this Bill is not the correct one in which to revise the powers given to harbour masters because of the very nature of the Bill, not being an operational Bill.
I will have more to say on section 13 when we get to it. Debarring a harbour master from carrying out the provisions of the section would not affect the functions under section 13, as I am quite happy to accept the inspector, who will include an officer of customs and many others as defined under the Consolidated Act.
I will have a look at this to see if it is possible, after we have further consultations, to have this included. I will certainly give consideration to it and I will refer further to it on Report Stage. Other than that I cannot give any further commitment.
I am prepared to withdraw my amendment provided I am in order on Report Stage to re-enter it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 32, after " `harbour-master' " to insert "means a person appointed by a harbour authority to be a harbour-master and".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
As the Minister is probably aware on Second Stage I questioned him as to why the 1984 protocol to the Civil Liability Convention was not included.
We have amendment No. 3 to section 7 which has not been reached yet. We have dealt with amendment No. 2. We have not yet reached amendment No. 3.
The amendment indicates that it is section 3, so obviously it is a typographical error on the green sheet.
I think perhaps deliberation some time earlier in the day might do better justice to Committee Stage of this Bill.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.