As we adjourned last night on this section, I was asking the Minister why he or his advisers considered it inappropriate to include Protocol 84 of the Civil Liability Convention in the legislation which we are now discussing. It has taken us very many years — I think 17 if my memory serves me correctly — to get to the stage we have arrived at today concerning the two Conventions. What is the reason for the omission of Protocol 84? It is several years since this Protocol was agreed by our colleagues in Europe.
Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill, 1987. [Seanad]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
The simple answer is that the Protocol has not been enforced internationally yet and we cannot possibly do it until then. Section 4 is straightforward, giving the Minister powers to extend the application of the legislation to countries acceding to the Conventions in the future.
I beg to differ with the interpretation of the Minister of State when he says that other countries have not yet ratified it. This, to my knowledge, is not so. I made this point during my Second Stage contribution last December. Let me refer the Minister to what I said concerning Protocol 84 of the Civil Liability Convention. This was that we were among the last of the nations which sat down at the Brussels International Conference on Marine Pollution in 1969 in the wake of the 1966Torrey Canyon disaster and drew up the Civil Liability Convention, to ratify it. There may be reasons for this not having been done but I ask the Minister to level with me and with the House. Probably we shall not get another opportunity for 15 or 20 years to ratify it as it has taken this long to come to the point we are at today in relation to the two Conventions that we are discussing.
Another Bill will be necessary to ratify the Convention to which the Deputy refers. I hope it can be introduced later this year and that it will not take a further 15 years, as has happened in this case.
I thank the Minister and accept his reference to future legislation to deal with the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Here we have amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Doyle. Amendment No. 4 is related.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, subsection (1), lines 33 and 34, to delete paragraph (c), and substitute the following:
"(c) an owner of a ship which is liable under this section shall not incur any liability for pollution damage otherwise than under this section;".
I feel strongly that without this amendment section 7 could be held to bar a plaintiff from proceeding directly against a non-tanker which has caused pollution damage by colliding with a tanker. The amendment is necesary because of the restrictive definition of a ship in the Convention, which definition has not been incorporated in the Bill we are discussing today. I hope this amendment is self-explanatory.
We accept the spirit of this amendment but not the Deputy's actual wording. Therefore, we have put down our own amendment, amendment No. 4, which is very similar. The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that the liability referred to in subsection (1) (c) is liability for pollution damage. If this amendment is accepted it will mean that an owner of a ship shall not incur any liability for pollution damage other than under section 7 of the Bill. We both agree with the necessity for the words "for pollution damage". The advice is that the expression "which is liable under this section" should not have been included on line 1 of the amendment. However, we accept the spirit of the amendment and we are tabling amendment No. 4 which I believe suffices and, on advice, has the proper wording.
We are probably getting close to agreement but I do not accept that the Government amendment covers fully the point I was making in my amendment. Amendment No. 3 is essential because of the restricted definition of a ship per se in the Convention. The Minister and his advisers have chosen not to incorporate that specific definition in this Bill. Why that should be so, I am not sure. There was much criticism of the Bill as originally initiated because the Government had departed a great deal from the language and terminology used in the Convention. This is an unusual practice when one of the main purposes of the Bill is to ratify the particular Convention.
Perhaps the Minister could explain why he decided not to incorporate in this legislation the restrictive definition of a ship as per the Convention and why he feels that his amendment would better serve what I think is the intention of both of us.
The definition of "ship" will be as wide as possible. The 1984 Act has a very wide definition for the word "ship". We want to be absolutely sure that we are covered by all eventualities. As a result of Deputy Doyle's amendment we have looked into the matter very closely and the Attorney General's advice to me is that we should not accept that amendment, although we should accept the spirit of it. The wording of our amendment No. 4 is "after the word `liability' to insert `for pollution damage'."
The Minister has stated the Attorney General is satisfied that the spirit and intent of my amendment are fully catered for by the Government amendment.
That is right.
If that is so, I shall accept the advice of the Attorney General.
That is precisely the case. The amendment does cover it.
Fully?
It covers it fully and we are very satisfied.
I take it, therefore, that amendment 3 in the name of Deputy Doyle is withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, subsection (1) (c), line 33, after "liability", to insert "for pollution damage".
I take it that amendment No. 4 in the name of the Minister of State, Deputy P. Gallagher, is agreed?
Amendment agreed to.
We now come to amendment No. 5 in the name of Deputy Doyle.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, subsection (1), lines 35 and 36, to delete paragraph (d), and substitute the following:
"(d) the servant or agent of the owner of a ship which is liable under this section and is registered in a Convention Country shall not be liable for pollution damage caused by that ship.".
The intent behind this amendment is twofold. The immunity from a suit given to the servants or agents of a ship under the Convention need not be extended to ships registered in non-Convention countries. This amendment keeps that benefit from them. The intent behind the amendment is extremely important and if the Minister feels he could word it in a better way I will be advised by him. However, I feel very strongly that what the amendment covers and the intention must be catered for in the Bill. It is only a point of principle but it is most important.
The Deputy is asking us to insert " ... which is liable under this section and is registered in a Convention Country ... ". The converse of that is that a vessel registered in a non-Convention country shall not be liable. I contend that the Deputy, unintentionally by the use of her wording, would be seeking to apply the Convention to countries which are not party to the Convention and, therefore, not subject to it. Of those subject to the Convention, the owners will be responsible but, if we accept this wording, the agents or servants of countries who are not party to the Convention could be responsible, which is unacceptable. Many countries are not subject to the Convention, they pass our shores and if one of them was responsible for oil pollution there would be great difficulty in pursuing their servant or agent who was responsible. We want to pin responsibility on the owner instead of exempting him and making the servant or agent responsible.
One of the objects of the Bill is to enable us to become party to a Civil Liability Convention and a Fund Convention and the intention behind these funds is to bring about a measure of unification in international maritime law. If we were to accept this amendment, we would not have unification in international maritime law and, in giving effect to the terms of these Conventions, we are very much bound by the text and provision of the Convention. The wording of section 7 (1) (d) mirrors the appropriate part of the Civil Liability Convention, 1969, and it would not be acceptable to amend this section as it could exempt the owner from non-Convention countries and holding the servant or agent responsible.
I have listened carefully to the Minister's explanation. However, this whole vexed area of ships and tankers generally from non-Convention countries, particularly flags of convenience, is not tackled properly by the Bill. In fact, later on under section 16, amendment No. 11 in my name deals with this again. It is pertinent to the point I am making here and that is why I draw attention to it. Under the Bill, a ship registered in a flag of convenience country which is not a party to the Convention — as the Minister knows, the ships from which, perhaps, we have most to fear are from countries which are not party to the Convention — would probably not be required to carry any insurance by their home country. It is unlikely that the law of such a country would generally require it.
I take the Minister's point that the converse of my amendment would mean an out for some of these countries that we are trying to ensure comply with our requirements in terms of environmental protection from oil damage generally, but there is a general weakness in the Bill in relation to how the law will apply to those countries and ships flying flags of convenience from those countries which are not party to the Convention. The Minister's reason for rejecting my amendment does not adequately handle that major problem in the Bill.
We cannot, even by legislation, make it compulsory. Of course, there is a voluntary arrangement which will cover these cases. I accept the point that many countries are not covered by the Convention but the voluntary arrangement should cover countries that are not a party to it.
What is the position in respect of amendment No. 5?
I cannot accept it.
I reluctantly accept the Minister's view.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 8, paragraph (b), line 2, after "to do", to insert "such".
The purpose of this amendment is to limit the defence that would be available to a ship owner under the section to cases where another person intended to do the damage which occurred. I accept that the amendment departs from the wording of the Convention and I am not sure if the Minister is in a position to accept it. However, the intent of the amendment should be accepted and we should ensure that there is no loophole as a result.
There is a necessity to keep as close as possible to the text and provisions of these Conventions. Section 8 (b) closely follows the text of the appropriate part of the Civil Liability Convention, 1969, and however much we would like to accept an amendment, it is not possible to do so.
I am somewhat gratifed by the late conversion of the Minister and his advisers to the necessity to stick to the original wording of the Conventions, a point I made at length on my Second Stage speech. The Minister, quite rightly, will probably quote it back to me now. However, in relation to amendments earlier on, I made the point that the Minister does not accept the definition of a ship as per the Convention which could cause problems with this Bill. He referred to the 1894 Act in relation to the definition of a ship. There is a lack of consistency in that regard. Is there any reason for, in certain places, the Minister accepting the precise wording of the Convention and yet, when it suits, departing from it? I take the Minister's point on the amendment but we either stick to the wording of the Convention or we do not. We seem to be jumping backwards and forwards.
By and large, we must stick to the wording of the Convention. However, in this case the word "ship" and its definition is already covered in the 1894 Act. It is important to retain that definition.
Is the Minister completely satisfied that without my suggested amendment or indeed a similar amendment which would have the same intent, there is no possibility a plaintiff may claim his intention was to do other damage than the particular damage he did and thereby escape prosecution? I fear that the reference on the top of page 8 of the Bill in relation to damage could be interpreted as meaning other damage and not the damage to which we are specifically referring. I accept what the Minister says, that that is the expression precisely from the Convention but with today's legal eagles. that sentence is wide open to different interpretations and could enable people to escape prosecution.
To insert "with intent to do such damage" instead of our wording, "with intent to do damage", would make the provision too restrictive. I must point out to the Deputy that we are bound by the Convention. If it could be proved that it was intended to do "such damage" then the individual or company may be only liable for that damage. "Such damage" might only cover a bay while damage might be caused to the entire coastline. It would be creating difficulties for ourselves to include the word "such". The overriding factor is, as the Deputy pointed out, that we should stay as closely as possible to the wording of the Convention. The other reason for rejecting the Deputy's amendment is that the inclusion of the word "such" would make the provision too restrictive. I regret I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Paragraph (c) states, "was due wholly to the negligence or wrongful act of any government". I am slightly concerned about that expression and about the definition of owner in an earlier section. The Minister will recall the very complicated position that existed in relation to the Amoco Cadiz which could still be the source of fruitful litigation if anybody was to state categorically who owned that ship. That may be an extreme example but we can learn a lot from that case. The Amoco Cadiz had an owning company and the owning company had a parent company. There was an operating company which was part of the parent company and that operating company chartered the ship to a charter company. Anybody who would try to define clearly who was the owner of that ship would be brave. It could be a source of fruitful litigation. I am not convinced that the reference to owner in an earlier section is sufficient and I do not think the position is clarified in paragraph (c). Does the Minister, or his advisers, feel that our interests are protected by this provision?
With regard to the position of the Amaco Cadiz I should like to tell the Deputy that at all times there is a record on board of the owner. The owner may lease the ship to a parent company, an operating company or a charter company, but the person whose name is on the record on board is the one responsible, Paragraph (c) states:
(c) was due wholly to the negligence or wrongful act of any government or other authority responsible for the maintenance of lights or other navigational aids in the exercise of that function.
If the owner of a ship can prove that an incident was due to the negligence referred to in that subsection he will be exempt from liability for pollution damage. However, this is a matter for the courts to decide. It is up to the owner to prove that the pollution was due to the failure of the Government or authority responsible for the maintenance of lights or navigational aids. It is much more than simply stating that the navigational aids were not working. The owner must make a case and it is left to the courts to decide. In the case of an exemption the fund would pay for preventive measures.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to refer to the points I raised in regard to this section during the course of my Second Stage speech in December. I made the point that the test which applied under this section for an entitlement to limit liability was the absence of actual fault or privity. As the legal profession will no doubt have advised the Minister, those words have been a fruitful cause of litigation for many years. However, there is a reference to those words, actual fault or privity, in this and in another section. If limitation of liability is accepted in principle, which it is, the right to limit should be more or less unbreakable to ensure that certain risks are in fact insurable. If there was not a right to limit certain risks would be so great that it would not be possible to insure against them. For that reason the more modern test applied following recent Conventions is that the entitlement to limit liability should be contingent on the shipowner not committing an act of omission with the intent of causing the damage which gives rise to the liability nor that he or she acted recklessly or with the knowledge that such damage probably would result.
In December I made the point that some of those issues would be cleared up when we ratified the limitation Convention of 1976. Has the Minister any news about that Convention? It is my view that the legal profession must have brought to the Minister's attention the position in regard to those words.
I accept that the Deputy referred to those words in the course of her Second Stage contribution and we have looked at the provision since then. The test used in section 10, "actual fault or privity", mirrors that contained in the civil liability Convention. The object of the Bill is inter alia to give effect to the civil liability Convention. The Bill must not deviate substantially from the provisions of that Convention. For that reason I must insist on the retention of the “actual fault or privity” test in this section. I should like to tell the Deputy that we are working on the general Bill which will implement the Convention on the liability of ship owners and, without giving a definite commitment, it is hoped to bring it before the House this year. We have so much legislation before us at the moment that it is difficult to give a definite date.
Does the Minister accept my contention that the wording "actual fault or privity" has in the past been a fruitful cause of litigation and could cause complications for the Bill because of our experiences in the courts in regard to other legislation concerning such an issue?
It can be a matter of contention within the courts.
Therefore, my concerns are justified but because of the wording of the Convention the Minister feels unable to accept my amendment?
We are unable to accept it. It mirrors the provision contained in the civil liability Convention. I think we both agree that we must stay as close as possible to the working of the Convention.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 10, subsection (4) (b), line 16, after "Bank", to insert "of Ireland".
This is merely a technical amendment which is being brought forward on the advice of the Attorney General. It relates to a certificate given by or on behalf of the Central Bank of Ireland.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 11, before section 13, to insert the following new section:
"13.—(1) For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that pollution damage as defined by this Act is damage done by a ship and section 29 of the Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Act, 1867, section 8 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, and Order 64 of the rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, shall be construed accordingly.
(2) Where the Court has determined that a person, who has incurred a liability for pollution damage under section 7, is entitled to limit his liability, and such person has paid into Court a sum of not less than the amount determined by the Court to be the limit of his liability, then—
(a) the Court shall, on application by or on behalf of the owner, order the release of any ship arrested under the Courts admiralty jurisdiction in respect of liability for such pollution damage, or as the case may be, the release of any security given to prevent, or obtain release from, such arrest, and
(b) a judgment or decree in relation to any claim for damages for such pollution damage shall not be enforced, except in so far as such judgment or decree relates to cost:
Provided that the sum so paid into Court, or such part thereof as corresponds to any claim for damages for pollution damage, is available for distribution to the claimant, or would have been so available if the claimant had complied with the provisions of section 12 (5).".
This section is one of the most pertinent parts of the Bill. It brings up one of my major objections to the Bill in that there appears to be general confusion between civil and criminal law throughout. In the long run this will cause major problems for the successful implementation of this legislation and the successful prosecution of any culprits causing oil pollution damage to our shores.
I have devoted considerable time and effort to making known my views on this section. I would refer the Minister again to the considerable points I made about this section during my speech on Second Stage last December. I referred to my grave misgivings about this section, which appears to usurp the role of the Admiralty Marshal. We would all agree that international maritime law is one of the most confused areas in the legal world generally. We are doing little to resolve the existing confusion by adding another layer to the chaos, a layer that cannot be slotted in either at the criminal end or the civil end but is a mixed bag of both.
The new section I propose is designed to remove any doubt as to the right to arrest a ship in a civil action for oil pollution damage. In most countries the right is similarly reinforced by statute. I must underline this point that what I am doing by way of this amendment is intended to bring us into line with those other countries which make this provision by statute. If we do not accept this amendment we will be out of line with most civilised developed countries.
The process of arrest is carried out by the admiralty marshal under the rules of court referred to in the amendment. The procedure contains important safeguards for the ship owner in that the plaintiff must swear an affidavit and may prevent the arrest or secure the immediate release of the ship by lodging adequate money in court. The plaintiff, for his part, enjoys the security of the money so lodged and from the date of entry into force of the Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) (No. 2) Bill the plaintiff will be able to arrest the ship anywhere in Europe. I think I am correct in referring to that legislation as a Bill but it should be only a matter of weeks before it is enacted. Under its terms it will be possible to arrest sister ships, those ships in the same ownership as the ship causing pollution. This changes the scenario slightly from what we were discussing in December as the legislation to which I am referring had not then been passed by this House.
Are we discussing the section 13 (1) or the entire amendment?
We are discussing section 13 and in particular amendment No. 8. The acceptance of the amendment will involve the deletion of a number of sections such as 13, 34 and 35.
Section 13 (2), as amended, would clarify that the arrest is under the courts' admiralty jurisdiction and it ensures by the insertion of the word "such" in two places that the release to be secured under the section is limited to arrest for pollution damage for which security has been given. The addition of the reference to subsection (5) of section 12 is to direct claimants to the specific part of section 12 which affects them. The provisions of section 12 (5) need to be highlighted because although they are necessary under the Convention they represent an important abridgement of a claimant's rights in that he must bring his action within six years of the pollution incident and within three years of the damage. The existing law allows six years from the date of damage in those cases where he can prove fault on the part of the captain or crew. Once the new Bill on the jurisdiction of courts and enforcement of judgments is enacted the old limitation periods will only apply when the claimant can prove fault on the part of the ship owner himself.
Without unduly detaining the House, I would refer to the procedures concerning the admiralty marshal which would be usurped if the Bill remained unamended at this section. I would urge the Minister to accept the amendment. It is one of the few which I feel I must press. The whole essence of the Bill could be changed if we do not get this section right. I am interested in getting the Bill right rather than in provoking contention. We need to clarify our views today rather than on Report Stage since so many other sections depend on this decision. Perhaps the more prudent thing would be to resolve the matter now rather than wait until Report Stage. I will be advised by the Minister.
This is an extremely important section and Deputy Doyle suggests that if it is not amended we will be out of line with other countries, that other countries such as the UK would use the Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Act to arrest rather than this Bill when it is enacted. The Bill does not rule out operating under the Admiralty Marshal procedure.
It confuses it terribly.
It is a confusing Bill. On Committee Stage we try to tease out in plain man's language how precisely to deal with these cases. My immediate fear is that if we arrest under the Act referred to by the Deputy — the Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Act — that system would be much too slow and cumbersome. We have got to have legislation whereby we can act speedily. If we look at a hypothetical situation, if we have a serious problem off our coast we must be able to act speedily rather than have the plaintiff swear an affidavit which would include certain specified information. If the High Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has a case made out on affidavit, and that the action is a proper one in respect of which an arrest can be effected, it will order the immediate arrest of the vessel in question. The arrest could not take place immediately. It could happen late on a Friday evening. There could be a question of getting a High Court judge and there could be sufficient time for the ship to leave the jurisdiction. If we operate under this section we can act immediately.
The other procedure which we have operated under the 1867 Act is much too slow and too cumbersome. It necessitates going to the courts and swearing affidavits. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that we can act as expeditiously as possible. We will be referring later to those who have powers to stop or detain a ship. They will be there in a very short time and will be in a position to detain a ship whereas if we were to use the Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Act it would take much longer. We want to have legislation in place that will ensure an immediate detention. I believe, and the advice available to me is, that this is the way we should operate rather than in a slow and cumbersome way. The knock-on effects of operating under the other system would be much too serious and could be too damaging for us.
I must take issue with the Minister when he said that my proposed amendment and the procedures contained therin under the Courts of Admiralty (Ireland) Act would be too long and would not allow us to have fairly immediate powers of detention in relation to any ship which caused pollution damage. In section 2 a very long convoluted procedure is involved to which I draw the Minister's attention.
More important, perhaps, is the whole area of the spirit of the Civil Liability Convention. This power to stop or detain a ship for a civil misdemeamour was not explicitly part of the Convention. I believe it is contrary to the spirit of the Civil Liability Convention. If you read the Convention carefully — which I took the trouble to do — it is clear that what is envisaged is that a ship incurring liability for pollution damage might be arrested by the Admiralty Marshal of the High Court under existing maritime law. I draw the Minister's attention to the Convention which was quoted back to me this morning — we have to stay within the terms of the Convention and the spirit of the Convention and quite rightly when I attempted to depart from it with an amendment or two for different reasons.
I suggest that the Minister is trying to depart rather more seriously than any of my previous amendments may have from the Convention. In fact, this section is the very essence of what this Bill is all about. It is the confusion between civil law and criminal law which compounds the difficulty of what we are discussing. I have no objection to what is being achieved under the detention provisions of section 16, where those who do not have the required insurance can be prosecuted.
Section 13 is unworkable. There is a time element involved in bringing it to court which the Minister has denied. The Minister said that what I have suggested would be more cumbersome in terms of getting people to court. I do not accept that primarily because the procedure I am requesting the Minister to accept in my amendment is well tried and tested and is part of international maritime law rather than now bringing another layer into a confused legal situation. I am asking the Minister to allow us to adhere to the existing situation that has been accepted by the IMO. I am advised that the IMO could find us in breach of the CLC if we do not resolve the difficulties which are so apparent in section 13 which my amendment tries to resolve.
I urge the Minister to take on board my amendment. I feel it is extremely important. The existing maritime law provides many safeguards procedurally for the ship owner. We are talking about a civil action and not a criminal action, so we need not apologise for trying to keep reasonable safeguards for a ship owner in this case. The existing situation is a powerful weapon in getting a ship owner who has caused oil pollution damage from an oil tanker carrying more than 2,000 tonnes of fuel oil to appear before the court.
The suggested amendment would allow the ship to be arrested by the Admiralty Marshal in accordance with accepted international law. That is essential and I ask the Minister to consider it. I must stick on this point as it is so essential to what the Bill is all about.
I would like to assure the Deputy and the House that the text of the Bill was cleared with the secretariat of the oil compensation fund. I would also like to point out that by creating these new measures, which I agree are necessary so that we can act as expeditiously as possible, we are not usurping the existing powers of the Admiralty Marshal. The admiralty division of the High Court, being the successor to the Court of Admiralty, will continue to have jurisdiction over any claims for damage received or done by any ship. By using the procedure under the Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Acts it will be necessary as well to nail a warrant to the mast of the ship and that can create difficulties. While Deputy Doyle may feel very strongly about her amendment I feel equally strongly that to accept the amendment put down by her would unintentionally result in delays and create difficulties. I regret that while the Deputy feels very strongly I feel equally strongly that we must retain the wording which we have in the Bill and I cannot accept her amendment.
I have made the point on at least two occasions this morning that this Bill is fundamentally flawed because of the confusion between criminal and civil matters. In the first part of the Bill we face up to this matter. To try to amend that major flaw by amendment is unsatisfactory. We are trying to improve the situation without resolving it. Certain sections should be redrafted altogether. I have tried to do this on section 13. Without abandoning detention provisions in civil matters it is very hard to amend it satisfactorily. I am convinced that the amendment I have proposed on section 13 goes as close as we will be able to go to resolve this dilemma. This Bill must dovetail into existing maritime law. It cannot just create a new layer of law above the existing confusion which everyone involved in legal circles accepts is here. For the reasons I have outlined in detail on Second Stage and also this morning, I ask the Minister to accept my amendment.
I and my officials, have considered this matter in great detail. If we were to accept this amendment there are other sections which would fall — sections 34 and 35. At the expense of repeating myself, I believe the only way we could act as expeditiously as possible in the event of an incident such as this occurring is under the proposed new regulations and not under the Court of Admirality Act which Deputy Doyle has referred to. Having given very long and serious consideration to this matter I have to say that we cannot accept the amendment because it would create difficulties for us in the future. We must ensure that the best wording is inserted so that we would be able to act immediately. The Deputy's amendment will be slow and cumbersome.
I am afraid I must disagree completely with what the Minister of State has said in relation to my amendment being slower and more cumbersome than what is being proposed in the Bill. Indeed, any of us would be very brave if we were to stand up and say that most legal procedures were not as slow and cumbersome in any event but I contend that what the Minister of State is proposing would be far slower and more cumbersome and be fruitful from a litigation point of view than going down the path of existing and well tried, if cumbersome, maritime law procedures.
As the Minister of State is aware one of the main purposes of the Bill is to ensure the compulsory insurance of any oil tanker in our waters. We are in agreement on that and with the intent. If an oil pollution accident occurs and if the tanker is insured could the Minister tell us in what circumstances under section 13 an inspector or harbour master would be entitled to detain the ship and here I am talking about a civil action? If he has an insurance certificate and everything is in order in terms of his liability and insurance cover in what circumstances would we be entitled to detain the ship? I am talking about a civil case and not a criminal case — they are quite different.
I contend that the Minister could detain a ship indefinitely as the procedure for court determination of the entitlement to limit liability could last for months under the proposed section. Notwithstanding the fact that the owner or captain of the ship or tanker endeavours to comply entirely with the law and complies with the navigational requirements of our country, if his insurance certificate is in order and he is properly covered and a serious pollution incident occurs why would the Minister want to detain that ship and what would he gain by detaining it? Under what circumstances would the Minister release the ship?
If such an incident occurred the need, as I said on Second Stage, to detain the ship would be for security purposes. Immediately the ship is detained the onus to go to the High Court would be on the owner and not on the State or on the agent acting on behalf of the State, be it a harbour master or an inspector. This matter would be covered under subsection (2) (a) which states:
the Court, shall on application by or on behalf of the owner, order the release of any ship detained under this section in respect of any liability for pollution damage, or, as the case may be, the release of any security given to prevent, or obtain release from, such arrest
If an incident such as the one the Deputy referred to occurs and if everything is in order the onus to go to the High Court would be on the owner. If the court decides that the ship should be released it will be released. It is only right and proper that the onus should be on the owner of the ship rather than on ourselves.
I contend that the legal procedure for proving your entitlement to limit liability would take months and not weeks. I hope the Minister of State will agree with me that that is the practice as of now. That is what he is suggesting has to be done. I contend that we must use existing established maritime law practices in relation to the arrest of any ship and the Minister of State is contending that my amendment would be cumbersome legally and take too long. That just does not add up. The practice which the Minister of State is now saying must be introduced, of the ship owner taking a High Court action to establish his entitlement to limit his liability, is likely to take months. If it is just a matter of the High Court inspecting his insurance certificate surely there is no need to arrest him at all. If his documents are in order, his liability is abundantly clear and if, through a genuine accident an oil pollution incident occurs which costs the State dearly, what is to be determined by going to court if it is only a matter for the High Court judge after looking through the documents to say everything is in order and that the ship can be released? As the Minister will have the insurance certificate before him what would he achieve by arresting a ship in civil cases?
If we were to act under the existing legislation it would first and foremost be a matter of obtaining sworn affidavits which would include specified information. When it comes to the stage of placing a warrant on the master of the ship it could be slow and cumbersome and could take far too long whereas our wording would ensure that the ship could be detained immediately and be detained until such time as the owner goes to court. There is an obligation on us to protect our coastline. Our first obligation is to our own State. If a ship is responsible for a serious oil pollution problem off our coast I could not foresee that within a matter of hours the master of the ship would be taken ashore and the problems resolved within a short period. It would not be as simple as that. There is an obligation on us to protect our environment.
When I say slow and cumbersome I am referring to the detention period. It could take some time to go to the High Court to obtain a warrant for the detention of the ship. That could take some time and difficulties could be created at that stage. Certainly, it could be amended some time in the future. Of course, the Bill does not rule out operating under the Admiralty Marshal procedure and we are not usurping the existing powers of the Admiralty Marshal. The admiralty division of the High Court will continue to have jurisdiction over any claims for damage received by or done by the ship. I still contend that section 13 as it stands, apart from amendment No. 9 in the name of the Minister, should stand and that it is in our best interests.
The Minister is being slightly mischievous in suggesting that my amendment or anything I have said would indicate that I was not interested in protecting the environment of this country or of our coastline. I am interested in clarifying in section 13 that there is a complete difference between criminal and civil liability in relation to this awful problem of oil pollution which we have already had to face in this country. I started out by saying, and I would remind the Minister, that it is quite possible for the IMO to find us in breach of the Civil Liability Convention in relation to the provisions of section 13.
If one of the main purposes of our discussion here this morning is to ratify that Convention, any possible challenge to what we are doing, or any possible suggestion that we would be in breach of that Convention must be taken very seriously indeed. My point is that if we arrest the ship under the powers the Minister is proposing in section 13 or if we arrest the ship under the powers I am proposing in my amendment to section 13, at the end of the day we have to ensure that the damage done will be paid for by the polluter.
The Minister is trying to introduce another layer of confusion into international maritime law which we all know is in an appalling mess at the moment. All the different countries are trying to tie it together and to get international agreement that will resolve existing difficulties in this area. I have yet to get an explanation from the Minister as to why we have chosen to take a different route from that taken in other countries that have ratified the Convention we are trying to ratify this morning, and why the Minister choses to further confuse the whole civil and criminal area. We are talking about the High Court and the District Court with its criminal powers in some cases. The whole issue is totally confused. I have yet to have an explanation as to why we must be out of step with the rest of the countries that have ratified the Convention.
I am not being mischievous. I agree that we all have the one objective, to implement the best possible legislation. I am not putting in place another layer of confusion. Perhaps the other countries will come to believe that we have the right legislation and they may follow us in that area. The fact that all the other countries follow the Court of Admiralty Act does not necessarily mean that we should follow them. We have many years of experience since this was first ratified in other member states. We have ten years of experience since it was ratified in the UK in October 1978. This experience is of great benefit to us. On that basis I still contend that the legislation which we propose is the best legislation. I say that not just from my own opinion but on the advice of the advisers and the Attorney General.
We will not be able to agree to my amendment. I would remind the Minister that only ten minutes ago he aspired to Ireland doing its bit in relation to uniformity in international maritime law. Now the Minister is suggesting that perhaps we should be out of step and should ask the rest to join us. We cannot have it both ways. There is enough confusion at the moment without us adding to it. In this section and in other sections we are confusing civil and criminal law. We are adding another layer to a very difficult situation. We should pass legislation in this area which would dovetail with existing accepted international maritime practices, particularly as we are an island nation with a very vulnerable coastline. It is most important that we get our act in order in relation to it. I must reject the Minister's explanation. Although I accept that what we both intend to do is to get the best protection for our coastline, we must disagree on the method of getting that.
The intention is to give the Minister the powers to enforce the legislation and as expeditiously as possible. For that reason I regret I am unable to accept the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 52: Níl, 78.
Tá
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerich East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzptrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Swift, Brian.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt. Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies O'Brien and Flanagan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Question declared lost.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 11, lines 21 to 27, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following subsection:
"(1) Without prejudice to any power to detain a ship contained in any enactment, an inspector may stop or detain a ship in any harbour in the State or wherever such ship may be in the State, or a harbour-master may detain a ship in his harbour, if it appears to the inspector or, as the case may be, the harbour-master, that the owner of the ship has incurred a liability under section 7 for pollution damage caused by any ship which he owns.".
The purpose of amendment No. 9 is to correct the positioning of certain words which were transposed during the printing of the Bill. In page 11, subsection (1), line 23 of the Bill as passed by the Seanad, the words "or a harbour-master may detain a ship in his harbour" appear. These words should be included after the second reference to State in line 24. This may be done in the new subsection (1). The change does not affect the intended meaning of the subsection.
I accept that the Minister's amendment clarifies that an inspector may detain a ship in any place in the State and a harbour-master may detain a ship in his harbour. However, there are still some objections to retaining the section. As we have said, there is already a procedure in place for arresting ships. This offers safeguards to both parties and is recognised in maritime law internationally. The Admiralty procedure will shortly be available throughout Europe for damage suffered in Ireland. Secondly, the new procedure will create difficulties when Ireland attempts to ratify the international Convention relating to the arrest of seagoing ships. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to that and to ask him to indicate when we will ratify that Convention and whether he considers it the right course of action for us to be enacting this legislation with the knowledge that it will need immediate amendment when ratification of the Convention comes before the House. Thirdly, with the ratification of the arrest Convention, the Admiralty procedure will be available internationally, at least in Convention countries, for damage suffered in Ireland. Fourthly, the section, taken together with sections 34 and 35, appears to be penal in that it invokes the criminal jurisdiction of the District Court.
I have referred under other sections to the confusion throughout the Bill between criminal law and civil law and criminal matters and civil matters and this arises here again. A ship which incurs civil liability under the Bill may have committed no offence of any kind and being fully insured may not be in contravention of the Convention and, liability under the Bill being strict, she may not even be at fault in the law of tort. A district justice would have no choice but to release the ship without any security — I emphasise that — for the State. The section is against the spirit of the Convention in that there is no provision to launch a caveat in order to prevent arrest or detention, as appears to be envisaged by Article 6 (1) (b) of the Convention. I would like to draw the Minster's attention particularly to that article in the Convention.
The section is radical in that it involves State officials in civil disputes between citizens. A ship owner might, after all, be Irish. It also leaves inspectors and harbour-masters open to claims for damage in cases where plaintiffs have been unable to obtain compensation because the ship was not detained. Finally, there could be practical difficulties. A harbour-master in, say, Dublin could be asked by an aggrieved party to detain a ship suspected of pollution in, say, Bantry Bay. I contend that the harbour-master would not be in a position to make an on-the-spot judgment in relation to pollution that might have occurred outside his immediate area of jurisdiction. After all, a harbour-master is confined to matters within his own harbour. Those are very important points in relation to the Minister's amendment which must be taken as real objections to it.
The harbour-master, as defined in the Act, will have responsibility within his own harbour only. He cannot go to any other harbour and detain a ship. He is responsible for his own harbour only.
The Minister misunderstood me.
The harbour-master could be approached by a harbour authority in another area or he could be appointed by the harbour authority to act as a harbour-master for the purpose of this Act. The harbour authority can appoint the inspector under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959. People covered under that Act include inspectors, any officer appointed by the Minister, a member of the Defence Forces, a member of the Garda Síochána and every member of the Customs and Excise authorised on behalf of the Revenue Commissioners. They can act in any part of the State whereas the harbour-master can act in his own harbour only.
As regards civil and criminal law it only becomes a criminal offence when a vessel which is detained tries to leave the port without clearance from the High Court. If that happens the inspector or harbour master, under section 34, should obtain an order from the District Court allowing the ship to be detained for a further 48 hours. In that case it becomes a criminal offence.
Whether it is under this legislation or the original Act of the Court of Admiralty, I think both Deputy Doyle and I are going down the same road. After the initial detention by the harbour-master or inspector or, in the case of the Court of Admiralty the arrest as a result of the warrant from the High Court, I think both Deputy Doyle and I are mostly in agreement and in this case the system is the same. We are not usurping the existing powers of the Admiralty Marshal and the Admiralty Division of the High Court will continue to have jurisdiction over any claims. As I said, apart from the initial detention in my case and arrest in the case of Deputy Doyle, the system will be much the same. Either way we must ensure that we act in the best interests of the State and I believe the best way to do that is by acting immediately. There will be no criminal offence until such time as the vessel might try to leave this jurisdiction after being detained by an inspector.
Deputy Doyle referred to an Irish inspector detaining an Irish vessel, or any vessel. All those officers covered by the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959 — officers, inspectors, harbour masters and so on — will have guidelines laid down in the Bill which gives powers to harbour masters and inspectors. I do not see any difficulty there.
The Minister addressed one of the points I raised in relation to my objection to the retention of this section. Could we deal with the points I raised individually as there was quite a long list? One of the most important points I made was that the new procedure the Minister is suggesting will create difficulties when Ireland attempts to ratify the international convention relating to the arrest of seagoing ships as we are bound to do within three years under Article 36 of the Third Schedule to the Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) (No. 2) Bill which passed through the Dáil and the Seanad last week. That means within three weeks of the enactment of legislation which passed through these Houses last week we must ratify this convention. What the Minister is suggesting means we will either have to amend the existing legislation at that time or not ratify the Convention. I do not understand what the Minister wishes to do in this area.
I was the Minister who brought that legislation through both Houses last week. That legislation will not be effective until 1 June 1988 at the earliest.
Three years from 1 June the Minister will still have to answer my questions.
My advice is that this is in order and will not create any difficulties as far as arrests or detentions are concerned.
With respect, I disagree and I ask the Minister to look at this again. My legal advice from maritime quarters — I do not say this lightly nor do I pretend to be privy to this knowledge — is that when we come to ratify the international convention relating to the arrest of seagoing ships we will have major difficulties if we enact what the Minister is now suggesting. Now is the time to resolve these difficulties without necessitating the Bill coming back to the House for further amendment when the time comes to ratify it. Because of the passage of the Bill through both Houses last week, we have a time limit, three years from 1 June, when we will have to ratify that Convention. We have already been told there will be difficulties because of what we intend to do in this legislation. Would it not be prudent to resolve those difficulties now rather than have to come back to the House in a few years to do so?
My advice from the Attorney General is that it will not create any difficulties and that we are in order to pursue this line and enact the legislation that is before the House.
On that point, I would have to disagree with the Minister. There were various other points I raised to which I would like to hear the Minister's response. With ratification of the arrest convention, the admiralty procedure will be available internationally policing Convention countries for damage suffered in Ireland. Bearing that in mind, does it make sense to pursue this section, even with the Minister's amendment, and bearing in mind what I said about my amendment which has been defeated?
Because most of the other convention countries pursue the Admiralty Marshal line that does not mean we should pursue it. We have studied this very carefully and I believe some of the other countries will be looking very closely at our legislation which is the result of many years experience. I expect other countries may be following our line in establishing the most expeditious way of detaining. I do not see any great difference in the line I have taken and that being taken by Deputy Doyle, apart from initial detention versus arrest. Outside that point, we are going down the same road.
Has the Minister some information to which the rest of us are not privy when he says other countries who have ratified the civil liability Convention might be changing their statutes to come in line with what he is proposing under section 13? Has he any reason for making that suggestion?
Absolutely not. This is a personal opinion. The fact is we look at legislation in other countries and I have no doubt they will look at our legislation. It is common sense that other countries would look at our legislation and they could well opt for it. Of course, that is a matter for each individual country. All we can do is look at their legislation and its effectiveness. It is our opinion that ours is the correct legislation.
I wanted to tease that out with the Minister seeing that it is possible he would have had it indicated to him that what he is now proposing would have some beneficial effects. My information is that we will be totally out of step with all the other countries that have ratified this Convention if we proceed as the Minister suggests under section 13.
I put it to the Minister again that his aspiration and mine is that anything we do in relation to this legislation and any other that may come before the House should be in the interests of unifying international maritime law rather than adding further layers of difficulty to the procedures which we appear to be doing today.
I accept that the Minister's amendment to section 13 clarifies the position, that an inspector may detain a ship in any place in the State and a harbour master may detain a ship in his harbour. The Minister will recall that, when we discussed the whole involvement of a harbour master the last day on section 3 — if my memory serves me correctly — I indicated my intention to move a further amendment in relation to this on Report Stage. I raise that now lest by not referring to it the Minister is under the impression that I am in any way accepting the role of harbour master in all of this, which I am not. I indicated quite clearly the last day why I had difficulties and why it is my opinion that anywhere there is reference to harbour master it should be substituted by the insertion of the words "officer of customs". We will go through that again another day but it is necessary as a clarification exercise in our discussions today.
On further consideration I cannot accept the explanation which we discussed on a previous occasion, that in relation to the Consolidation Act of 1959, an inspector, by definition, can include an officer of customs. Not all inspectors are designated officers of customs by the Revenue Commissioners de facto, so there is a difficulty there which will need to be clarified for Report Stage.
Taking what is before us here today, as it stands the Minister's amendment will clarify that an inspector may detain a ship in any place in the State and a harbour-master may detain a ship in his harbour.
When the Minister last responded to my points of objection to his amendment, the first point he took up was the eighth point I had raised concerning practical difficulties. For example, a harbour-master in, say, Dublin could be asked by an aggrieved party to detain a ship suspected of pollution somewhere else, say, in Bantry Bay. The Dublin harbour-master would have jurisdiction only within Dublin harbour. Yet, in accordance with the Bill before us and the Minister's proposed amendment, there could be a request from the authorities in, say, Bantry that the Dublin harbour-master detain a ship if they had not, for whatever reason, or it had passed by before the pollution incident was recognised. Yet, a Dublin harbour-master who has jurisdiction only for, say, Dublin Bay and harbour perhaps would not be in a position to judge whether he should proceed as per the provisions of section 13 with the arrest of the ship alleged to have caused a pollution incident somewhere outside his jurisdiction. That is the practical difficulty that will arise immediately from the provisions of this section and the Minister's amendment. I put it to the Minister that that warrants reconsideration as the Dublin harbour-master, in that example, would be placed in an impossible position. He would literally have to make up his mind what might or might not have happened without having actually seen the evidence of the alleged incident.
I made the point also — and the Minister did not respond to it — that there is already in place a procedure for arresting ships which offers safeguards to both parties and is recognised in maritime law internationally. We discussed it on my previous amendment which was defeated. I fail to understand why the Minister does not accept that procedure. I do not agree with the Minister's contention that it would take longer to process through the courts than the Minister's proposal, accepting, however, that most legal actions can take what to the layman may seem an interminable length of time to resolve anyway. Therefore, when we speak about litigation and cumbersome proceedings, we cannot be too dictatorial in this area. But, on the evidence, there is no reason my suggested procedure — because it has been tried and tested internationally for so long — should not be less cumbersome than the new procedure the Minister suggests with all its inherent difficulties and potential for litigation because it is untried and untested.
I also made the point in relation to my objections to the Minister's amendment to this section that the provisions of the section are against the spirit of the convention. The Minister constantly reminds me that our discussion here this morning is all about the Convention. I accept that. However, it is my contention that this section is against the spirit of the Convention. There is no provision to lodge a caveat in order to prevent arrest or detention as appears to be envisaged by Article 6 (1) (b) of the Convention.
We are getting down to the essential points of what the provisions of this Bill are all about. We are here to ratify these couple of conventions. If you like, we are here to get our act in order with international maritime Acts generally so that we can ratify these international conventions. Yet, on the key section of the Bill, we forego our aspirations for a unified maritime law and decide to go it alone, taking a line that no other country that has heretofore ratified this Convention has chosen. The Minister suggests that other countries might follow us. Yet, when I question him, he says that is just a personal opinion, that he has had no indication that they will. My personal opinion is that they will not, that they will proceed along the lines of procedures that have long since been tried and tested involving the Admiralty Marshal. I am not satisfied with the Minister's explanation as to why we should depart from that practice.
I will take the Deputy's first and last points together and deal with the question of the advice available to her. The advice available to me from the Attorney General is that we are introducing the best possible requisite legislation. We appear to be travelling the same road except in relation to detention. The essential difference between us is this: Deputy Doyle is suggesting that we should use the system which has been in place to date. I should point out that it could take some 48 hours or even more, at least 24 hours, to get the necessary affidavits to ensure that the High Court is satisfied that a plaintiff has a case made out on affidavit and that the action is a proper one in respect of which an arrest can be effected, when the High Court will order the immediate arrest of the vessel concerned. The difference is that an inspector or harbour-master can — working within the guidelines set out in the Bill — immediately detain a vessel. Then it is a matter for the owner of a vessel to go to the High Court to try to secure its release.
It is the immediate detention about which I feel very strongly. After that, it goes to the High Court, will be dealt with by the High Court and the Court of Admiralty. These functions are now exercised by the admiralty division of the High Court. They will have jurisdiction over any claims for any damage occasioned or done by any ship whether within a country or without. It appears that, by and large, the Deputy and I agree except in relation to the initial arrest or detention.
On the arresting of ships and the involvement of a harbour master, I should say that a harbour master is responsible for his harbour and should not be asked to go to any other. We must remember also that we are talking about vessels carrying in excess of 2,000 tonnes. There are only a number of harbours in the country such vessels could enter. Of course, there could be a question of a spillage, say, off the west coast which would not be near any major harbour or where there would be no harbour masters located. We want to ensure that there are as many inspectors as possible available.
Under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act there is provision for quite a broad range of such people, all of whom could be appointed inspectors, all of the Garda, the Army, those Customs and Excise officers appointed by the Revenue Commissioners at every reasonably-sized port this type of vessel would enter. There would be a Customs and Excise official there whom I presume would have power to detain a vessel. Therefore, I do not foresee any difficulty in that regard. Rather I see our proposal easing the problem, ensuring that there will be as many officials and inspectors as possible available. They will be available at very short notice whereas, if it were necessary to go to the High Court with affidavits, obtain a warrant, nail the warrant to the mast, we could lose vital time because those 24, 48 or 72 hours could be critical.
It is for that reason I am insisting that this method — while it may not be in operation in all other countries — is a better one. While the advice available to Deputy Doyle suggests we will be out of line with all other countries, I fail to see how other legislation can be equal to or better than that we are now proposing.
We do seem to have a very serious, fundamental disagreement in relation to the procedures to be taken at the point of arrest. I should like to pose a specific question to the Minister: what is to prevent a shipowner, as per the rules of court, from lodging a caveat under the system the Minister proposes and thereby delaying the procedure?
Under our system the onus is on the owner to pursue this in the courts. The onus is not on the inspector or the harbour master. Immediately he is detained the owner will have to go to the High Court and it will be a matter then for the courts to decide whether he should be detained for a further period or released. If everything is in order, as was referred to by Deputy Doyle earlier, the High Court could possibly decide on his release. This would take the normal course whereby claims would be lodged against the company and it would be pursued in that way.
I have indicated to the Minister the eight difficulties I have with this section. It appears this is the major point on which we have disagreement. I cannot agree with him on it. There are a few points I should like him to clarify for me.
This section is radical in that it involves State officials in civil disputes. I should like the Minister to comment on this. To my knowledge this is the first time we have introduced this provision in any legislation. I do not condemn it for being radical but when we are being radical in involving the Civil Service and public service I think it needs an explanation.
There is nothing wrong with being radical.
No, not in itself.
There is no reason why we should be conservative in any way and, indeed, the Convention is radical. The reason State officials would be involved here is that the State officials to whom I have referred under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act would be available at very short notice. If it is radical then I think the reason is that we want to ensure that there are officials or inspectors available at very short notice to detain a ship. If that is radical I accept that, but I think it is necessary.
As the Minister is aware, this is the first time we have involved State officials in civil disputes. It is a major step forward because once you create a precedent it can be referred to in subsequent legislation. We have to be quite clear about what we are doing. I suggest that the intention in this section was not to be radical in this way. We are per se being radical in what we are discussing, and perhaps in what will be enacted, but are we fully aware of the precedent we are creating and the implications for officials of the State generally and the implications for future legislation?
I should also like the Minister to comment in relation to the problem with this section and the spirit of the Civil Liability Convention. Could we be open to the charge of being in breach of the Convention? I think we could and I should like the Minister to indicate to me why he obviously feels this will not be so — I assume that if he felt it would be so he would not be proceeding with it — and whether he has studied the Convention and, in particular, Article 6 (1) (b) where there is no provision to lodge a caveat in order to prevent arrest or detention as appears to be envisaged. These are most important aspects and, as I said before, the whole thrust of the Bill is based on getting this section in place properly.
In relation to the question of State officials being involved in this, we realise the absolute necessity of this and, at the expense of repeating myself, once more, if we do not have such officials and inspectors available to us to detain these ships then I think we will be taking a very retrograde step. I am interested in what is happening in other countries but I am more interested in ensuring that the legislation which we are bringing before this House — and which, it is hoped, will be enacted in the near future, including section 13 — is the best possible legislation available to us. Having studied Article 6 (1) (b) and having obtained advice from the Attorney General, I am satisfied that we are not in breach of the Convention. The Deputy referred to the knock-on effects of having State officials involved in civil disputes. All of this has been looked at and we are satisfied that the legislation being put in place, apart from amendments Nos. 9 and 10 to this section, is the best possible legislation.
Is the amendment agreed?
Reluctantly. If I did not agree I would appear to be just niggardly about it because my amendment has been defeated. What the Minister does is slightly better than what is printed in the Bill as amended by the Seanad but I regret that this section falls far short of what is necessary to ensure that we have the best way of getting redress for any oil pollution damage to our country.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 11, subsection (3), lines 48 and 49, to delete "the master of the ship shall be guilty of an offence" and substitute "the owner and the master of the ship shall each be guilty of an offence and the ship may, without prejudice to subsection (1), be detained, or be further detained, by an inspector anywhere in the State, or by a harbour-master in his harbour".
Amendment No. 10 has been brought forward on the advice of the Attorney General. The effect of it is to make the owner and master of the ship detained under this section guilty of an offence if the ship leaves or attempts to leave any harbour or any other place otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. The amendment also provides that the ship may be further detained if it attempts to leave any place in the State after being stopped and detained if it appears that the owner of that ship incurred a liability for pollution damage. This is where we go on to the question of going to the District Court.
I should like to point out to the Minister that this section would have been entirely unnecessary if he had accepted my amendment No. 8. I do not oppose the principle of this section in itself but if the Minister had accepted amendment No. 8 he could have deleted this because what I proposed in amendment No. 8 was that disregard of any Admiralty Marshal's warrant would be contempt of court by the master of a ship and punishable accordingly. Therefore, what we are now talking about would have been unnecessary.
This adds further strength to my argument that as the Minister intends to proceed under section 13 is incorrect. Under the admiralty procedure which I proposed, a ship could be rearrested even in places abroad. I have no difficulty with the Minister's proposed amendment but acceptance of my amendment No. 8 would have made this amendment unnecessary and further strengthens my case for the admiralty procedure.
Let me clarify the reason behind this lest my not responding would be an admission — that is not the case. In the event of a vessel having being detained by a harbour-master, inspector or official and trying to leave the harbour or trying to leave the jurisdiction then section 13 provides that the harbour-master or official may go to the District Court to have the ship detained for a further 48 hours. If we pursued Deputy Doyle's line it would mean that within those 48 hours of the initial detention we would have to go to the High Court, rather than the harbour-master and the officials having the power. Within those 48 hours and, therefore, before the warrant would be in place, the vessel could have left, thus committing no offence. In that case we would have no powers whatsoever at that stage. The section is to ensure that if the ship tries to leave, after having been detained, that we can go immediately to the District Court and have it detained for another 48 hours.
What the Minister says does not follow in practice, as he probably knows well. Any ship or tanker in ports or harbours within our jurisdiction can be boarded by the relevant officials, usually officers of customs, for the purpose of ascertaining whether all the documentation is right. I had envisaged the officer of customs also inspecting the insurance certificate or insurance bonding position. If that were in order on inspection and even if the ship's captain then runs from the harbour, as it were, we have a fallback. We have no major difficulty in claiming compensation for any damage done, providing his insurance certificate is in order. If, on inspection by the officer of customs, that insurance certificate is found not to be in order it is a criminal offence if pollution occurs and the captain can be arrested under section 16, which we have not yet reached, but which I fully support.
I do not accept the Minister's contention that what I am saying would delay the possible arrest of someone who might have run from the country. That is not so. Under the procedure we now have the officer of customs goes on board anyway if a boat is in port or in harbour in Irish jurisdiction and can check the documents.
If the documents are all in order but we do not have to have a case of pollution to detain a ship. There are other reasons for having to detain it, such as if all the documentation is not in order.
Under this Bill?
If the documents are in order and there is no question of pollution it would be ludicrous to have legislation that the ship could not be released. This leaves a situation whereby an official can check all the documents that should be on board a ship and if everything is in order there is no difficulty.
I have the impression that we are at cross purposes at present. The Minister expressed the fear that under what I was suggesting a boat or tanker could leave port or harbour, having committed some pollution incident, and if they had gone before the arrest procedures were put in place we would have no redress. I am talking about the case of where there has been a pollution incident. We are really concerned about this. Where there has not been a pollution incident, and we are stating that the insurance documents must be in order, the procedures we are discussing for sorting that out are fairly acceptable. The main problem is where there has been a pollution incident, where a case will have to be proved and must go to the courts. Any ship or tanker in our ports or harbours, or looking for permission to enter our ports or harbours, will be boarded under existing procedures to check that the documentation, etc. is in order. This is checked out by an officer of customs, who is the usual person, but the Minister is proposing to extend the powers of harbour masters which I do not agree with, but we can discuss that on another day. Let us say the officer of customs boards the ship and finds the insurance certificate in order but, notwithstanding that that a pollution incident has occurred. If, before the procedure for arrest I am proposing has been put in train the boat or ship has left harbour, we have nothing to fear because we have means of redress. We have the means of getting compensation, particularly under the terms of recent developments — when the Jurisdiction of Courts Bill that we were talking about last week is enacted. Therefore, I see no difficulty with regard to my suggestion in causing a delay in terms of the power of arrest, providing the insurance certificate is in order on initial inspection. As all boats will be inspected initially, if the certificate is found not to be in order we are then talking of a criminal situation when there has been a pollution incident and section 16 will apply. I am not opposing what the Minister is proposing in the powers of arrest under section 16 when there is a criminal offence. I am only concerned about the confusion between criminal and civil law in the Bill and the extra provision the Minister is introducing for civil offences under section 13. For the Minister to continue to reiterate that what I am saying would lessen the chances of a successful arrest when someone has committed a pollution incident and so we would not be able to protect our coastline or get damages for pollution incidents, is a little disingenuous. That is not what I intended and the Minister probably knows that is not what I intended. There is no intention to cause delay in relation to arrest but I contend that the procedures for arrest should be correct and should not leave themselves open to such litigation that at the end of the day the State gets nothing. I am very concerned about that and that is the point I have been making.
We want to ensure, as the Deputy has said, that this does not follow in practice and that we cover all eventualities. We want to be certain that when the officer or harbour master decides the boat should be detained it can be detained from that very moment. If we operate under the old system we would have to wait for a reasonable length of time, at least 24, perhaps 48 hours. If the boat had left we could pursue it whether it was from a Convention country or a non-Convention country. We can make full use of the fund. I firmly believe that the legislation we are putting in place would ensure that if a boat is detained, there is always the question of its being held as security or indeed of any other vessels owned by the same individual or company being held in order to ensure that we are fully compensated. I believe it is preferable to have the ship or money within the jurisdiction to ensure that compensation is paid. If the ship is detained it is a further insurance to ensure the money is paid and that is covered under section 13(2):
Where the Court has determined that a person, who has incurred a liability for pollution damage under section 7, is entitled to limit his liability, and such person has paid into Court a sum of not less than the amount determined by the Court to be the limit of his liability,
I contend we are on much stronger ground having the vessel within the jurisdiction rather than pursuing it if it leaves while we are on our way to the High Court under the old system. If the master's attitude when leaving is that we have no control at all over the ship we may pursue it certainly but it may take much longer to obtain insurance compensation while the vessel is outside the jurisdiction than if the court takes a decision when the vessel or vessels are in the jurisdiction.
The Minister said that it may be necessary to detain or arrest a ship for security. The situation in which it would be necessary to detain a ship or tanker — fully loaded going about its business, delivering oil, I presume — for security against damage that had been done would be because we would be worried about being paid by the insurance company or whoever bonded that particular operation. If there were any question of the insurance certificate not being in order and if at the same time the tanker had caused pollution damage, I suggest that that would be dealt with under section 16. I think that the Minister is confusing the arguments that pertain to section 16 with those pertaining to section 13. There is a clear distinction between a civil case and a criminal case. I agree fully with what the Minister says when a criminal situation is involved, when the insurance certificate is not in order and a pollution incident has occurred. Then one needs the most draconian powers of arrest to ensure that this State is protected and that any cost to the State will be fully covered. We need in those cases the very minimum of security that the ship will afford, which probably will not be enough to cover the incident.
I am talking now about a civil situation. In such a situation, the shipowner having complied with all the rules and regulations and, on inspection by our officer of the customs, the insurance certificate being in order, I do not know why one needs draconian powers of arrest in this case. If the owner is properly bonded and the insurance certificate is in order, there is no risk to the State of not being properly compensated. To arrest the person involved and delay him going about his business, perhaps for many months while the case goes through the court, will cause unnecessary annoyance and grievance and the State will not benefit at all. I would accept the Minister's argument if the State were to benefit more from his suggestion than from mine, but we would not benefit providing the insurance certificate is in order.
We are talking about a civil case where accidental damage has taken place and everything possible has been done by the shipowner and operating company to cover that damage, in other words, where the insurance certificate and bonding are in order. There is nothing more to be achieved by arresting and detaining that ship indefinitely. I ask the Minister not to confuse that with my support for section 16. If the insurance certificate and bonding are not in order, the Minister needs all the draconian powers to keep the ship as security for the country and to do what can be done. There are two completely distinct issues here.
If there is a spillage of oil then it follows that the inspector or harbour master's official would be detaining the ship immediately. If there is only a carrying out of the normal inspection of the certificates which the vessel should carry and if these are in order, then there is no difficulty.
The person involved could still be arrested.
He would be detained. First, the official is going on board a ship to ensure that everything is in order and if everything is in order there is no difficulty. On the Deputy's argument, as soon as a custom official steps on board such a vessel then it is detained. If everything is in order, there is no difficulty. If everything is not in order, then there is a difficulty. I would have no qualms about causing unnecessary annoyance to any of these vessels if they are not carrying the proper documents.
I agree fully with the Minister on that.
Section 13 deals basically with the powers to stop and detain ships. Section 16 follows through on the question of insurance on the ships. In order that the legislation be effective, both sections are necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 12, subsection (3), lines 45 to 51, to delete paragraph (b), and substitute the following:
"(b) if the ship is not so registered, there is carried on board a certificate, acceptable to the Minister and satisfying such requirements as shall be prescribed, issued by or under the authority of the country in which the ship is registered, or such other country as may be prescribed, showing that there is in force, in respect of the ship, a contract of insurance or other financial security which satisfies the Liability Convention.".
This amendment is vital. I hope that the Minister will be able to take it on board. Perhaps he could indicate whether he will consider it and come back to it on Report Stage, or whether his mind is made up at this stage, so that we could dispose of the matter one way or other. I would quite happily leave it until Report Stage to pursue my views if the Minister thought that might make for better agreement on what I propose. If he has his mind made up, I ask him please to indicate and we shall take it accordingly.
Under the unamended Bill before us, a ship registered in a flag of convenience country which is not a party to the Convention would not be required to carry insurance at all. It is unlikely that the law of such a country would require that. There is a certain immediacy about this matter which we must resolve. I would like the Minister's response to my amendment before I develop my argument further.
Basically, I am not saying that there is a drastic change involved here. Deputy Doyle's amendment states: " ... and satisfying such requirements as shall be described ... ". If we are to prescribe, then we are talking about 21 sitting days of this House. If that is what the Deputy means, then I would have to oppose it. That is the short answer to the Deputy's question. The reason for opposing it is that it would tie the Minister's hands in advance. If it is necessary to prescribe, then the waiting period would be much too long. The first change put forward in the amendment is that the certificate should satisfy such requirements as shall be prescribed. I consider that the matter of acceptability of the certificate should be left to the discretion of the Minister for the Marine. This would not be the case if those requirements pertaining to the certificate had to be prescribed. However, if the Deputy wishes me to have another look into the matter and discuss it further on Report Stage, I certainly will consider that.
Perhaps I did not make myself abundantly clear to the Minister. My amendment envisages that he will prescribe certificates which may be the certificates of certain other Convention countries to be carried in the ships of non-Convention countries. This is to protect us and to meet the flags of convenience situation in relation to ships that may be registered in non-Convention countries which do not require the carrying of insurance certificates, or which specify certificates which would not satisfy our demands in relation to adequate insurance.
In that situation we cannot make compulsory regulations for any of these ships. They will comply with the regulations in their own countries and if these are non-Convention countries they are covered by the voluntary agreements. Perhaps we are looking at different issues here. As I read the amendment, if we are to prescribe, it could create difficulties.
Is the Minister saying that he will look at this matter again, or that in fact his mind is made up in relation to my amendment?
It may well be that the points made by the Deputy this morning, rather than the wording of her amendment, would take some time to consider. We shall have a further look into the matter and come back on Report Stage.
I would accept that. If the Minister thinks that he could phrase or reword the amendment more satisfactorily, I should be quite happy to accept that, providing that the intent of my amendment is taken on board. In relation to advice by the Minister as to whether he can accept my amendment or not, on that I am quite happy to leave the issue until Report Stage.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
Yes, provided I have leave to re-enter it if we do not come to an amicable agreement.
I am sure that that relationship between yourself and the Minister will bear fruit.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 12 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.
To meet the points that we were referring to with regard to the harbour master under section 13, on reflection I ask leave to re-enter my amendment under section 3 on Report Stage. For consistency I should like to make the point — and then I will leave it to Report Stage — that I am not satisfied with the extension of powers given to harbour masters under this Bill. If we intend to extend their powers, other legislation would need amending to do so more correctly and I have already outlined by reservations in relation to it. Last week, I accepted advice that under the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, reference to "inspectors" could also cover "officer of customs". However, that can only be so in cases where the Revenue Commissioners so appoint the officer of customs and it does not follow that all inspectors in all cases have the functions of an officer of customs, who has to be specifically appointed by the Revenue Commissioners. I would not be satisfied with the mere deletion of "harbour masters" and I should like to substitute "officer of customs" as it would be more proper to the accepted role and functions of an officer of customs.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 in Deputy Doyle's name have already been discussed.
The point I made in regard to amendment No. 12 applies to them and they will all be raised on Report Stage as one follows from the other.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, not moved.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."
Subsection (3) refers to the actual fault or privity of the owner of the ship and that could possibly be interpreted as being unfair to an owner if the insurer can limit liability when the owner cannot. Perhaps I am missing some point and I ask the Minister to clarify it. Apparently, under this subsection, the owner is at a disadvantage because the insurer can limit his liability when the owner cannot do so. That is my interpretation: I am not saying I am right but I should like the official explanation.
My interpretation is that both the owner and the guarantor may limit their liability because, if not, it would be impossible to get cover.
Could I draw the Minister's attention to the wording? I am interpreting "guarantor" to be the insurer. Subsection (3) says:
A guarantor may limit his liability under this section in like manner and to the same extent as an owner may limit his liability whether or not the discharge of oil in respect of which the proceedings are brought occurred without the actual fault or privity of the owner of the ship.
I can envisage situations in which the insurer could limit his liability but the owner could not.
This section is taken directly from the Convention and gives effect to it. It mirrors the section of the Convention from which this section is taken.
Section 13 did not mirror the Convention.
Perhaps we can better it. My reading of this is that if liability is not limited it would be impossible to obtain any insurance.
I agree with the Minister but I want an explanation of the section. With respect, he quotes the Convention, when it suits him but when we discuss sections to which it does not apply the Minister can also justify that. The Minister said that on occasions we can better the wording of the Convention. I am not saying my suggestion would do that. I am merely asking whether my interpretation of this section could be right because, if it is, it is wide open to all sorts of difficulties. I understand the wording to mean that in certain rather unusual circumstances it is quite conceivable that the insurer could limit his liability when the owner could not because of the statement there in respect of proceedings brought about without the actual fault or privity of the owner of the ship. If there is fault or privity the owner will not be able to limit his liability whereas the insurer will. There seems to be slightly different treatment of the insurer and the owner. Perhaps there is a good explanation but I should like to hear it.
There is, in so far as if this provision did not exist it is very unlikely that any of these vessels could obtain a guarantor. Any insurer would not normally take on unlimited liability and it is to ensure that the owners of vessels can obtain a guarantor and insurance because if it was unlimited it would not be possible to do so. Voluntary funds certainly could not carry all this if none of the companies had insurance.
I accept what the Minister said but my concern is the importance of getting insurance cover and we must not put in impossible demands that will weaken the whole system. I appreciate that the right to limit liability is given to shipowners because of the enormous risks to which a shipowner is exposed in the modern world. Even with the best intentions, with everything in order and complying with all the rules and regulations, accidents can happen and any accident from an oil pollution incident is usually extremely costly.
The present procedures where shipowners insure their liabilities with the P & I Clubs should be referred to because so great are the risks to which shipowners are now exposed that the professional managers of the P & I Clubs are now discussing whether they can continue to offer unlimited cover, which has always been a feature of P & I cover. This has serious implications as the P & I Club managers believe there is a danger that some day they will be faced with a claim which goes through the present limits of cover which is over $1,000 million. If you are faced with a claim which goes through that ceiling, what happens? The whole concept of limitation of liability will be gone and there will be no protection. That is why it is important to be quite clear on what we intend to do here.
The limitation of shipowners' liability generally has to be considered against this background of the unease of the P & I Clubs at present. Therefore, the right to limit liability should be virtually unbreakable to provide that element of certainty which is necessary when attempting to negotiate adequate reinsurance cover. It is only from that point of view that I pose the question as to whether the wording of section 17(3) treats the owner and the insurer differently. I think it does. Could it have consequences for reinsurance and the whole problem of limitation of liability generally as a result? I am asking the question. I am not saying I am completely sure of the answer.
Having teased it out further I agree that it does, the reason being that the insurer or guarantor would not take on unlimited liability. Therefore there has to be a reference to the guarantor and to the owner. I agree that there is a difference but if there were not we would be worse off in that these vessels would have great difficulty in obtaining insurance. The only way we can be sure they will obtain insurance is by ensuring that the liability is limited.
Effectively the Minister is saying that the insurer can limit liability but that the owner in certain circumstances may not be able to. The implications are enormous.
In the event of a spillage where the damage caused is greater than the insurance cover, then the fund is there to assist.
Is what the Minister has said correct? I am subject to correction but I understood that they could either opt to proceed through the channels as laid down by this Bill or opt to proceed through TOVALOP. I was not aware that both options would be available after the enactment of this legislation.
The compensation fund would still exist.
And it will top up insurance claims?
If liability is limited to some £12 million and the damage caused is in excess of that figure, the compensation fund will be there to assist.
I thought that the compensation fund, which is just an international voluntary agreement among tanker-owning companies, would be wound up eventually when all countries ratified the Convention and that this would supersede it.
Even boats from Convention countries which are covered by insurance still pay into the compensation fund. A vessel may have liability limited to the sum of £1 million but any spillage is likely to cause damage well in excess of that figure. Insurance would be merely for the optics. The necessary topping up would come from the compensation fund on a pro rata basis. The compensation fund is compulsory in Convention countries. There is a levy per tonne on each Convention country vessel covered by insurance. This ensures that the top-up arrangement will continue. When all Convention countries have ratified the Convention there will be no question of terminating the compensation fund.
I accept what the Minister says but my understanding was that both TOVALOP and CRISTAL, which are voluntary international schemes, were intended to be interim measures. It was stated that this would be the case and I understood that both systems would not run parallel indefinitely. The Minister says this will be the case and that the voluntary agreements and the compensation fund will be there to top-up compensation for damage which is in excess of the insurance liability. If those funds are there, why can we not treat the owner and the insurance similarly? We will be going to this international fund when our damage claim goes over and above the limit of liability. An owner may get maximum insurance cover and be fully insured in the acceptable sense. Why should we treat the owner and the insurer differently if, in the event of a breach of the limit, we intend to go to the international fund anyway? Why should we leave the owner exposed?
If we did not do this it would be impossible to obtain any insurance cover and the compensation fund would be carrying all the liability.
I do not follow that.
The compensation fund provides for all of the non-Convention countries as well as the Convention countries in a situation where damage is in excess of the insurance cover. If the insurance company or the guarantor is left wide open, which would be the case if both were treated similarly——
I am saying we should treat the owner in the same way as the insurer. The insurer has a limited liability. Why not the owner as well?
This section is very much in line with the convention and it mirrors that part of the Convention. The CRISTAL fund will only apply to non-Convention countries such as Ireland is at present. The compensation fund takes over from CRISTAL for Convention countries. When this is ratified and we become party to the Convention we will then look towards the compensation fund. I hope all non-Convention countries will ratify the Convention. Only a few countries who have ratified have vessels carrying oil as cargo.
I still have difficulty in understanding section 17 (3). The explanation tends to reinforce my view that there is no need to treat the owner and the insurer differently. I support the concept of limitation of liability but I feel the owner as well as the insurer should be able to limit liability, particularly in view of the Minister's explanation that once the limit is breached the compensation fund makes good the difference. There is no risk in exposing the owner to any claim over and above the limited liability because the owner would not have to pay the difference. It would be paid from the compensation fund.
The voluntary fund will only apply to non-Convention countries. As far as CRISTAL is concerned, there is no top-up. However, there is a top-up from the compensation fund and this is the reason for the difference. CRISTAL applies to the non-Convention countries and the compensation fund applies to the Convention countries and supplies a top-up. Hence the necessity to let the wording stand as it is.
Perhaps the Minister would refer to this matter on Report Stage. It may be that my fears are unfounded but if not, there is much at stake.
I am satisfied that the Deputy's fears are unfounded but I will make reference to this matter on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.