Deputy Seán Kyne was in possession and there are 17 minutes remaining in the slot.
Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships) Bill 2013 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed)
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
As I will not need the full 17 minutes, I am sure I can share time with someone. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment.
I spoke on the Bill prior to the summer recess and take the opportunity to reiterate some of the points I made at that stage. I welcome the Bill which will replace an Act of the Oireachtas which is almost 60 years old and which takes into account some of the changes that have occurred in the context of maritime issues during that period. It also demonstrates the fact that meaningful and effective reform takes time. In that context, there was widespread public consultation during the drafting process.
The Bill contains a number of important and positive provisions. For example, it is welcome that all ships - with defined exceptions - will be required to register to operate in Irish territorial waters. I also welcome the creation of a new centralised electronic register of ships. Section 24 demonstrates the flexibility required in that it makes provision for specific visitor registration for small craft scheduled to operate in Irish waters for less than three months. This is vital in the context of the marine tourism sector which gives rise to substantial economic benefits.
Evident in the Bill is the new focus on safety which lies at the heart of the work of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and which is championed by the Minister and Ministers of State. The provisions in respect of the seaworthiness of vessels and the obligation for vessels to be re-registered every ten years mirror those introduced in the area of road safety.
Section 17 deals with the appointment of registrars of ships, with subsection (4) empowering the Minister to appoint persons to carry out these duties. I note that the current arrangements for registration are undertaken by officers of the Revenue Commissioners and that this will continue until the Bill's various provisions have been put in place. It would be interesting to discover the Minister's views on this matter and whether registration duties and functions will be placed with an existing State agency or if a new one will be created for this purpose. The former would be more appropriate in maintaining the efficiencies we achieved in recent years in State agencies, particularly in reducing costs.
On the previous occasion I also pointed out that issues relating to national flags, national colours and their display were addressed in sections 34 to 38, inclusive. While this matter may seem antiquated or lacking in relevance to some, it merits the focus and attention afforded to it. Aside from the importance of identifying vessels, particularly for an island nation, the use of registration for commercial benefit is also important. In the past, a commercial entity transferred the registration of its vessels from Ireland to other jurisdictions. This was not the result of a lack of patriotism - the company involved was more than happy to use its Irish identity to build a competitive advantage - rather, it was for the purely economic reasons of cutting costs and reducing staff remuneration levels.
We cannot discuss legislation relating to shipping without referring to ports and harbours. Schedule 3 to the Bill sets out the ports wherein ships may be registered. Galway is listed in this regard and, as the Minister is aware, Galway Harbour Company recently submitted comprehensive plans for the redevelopment and expansion of the port. I fully support these plans and share the view that the expansion of Galway Harbour is essential to the sustainable development of the entire western region. However, I take the opportunity to reiterate my concerns about the reclassification of ports and harbours. The national ports policy proposes that Galway be reclassified as a tier 3 port, that is, one of regional significance. This fails to take into account the planned expansion of the port and the potential which can be realised when this development occurs. In my submission to An Bord Pleanála on the matter, I highlighted the example of Barcelona. Once predominantly concerned with commercial cargo, the port in Barcelona can now cater for nine cruise ships carrying 3,000 passengers each. At the height of the tourism season, therefore, some 27,000 additional visitors can be brought into the city of Barcelona and the surrounding region on a daily basis. Galway is a smaller port, but if it attracted even a fraction of that number of visitors, the benefits to the western region would be huge.
I am sure the Minister will have an opportunity to travel to Galway and meet the board of the harbour company in order that he might discuss its plans for the future and visit the port's existing facilities. Operations at Galway are tidal based at present and it is necessary for the port's gates to be opened before ships can be admitted. This means that admissions must be timed, which obviously limits the potential for expansion. The harbour company has plans to construct a new port. The existing port is located at the heart of the city, just a short distance from Eyre Square, and this gives rise to huge tourism potential. On the commercial side, the port currently caters for a small volume of total national shipping cargo. However, this is simply because investment on the scale required for expansion has not been made in the past.
The proposed development of Galway Harbour would involve two phases of land reclamation. The larger of these would involve the reclamation of some 19.6 ha and be necessary in order to facilitate the transfer of activities from the existing port facilities. A deepening of the access channel is envisaged, as is the putting in place of a turntable to allow for safe docking at the proposed new pier. A breakwater would be constructed at the head of this pier, while a second breakwater would allow for the construction of a 216-berth marina. The new port would not be dependent on tidal flows or the opening of gates. This would, therefore, allow for more regular shipping activities. It would be a modern facility and allow Galway to compete with other port cities in attracting activity. The new facility would provide greater scope for increasing the number of activities carried on at the port, particularly in terms of the rail access it is planned to provide. I highlighted all of these issues in my submission to An Bord Pleanála. The harbour company's plans are realistic and will come to fruition. I am confident that the requisite investment will be made. There are other ports in the country and Deputies who represent other constituencies have opposed the plans for Galway and made submissions in that regard. They obviously oppose the plans for Galway Harbour for their own reasons, but the stakeholders in the west are fully behind them.
I am confident that the reforms contained in the Bill will benefit the entire marine sector. I look forward to further reforms being introduced and implemented in the future.
It is, perhaps, somewhat unusual for a Deputy who represents Carlow and Kilkenny to speak on a Bill about merchant shipping. Strangely enough, however, even though Kilkenny, in which I reside, is a land-locked county in theory, there are two ports there and they are located on the Barrow and Suir estuaries. I refer to the Port of Waterford, the entirety of which is located in County Kilkenny, and the Port of New Ross, part of which lies within the county.
I welcome the Bill which updates a very old item of existing legislation, namely, the Mercantile Marine Act 1955. Reform is required because, as has been the case in so many other sectors and areas of life, the shipping industry has changed dramatically in the intervening period. I welcome the introduction of a new register of ships under section 9 and the new temporary registration process in respect of pleasure craft, including jet skis, for which section 24 makes provision. I also welcome the widespread public consultation which took place on the Bill. Section 9 also makes provision for the introduction of a new centralised electronic register of ships.
My final point is similar to that made by Deputy Seán Kyne in respect of Galway Port. The old Port of Waterford was located in the centre of the city and the quays and many of the old facilities relating thereto remain in place. During the summer, several cruise liners visited the old port. In that context, there have been outstanding difficulties for many years with cruise liners accessing the facility. However, it is quite suited to accommodating them.
The old Waterford Port in the heart of the city is sufficiently big to cater for these liners. It is important that it is right at the heart or in the centre of the city, in particular on the north wharfs, as they are called, where there has not been much by way of activity, economic or otherwise, for many years since the port facility moved some miles downstream to Belview in Slieverue, County Kilkenny. There are new members involved in the board and I know that those in the port are keen to ensure that this cruise liner facility is extended and improved in Waterford.
Members will be familiar with the fact that twice in recent years Waterford has paid host to the tall ships annual event. This was a major success. I need not remind the Minister that Waterford city, in particular, as well as the south east as a whole, has the highest level of unemployment in the country. In or around or touching 20% of the population in the working category are not gainfully employed.
Tourism is a sector of the economy that has grown significantly in recent years and there is more room for expansion in Waterford and the surrounding areas of County Waterford, south Wexford and south County Kilkenny. With this in mind I wish to use this opportunity to voice my support for the extension of the facilities at the old port in the centre of Waterford city for more cruise liners to be accommodated. Significant public funding has been invested already in the heart of Waterford city in what is now known as the Viking triangle. The Minister is probably aware of this because of another aspect of his brief. Recently, several festivals were held and several visitors from outside the city remarked on the investment and the special space and area that has been created in the heart of the city. It extends from Reginald's Tower, which is, in and of itself, a site of significant national importance and heritage in the heart of the city. It is situated off the quays and in the immediate area there has been investment in what is called the Viking triangle. With a view to maximising the possibilities for this I urge those in the Department to do everything in their power to ensure that the arrival of cruise liners and tourists into the heart of Waterford city, which services all of the surrounding hinterland in County Waterford and neighbouring counties, would be promoted as part of a significant new venture and a new departure for the tourism sector and thus benefit the economy of the city of Waterford and its immediate surroundings.
I welcome the fact that we are updating the 1955 Act with these provisions. I do not have any specific recommendations to make with regard to amendments or changes that I would like to see made.
I broadly welcome the Bill. As has been said, it updates the 1955 Act and seeks to streamline and centralise the registration system, which, up until now, was more fragmented with multiple registers and registrars. It is right and proper that it should be updated and streamlined and that we should have a proper system for registration and flagging which is coherent and transparent. This is important for many reasons but probably the reason that should concern us most relates to health and safety. We know that shipping and sailing is a dangerous business. Lives are lost regularly. Pollution is also a major issue in shipping and sailing. Therefore, to have a system whereby ships are registered and flagged properly and so on and to have a proper inspection regime to ensure ships are up to uniform standards is very important. For all these reasons I welcome the legislation. Similarly, extending the registration process to jet skis of a certain size seems to be a reasonable measure for the same reasons of ensuring safety, proper standards and so on.
Broadly speaking I welcome the Bill. It gives an opportunity to raise other issues although I am unsure whether they could have been dealt with in this Bill. Anyway, the Bill gives an opportunity, perhaps, to refer to them. I am referring in particular to the issue of flags of convenience. It is one thing for us to have a proper registration and flagging system, but we are in a globalised world and one feature of globalisation - it reminds me of multinationals and their journey throughout the world to avoid tax - and a major feature of shipping today, whether transport shipping or cruise shipping, is to flag or register vessels in several places. Coincidentally, in many cases these are the same places where multinational firms go to avoid tax such as the Bahamas, Panama or Liberia, places that have open registers. Many of the ships on the seas throughout the world flag themselves in these open-register countries even though really they have no connection whatsoever with those countries. This is a mechanism through which cruise companies and cargo shipping companies essentially avoid a proper system of regulation. The consequences are, in many cases, quite disastrous in terms of the safety of the ships, the safety of the crews of those ships and the conditions of employment of the crews of those ships. Furthermore, it is often disastrous in terms of pollution because of accidents, dumping and various consequences that flow from the fact that these ships are not properly regulated as a result of this system of flags of convenience.
In my reading around this Bill, I studied some data from the International Transport Workers Federation, the international union representing ship crews throughout the world. The federation monitors and is campaigning vigorously on this business. It is rather shocking and startling how many accidents have resulted because of this system of flags of convenience. This comes back to a point that connects to my area of Dún Laoghaire. Many of the big cruise liners operate under this system. For example, the figures I have are a little old but the International Transport Workers Federation has suggested that 59% of all cruise ship passengers in the world are American and 26% are European. They make up the vast bulk of passengers of cruise ships and these are the places to which these cruise liners are connected. Fully 52% of the capacity carrying passengers came from two open registers, those of Liberia and Panama.
Their business lies largely in Europe and America. They account for a disproportionate number of accidents, pollution incidents and breaches of working time and health and safety regulations. Often, such breaches contribute to accidents and, in some cases, sinkings, major spills, etc. Many ships on the world's seas register in this way to avoid proper regulation, with serious consequences.
Flag-of-convenience ships comprise two thirds of all ocean pollution cases cited by the US Coast Guard. According to the International Transport Workers' Federation, known as the ITF, at least 2,200 seafarers die each year at sea, and crews of flag-of-convenience ships are more than twice as likely to be killed on the job. Of the world's top six transport fleets, five are on open registers - Panama, Liberia, the Bahamas, Cyprus and Malta. Often, the disproportionate number of accidents, oil spills and deaths for which they account is a result of how they treat their crews, in that they make people work dangerously excessive hours, leaving them unable to man their ships properly. This is not something that the Irish Government can resolve, but all governments have a responsibility to work together to do something about it. I am not entirely sure how that can be done, but it must involve a better inspection regime in every country. Regardless of how a ship is flagged or registered, there must be a robust and rigorous inspection regime to ensure that ships meet proper standards and crews are treated properly and not exploited.
Some Deputies mentioned the Port of Waterford. I know quite a few people in Waterford and have heard of numerous cases of ships arriving with crews from Eastern Europe or Africa who claimed to not have been paid wages in months. The shipowners had disappeared over the horizon and the crews needed to occupy their ships to force the situation. Sometimes the ships have been sold to recompense the workers, but those people were often left in difficult situations because of flag-of-convenience shipowners who were trying to get around having their operations regulated properly. If we are discussing matters such as registration and flagging and the standards that should be associated with these, we must consider how we can play some part in addressing this significant problem.
To connect this with a slightly parochial concern, one of the main ambitions of the management of the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company is to replace its declining ferry business with business from cruise liners. I wonder whether those cruise liners are likely to be from the same companies that are cited time and again by the ITF for flying flags of convenience, flouting health and safety standards left, right and centre and being the subject of many complaints over the conditions to which they subject their crews. Chances are, they are. The cruise business is dominated by a relatively small number of large, wealthy companies, most of which operate under the flag of convenience system and are more likely to be guilty of the infringements to which I referred, including dumping that can be dangerous to the environment. Anywhere there is a port that can be visited by such ships, we should have a proper inspection regime to ensure that they are up to standard and workers are not being exploited. I am making this suggestion for the Minister's consideration. Perhaps he could insert a provision in this or another Bill so that Ireland might play some role.
We should consider the ITF's campaign objectives. It is campaigning for a major assault on substandard shipping. It wants acceptable standards on all ships irrespective of flag and the use of all political, industrial and legal means at governments' disposal to ensure this is achieved. We should be 100% behind these objectives. If we cannot enhance employment conditions, we should at least ensure there is proper regulation of same. All maritime workers, regardless of colour, nationality, sex or creed, should be protected from exploitation by their employers or those acting on their employers' behalf. We must consider this matter seriously, given the evidence that shipowners operating internationally - possibly the majority of them - are actively seeking to get around compliance with environmental, employment and health and safety regulations.
Several Deputies used this Bill on merchant shipping as an opportunity to discuss ports, but I will make a general point. One of my great inspirations in politics was Dr. John De Courcy Ireland, who the House may remember died a number of years ago. He was a great socialist and anti-war activist, but his greatest passion of all was maritime affairs, having been a sailor for much of his life. He was from the Dún Laoghaire area. He used to tell me that it was bizarre, absurd and tragic that Ireland, an island nation, did not have a merchant navy following the closure of Irish Shipping. I will use this opportunity to echo his sentiment, which he was forever repeating. There is a relationship between the subject of my previous points and the decline of merchant navies, whereby a state took direct responsibility for bringing goods in and out of its territory from other parts of the world.
That also meant that there was better regulation of standards on those ships, treatment of employees and all of that, something from which nation states have pulled back. The "for profit" private mob have moved in and they seek to flout all sorts of standards because they are only interested in making money, regardless of the potential environmental consequences or consequences for the crews or passengers of ships. Even in terms of employment opportunities, if we are talking about having a sustainable economy and recovery, I do not understand why we would not have our own merchant navy and see that as being an economic opportunity for our State that is an island surrounded by water. Is it not logical and obvious that we should have our own merchant navy?
My final point is a parochial one about Dún Laoghaire, as I noted that other Members spoke about ports in their constituencies. I am aware a reclassification of ports is taking place in terms of ports of national and regional significance, how they will be managed and so on. Dún Laoghaire Port is part of that reclassification of ports and it has been designated as a port of regional significance and is to be put under the auspices of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. I very much welcome the fact that Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company will come under the authority of a directly elected body and that the people in Dún Laoghaire can have some real influence and say in how their harbour is developed in the future because that has been distinctly lacking in how the harbour has been managed in recent years by the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company which is a law unto itself. That has been evident when I have asked questions of the Minister about very serious issues such as big disputes going on and legal cases between the management and employees about major issues of health and safety within the port because of the run down in the numbers of maintenance staff and harbour police working in the harbour, which poses very serious questions in terms of health and safety. There are regular suicide attempts in Dún Laoghaire Harbour and often they are only prevented because of the actions of the harbour police whose numbers have been drastically and dangerously run down by the harbour company. There are also major issues about the expenditure decisions of Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company where hundreds of thousands of euro - probably close to €1 million if one takes checks back on recent years - have been spent on crazy, fantastic master plans for almost Disney-type development plans for Dún Laoghaire Harbour of the sort we have seen with the Dún Laoghaire library, the same kind of madcap plans for huge inappropriate developments in the centre of the harbour when the harbour company would be far better investing that money in making it a safe, working and accessible harbour for the public rather than wasting vast amounts of money on consultants, developing plans that never come to fruition anyway. The most recent of these is a plan to buy a floating barge from the Germans for €3 million and build a nonsense-type structure halfway down the east pier for it when in fact everybody in Dún Laoghaire would say they do not need a floating barge with a pool on it in the harbour and all that money to be spent when what they would like is to have Dún Laoghaire baths fixed up, but the harbour company is a law unto itself.
While I welcome the decision for the port to come under the auspices of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, which provides the potential for an elected body to have an influence, there is a big decision about whether it would be a corporate subsidiary of the county council or it would be under the direct control of it and its elected members. I appeal to the Minister that in making that decision it would be the latter and not the former. A corporate subsidiary would just replicate and continue a situation where the body is at one remove from any accountability either to the Department or to the local community through its public representatives.
Thank you, Deputy. I must call the next speakers, Deputies Seán Kenny and Michael McNamara, who are sharing a 20-minute timeslot.
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him every success in his job. As a member of the Oireachtas transport committee, I welcome the publication of the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships) Bill 2013, which is one of the legislative priorities of the Minister, as I know he is keen to update and enhance the national maritime legislative code and ensure the safety of maritime transport services. I share this view as a Deputy representing Dublin Bay North, which includes Howth harbour and borders on Dublin Port where many of my constituents are employed.
The importance of ship registration is that it confers Irish nationality on ships, allowing them to fly the Irish flag and register ownership. The new Bill will provide a basis for the introduction of an updated and modernised registration system in Ireland and is the result of a detailed review of the existing registration regime, which dates from 1955, and involved an extensive public consultation process and meetings with interested parties involved in maritime activities. It has been prepared against a background of international growth in maritime trade, an increase in the use of pleasure craft and an increasing emphasis on safety, security and environmental issues both at EU and international level.
New categories of vessels for which the Bill proposes registration are fishing boats less than 15 m in length overall, jet skis, small fast powered craft and small angling boats. This registration will be mandatory, which I welcome. In general, subject to some exemptions, all ships operating domestically will be required to be on the register or to have a current valid registration conferring nationality from another country. Other than the small vessels to which I have referred, registration of all leisure craft less than 24 m is not proposed.
A system of visitor registration is proposed for recreational craft 24 m in load line length and greater, personal watercraft such as jet skis and small fast powered craft, where such craft are not registered in another country and wish to operate in Irish waters for short periods not exceeding three months. This will be a simplified form of registration for a nominal fee so as not to impact negatively on tourism. In respect of jet skis, the proposed extension of a registration requirement to jet skis is being proposed in order to take account of the increase in the numbers of such craft in recent years. This is a response to the risks that can be involved in the operation of such craft and, in particular, it responds to a recommendation made by the Marine Casualty Investigation Board following a number of marine casualty incidents involving jet skis in recent years.
As my Dublin Bay North constituency includes beaches stretching from Dollymount to Portmarnock, I particularly welcome the registration of jet skis. During fine weather such as we had this summer the users of jet skis and personal watercraft must have regard for swimmers and be extra vigilant as jet skis can cause serious head injuries to swimmers on crowded beaches. Warm, sunny weather can sadly lead to drownings and increased demand on the Coast Guard and lifeboat rescue services. I would again call on swimmers and those engaging in water sports activities to exercise caution.
The new registration system will replace the existing arrangements that have been in place since 1955 and allow us to introduce a new, centralised, electronic Irish register of ships. Current arrangements for the registration of ships will continue until such time as the new register is in place and the relevant provisions of the Bill and subsequent regulations are signed into law. It is important to point out that under the Bill, Irish ships that are registered under the current regime will be transferred free of charge to the new register for an initial period of up to five years and, subject to compliance with the requirements of the Bill, will then become eligible for consideration for renewal of their registration.
Improvements to enforcement provisions include increases in penalty levels and a power of detention given to surveyors for ship registration-related offences, as well as the introduction of a system of fixed payments for certain offences involving personal watercraft, small fast powered craft and smaller angling ships. A range of State personnel will act as authorised persons for the purposes of enforcement.
In regard to this Bill, the concerns of the trade union SIPTU centre on the compliance by the shipping companies to the various agreements and their contracts of employment.
It would also be supportive of the International Transport Federation, ITF, inspectors having access to ships and crews and being able to enforce sanctions. Another interesting point expressed by SIPTU is that this Bill would assist Ireland in signing up to the Maritime Labour Convention 2006. The Rail Maritime and Transport Union, RMTU, which has members in the UK and Ireland, has raised the issue of well known household ferries and holiday cruise companies operating in both jurisdictions who pay their staff rates of pay which are below the national minimum wage, which is a disgrace.
SIPTU, the RMTU and ITF are well aware of the use of flags of convenience by certain ship owners and hope that Ireland will be proactive in ensuring that seafarers' health and safety and terms and conditions are protected. I commend the Bill.
I join with Deputy Seán Kenny in congratulating the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, on his recent appointment. As stated, this Bill is the first piece of legislation being brought through the House by him as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. I wish him every success with it.
I propose to focus in particular on the registration of ships section of the Bill. I welcome that it is proposed to introduce a modern registry but respectfully suggest that the Minister might consider particular amendments to the Bill in that regard. This legislation amends the Merchant Shipping Act 1955, which brings into focus the fact that in this jurisdiction we do not legislate as often as other jurisdictions on a variety of matters and that Irish legislation is amended less frequently than is the case in other States. In amending legislation, we should look to the future in terms of our needs. In this regard, I wish to draw attention to the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1993. As Ireland has not yet acceded to or ratified that convention one might well ask why it is important. It is important for a particular reason. Currently, there is in place a registry of property. This means that where a person takes a case against another person for failure to pay and is successful in that regard he or she can register a judgment against the other person's property. A register of ships has the potential to operate in the same manner.
Article 4 of the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1993 states:
Each of the following claims against the owner.....shall be secured by a maritime lien on the vessel:
(a) Claims for wages and other sums due to the master, officers and other members of the vessel's complement in respect of their employment on the vessel, including costs of repatriation and social insurance contributions payable on their behalf;
(b) Claims in respect of loss of life or personal injury occurring, whether on land or on water, in direct connection with the operation of the vessel;
On that basis, while I welcome the proposed establishment of a registry of ships I believe it is important that that register specifically allow for the registration of liens to enable the enforcement of judgments for failure to pay wages. As stated by Deputy Kenny, there are, unfortunately, as in the case of every other sector of society, unscrupulous shipowners.
The other two issues about which I am concerned would require only minor amendments to the register, thus enabling Ireland, should it choose to do so, to accede to the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1993. Even if it chooses not to do so, acceptance of the proposed amendments would make it easier to enforce judgments for failure to pay wages, etc.. First, the register should be a public document which can be inspected by the public. It is probably intended that the register will be public but that is not explicit in the Bill. Maritime law and any change in that regard in Ireland has international effect because, obviously, ships frequently travel from one jurisdiction to another. As such legislation introduced and enacted in Ireland might well end up being cited in the Spanish or Portuguese courts and vice versa. It would be useful if it were explicitly stated in the legislation that the register will be public. I have heard the Minister's friends frequently speak of particular issues being dealt with by way of statutory instrument. It is easier to produce primary legislation and state explicitly therein that a particular document will be a public document.
Second, it should be possible for the Minister to address the issue of conditions for de-registration by way of primary legislation or regulation. It is all well and good to register but how does one de-register? I raise this issue for the following reasons. Article 3 of the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1993 states:
1. With the exception of the cases provided for in articles 11 and 12, in all other cases that entail the deregistration of the vessel from the register of a State Party, such State Party shall not permit the owner to deregister the vessel unless all registered mortgages, "hypothèques" or charges are previously deleted or the written consent of all holders of such mortgages,.....
In other words, where a person is successful in court in obtaining a judgment which is then registered against a ship, the owner of the ship or boat cannot deregister it without first having paid the judgment. That is fairly logical. My amendments are relatively minor and I hope that the Minister will consider them. If there is any particular reason they cannot be incorporated into the Bill - I am not aware of any but there may well be - I would welcome an explanation from the Minister in that regard.
There is one other aspect of this Bill which causes me concern. I welcome that all fishing boats are to be registered. I am sure that as in the case of every other sector of economic activity there is exploitation of persons in the fishing sector. The Bill provides that a ship carrying not more than three passengers for the purposes of angling, as exempted in the licensing of passenger boats regulations, will now have to be registered. Does that mean that every lake boat in Lough Derg, Connemara, the Corrib, etc., must be registered? There may well be reasons for this. Perhaps the Minister would clarify the matter. I read last week about an invasive species in Lough Ree which has the potential to create considerable damage to the angling resource that is Lough Ree. Zebra mussels are an invasive species which are accelerating at a rapid rate in Lough Derg. Perhaps the reason for the registration of angling boats is to enable the State to more closely follow their activities. Perhaps the Minister would clarify if this is the case. I raise this issue because I believe it is one about which there is little awareness among the general public. There certainly is no awareness of it yet among anglers and persons who own lake boats. If it is the case that such boats are to be registered then there is a need for greater public consultation on the issue.
I thank the Minister for his attentiveness during my contribution, which is not always the case in regard to the passage of legislation through this House. I commend the Bill to the House.
How much time do I have to reply?
The Minister has up to 30 minutes. We must move to Leaders' Questions at noon.
Thank you.
I thank all Deputies who contributed to the Second Stage debate on this Bill. While I have only been present in the House for the contributions made this morning I have been updated on the commentary and points made by other contributors. I welcome the general welcome to date for this Bill.
I listened carefully to all of the contributions made this morning, including by Deputy McNamara. I propose to respond today to some of the particular issues raised by him and to have a discussion with him at a future date in an effort to better understand from where he is coming on the other particular issues.
What I will do is discuss this with the Deputy afterwards so I can better understand where he is coming from and determine whether the issues he mentioned can be addressed. I greatly welcome the fact that he has obviously read the Bill and gone through it. He has come forward with some detailed points on which I would like to have the opportunity to engage, both in the House and elsewhere.
All speakers this morning have focused on the essential part of the Bill. The Bill seeks to focus more deeply and effectively on the issue of registration and to update a framework that has been in place since the 1950s. By doing that, it provides a renewed focus on the issue of safety, which will be at the core of the new registration regime. This will enable me, as Minister, to issue secondary regulations in the future. The Bill is not just important for what it does as primary legislation, because it will give me and my Department the ability to issue secondary regulations to tackle specific issues that need to be dealt with.
As some speakers have already acknowledged, the actions in the Bill are consistent with what is happening at EU and international levels to enhance ship safety and deal with an issue referred to by Deputy Boyd Barrett that of pollution at sea and in harbours. The objective is to determine how that problem can better be dealt with. The Bill recognises that there has been a gigantic increase, both historically and recently, in maritime trade internationally, in addition to greater use of vessels for recreation. This was well exemplified in the point Deputy John Paul Phelan made in his contribution. He said that while it may seem odd for a Deputy representing a landlocked constituency to be referring to this Bill, he was doing so because there are locations in his constituency where vessels are used for recreation. This phenomenon has grown in recent years. It was always evident in Ireland, but because it has grown it is important that we address any gaps that exist in our national registration legislation to deal with these kinds of change.
The issues we are examining in particular include the absence of ship registration categories, ship registration renewal, and a facility to remove unsafe or unsuitable ships from the register. The latter touches on a point that Deputy McNamara raised with me in his contribution. Also being examined is the issue of inadequate enforcement and penalty provisions. By dealing with all these issues, we are aiming to put in place a far more accurate and comprehensive central record of ships under the Irish flag and of ships using Irish waters, all with a view to enhancing the safety and environmental compliance of Irish ships.
Until this Bill is enacted, current arrangements will remain in force. They will continue until a number of particular developments take place. First, the Bill must be passed by the Oireachtas. Once the primary legislation is in place, we must then consider its commencement and the issue of subsequent regulations. Then we will need to establish the electronic register in light of the legislation and, from that, we will have to ensure we have the necessary administrative systems. All of this work is challenging. A number of Deputies have commented on what is in place at present. It is worth saying that while we have 3,200 ships that are centrally registered, these registrations are spread over 11 locations within the State. Many of the registrations are in paper format, which, of course, is why we want to move to a centralised system that is operated electronically, as it should be.
Let me refer to some of the points made by Deputies this morning. I will respond first to some of those made by Deputy McNamara. He concluded with a question on the breadth of registration. I want to confirm to him that only commercial angling boats will be subject to the terms of reference of this Bill. A vessel registered as commercial will have to be covered in the Bill.
With regard to Deputy McNamara's point on public access to the register, I draw his attention to section 9(10), which addresses the issue. It will put in place regulations to provide access. Currently, access is available to basic aspects of the register. That will continue to be the case. On Committee Stage, I will understand the Deputy's observations more deeply and perhaps I will examine his concerns regarding access at present. If I conclude that we need to address the issue, I will be happy to engage with the Deputy on it.
With regard to the more substantive point made by Deputy McNamara on liens, I will revert to the Deputy in the future on this. With regard to registration, I believe I have answered the question. On the issue of access, I can emphasise what is in place at present. We will seek to continue with this in the future. If the Deputy believes there is a gap, let us have a discussion on it in the Chamber, including on Committee Stage, and perhaps elsewhere. With regard to liens and the issue of deregistration, as raised by the Deputy, let me seek to understand the issue more deeply and determine how the Bill addresses it.
Before addressing the points made by Deputies Kyne, John Paul Phelan, Boyd Barrett and Seán Kenny this morning, I will address the issue of consultation. Considerable effort has been made to date through my officials and my predecessor to consult stakeholders on the Bill. It is evidence of the success of that consultation that, up to this point, the Bill has been broadly welcomed. Speakers who contributed before today referred to consultation in regard to my issuing enabling regulations or secondary instruments. It is very difficult for me to give a binding commitment regarding the number of instruments and regulations that I will have to sign and implement. However, because of the breadth and number of these, it is not normal practice to engage in consultation on them. What we try to do is to maximise consultation at primary level so that when we get to secondary level we will be doing something that is understood, if not always agreed to. However, if informal consultation is needed regarding certain decisions that need to be made, we will seek to have it as and when the need arises.
Deputy Kyne asked about outsourcing and how it would work. I will make two points on this and on what other speakers have said. First, our absolute intent at this stage is to create a central office within my Department to deal with registration and its administration. The reason, as outlined by many people, is that registration and safety are very much related. Therefore, I want the register in my Department and not under a new State body. That answers the specific question Deputy Kyne put to me.
Of course we will examine particular administration or service delivery aspects of it and, if it is appropriate, we might seek to outsource areas of that if we decide it makes sense in the future. However, issues relating to the international status of the registry, the need to retain control over the registration of ships under the Irish flag and our international responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea are specific to my Department and are areas we would wish to retain under central control. I hope that answers the question put by the Deputy.
That brings me to section 10 of the Bill. If changes were to be made to the administration of the Bill or how that service was to be delivered and if another body were to play a role in that regard, I would wish to ensure it was a State agency that would be subject to the requirements in section 10 in respect of corporate governance, financial requirements and oversight and in respect of freedom of information. Any agreements, therefore, will stipulate the specific terms and conditions that will apply to the agency carrying out the functions involved, which must be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Bill and any subsequent regulations. It would be the Minister of my Department, with the consent of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, that would have sole regulatory power under the Bill to set fees applicable.
Deputy Boyd Barrett, Deputy Kenny and other Deputies raised the issues of pay rates for seafarers and workers' rights. It should be emphasised that workers on ships that are registered under our current legislation and that will be registered under this legislation when it is enacted are absolutely subject to the provisions of Irish law irrespective of where a ship is sailing to or where it is located. That obviously includes the Irish minimum wage of €8.65 per hour. In the case of ships that are not registered in Ireland, Irish law relating to pay and working and living conditions does not apply to them. If the owner of a ship decides to register his or her ship elsewhere, our laws on pay and living conditions do not apply. However, the maritime survey office of the Department can inspect visiting ships under current legislation to ensure compliance with international law. The maritime safety office may, if it judges it to be necessary and appropriate, detain ships which it considers pose a safety hazard and do not comply with international law. It is only when those matters are resolved that the maritime survey office would make the decision to release the ship and allow it to exit the port.
I note what Deputy Dooley said on the issue of enforcement. This issue is covered by section 39 of the Bill, which details the authorised persons who would play a role in the implementation of the Bill. They include the surveyor, members of the Garda Síochána, officers of the Revenue Commissioners, harbour masters, sea fisheries protection officers, authorised officers of Inland Fisheries Ireland, defence personnel and officers of the Irish Coast Guard. These are all persons who, in the normal course of their daily activities, might come across registration contraventions and they will now be able to take action under the Bill.
Section 41 of the Bill refers to what I just I mentioned. It gives power of detention to surveyors in respect of a ship in a port of the State or in Irish waters or an Irish ship in a foreign port in circumstances in which breaches of certain requirements arise.
With regard to ports, Deputy Kyne spoke about Galway Port and the development of the port that is currently under way. I am aware of that and I look forward to taking him up on his invitation to visit Galway Port and meet the board there. I listened to the points made by Deputy Boyd Barrett and his concerns relating to the operation of Dún Laoghaire Port. I will make two points in response. First, I am absolutely certain that all of our ports meet the safety and health requirements laid down under our law at present. This is an issue that all of our ports, including the board and management of Dún Laoghaire Port, take very seriously. Second, I believe it is an important and positive development that Dún Laoghaire Port and other ports of similar designation will move to the control and governance arrangements of the local authority in their area. This is in line with the national ports strategy, which I fully support and which I look forward to seeing implemented in my time in this office.
A number of points were raised about jet skis and some Deputies had questions about how they are currently regulated. The Maritime Safety Act 2005 provides for a range of control mechanisms in this area. Part 2 of that Act confers by-law-making capacities in respect of the operation and control of personal water craft. The 2005 Act also provides for a system of fixed penalties for offences that may be committed on those vessels.
There were also a number of questions regarding life jackets. This is covered by the Pleasure Craft (Personal Flotation Devices and Operation) (Safety) Regulations 2005, which provide that personal flotation devices are to be carried on every pleasure craft. They must be worn by people up to the age of 16 years and must be worn by persons who are being towed by a pleasure craft on a board or a vessel, or on an object being towed by a pleasure craft. Every person on a jet ski must wear a personal flotation device - a life jacket.
I hope I have responded to the questions raised by Deputies. I thank them for their questions and for the other points they raised. I welcome the fact that there appears to be broad support for the Bill. I look forward to taking it through Committee Stage, hearing the Deputies' specific observations on the sections of the Bill and to bringing it to a conclusion in the Dáil.
Question put and agreed to.