Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Dec 1947

Vol. 34 No. 19

Merchant Shipping Bill, 1947—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 1:—

Before Section 2 to insert the following new section:—

2. In its application to a ship to which this Act applies, Section 1 of the Principal Act shall be construed and have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say, for the reference to a natural born British subject there shall be substituted a reference to an Irish citizen, for every reference to naturalisation by process of British law there shall be substituted a reference to naturalisation by virtue of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1935, and every other expression in the said sub-section shall be construed in relation to this provision and the Principal Act shall have effect accordingly.

This amendment is related to the matter which was discussed on the Second Stage of the Bill. The House will recall that on that occasion I drew attention to the provisions of this Bill in relation to the flag and expressed some doubt as to what was an Irish ship for the purposes of this Act, so far as the use of the Irish flag is concerned. In the discussion which followed, the Minister made a statement which did not improve the position from my point of view, which, in fact, rather disimproved it. The Minister, at column 1538 of the Seanad Official Debates of the 11th November, said:—

"So far as admission to the Irish register is concerned, there was an agreement made in 1931 that we would admit to the register here only vessels which were owned by Irish citizens or by citizens in Commonwealth countries. That agreement was never ratified in legislation, but it has determined the practice since."

I do not know whether it was generally known that an agreement of that character existed. Apparently, in law, it has no binding effect, but, in practice, it determines the attitude of our Government towards the registration of foreign-owned ships in this country.

Speaking of the future, the Minister said:—

"I think it is probable, having regard to our circumstances, that when we come to prepare the comprehensive legislation we will admit to our register ships owned by British citizens, or owned by Irish citizens in partnership with British citizens."

It is obviously the intention of the Government, therefore, that a ship which is owned, either in whole or in part, by non-nationals may be registered at any of our ports. That, in my opinion, is a rather serious matter, and I submit further that it is an act directly forbidden by Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. That section provides, in relation to British ships, the categories of persons or corporate bodies which may register a ship at a British port. There are four such categories, namely, natural-born British subjects, persons naturalised in pursuance of an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, persons made denizens of the United Kingdom and bodies corporate established under and subject to the laws of some part of his Majesty's Dominions.

Under the Adaptation of Enactments Act, 1922, British Statutes were carried over in this country and given effect to, subject to certain modifications. These modifications in general amount to something like this—that where the words "United Kingdom" are used in a British Statute they shall mean, in the application of that Statute to Ireland, "Ireland", and similar modifications apply in regard to other expressions. These words are declared, in the Adaptation of Enactments Act, to have a special meaning in the application of British Statutes to Ireland. If that is so and if the Adaptation of Enactments Act is deemed to apply to the merchant shipping law of this country—and I submit it must be so deemed, since otherwise we have no merchant shipping law at all—it means that Section 1 of the British Act of 1894 must be construed as limiting the right of registration to ships which are owned by Irish citizens or bodies corporate according to our law. I submit, therefore, that the agreement referred to by the Minister, the agreement made in 1931, permitting foreigners to register ships in an Irish port, is unauthorised by the law.

The use of the flag by a shipowner is of not merely national but of international importance. For instance, in the event of war, the protection of an Irish ship, if we are neutral, depends on the use of the Irish flag. Now, if a British concern, say the B. and I. or the L.M.S., should register a ship in this country and fly the Irish flag, carrying munitions of war for Great Britain, is not our neutrality imperilled? Some of those ships used by British companies in our ports were diverted during the last war to the service of the British Navy. One of them, I think, was lost outside Dunkirk.

The matter is of considerable importance, not merely now, but in the future. If there is another outbreak of war and the nations of the world are again in conflict — and that eventuality cannot be dismissed—the use of the Irish flag at sea or in any foreign port is of the first importance to the people of this country. If we are in the war, it does not matter whether we carry an Irish flag or the flag of the country with which we are associated in carrying on the war; but if we continue to be neutral in the next war, it is of considerable importance to us now that we would determine that the only ships which would fly the Irish flag abroad are those owned by Irish nationals, citizens over whose conduct we will have control, and that we will ensure that those ships will not be used to carry contraband or to assist any of the parties engaged in the war so as to imperil our neutrality.

It is probably late in the session to raise a matter of this character, but it is the only opportunity we have, or may have for years to come, to define for ourselves what is to be the attitude of the Irish Government towards the use of the Irish flag at sea and in foreign ports. I would urge on the House that before assent is given to this Bill the House should be satisfied on the major point I have raised, that is, that the Irish flag may be used only on an Irish ship owned by Irish citizens over whom we have complete control, not merely in relation to the ship but in relation to their conduct generally. I admit at once that the amendment is probably not skilfully drawn. It was drawn primarily for the purpose of directing attention to the issue involved. If the House accepts the principle of the amendment, it can be put in a different form on the Report Stage of the Bill.

I do not think Senator Duffy appreciates the fact that he is entering into a most complicated legal maze. If he did, he would not complain that he is not being shown an easy way out of it. I pointed out here during the course of the Second Reading discussion that the merchant shipping legislation now in force in this country is in a most unsatisfactory state. I pointed out that the Act of 1894 was an imperial statute in the widest sense of the term, a statute passed by the British Parliament to control the operation of their merchant shipping, or merchant shipping owned anywhere in the British Empire, in any part of the world. The application of that Act to this country and to ships registered in this country and to personnel serving on those ships is uncertain in many respects. The Act, as Senator Duffy knows, having read it, is full of references to British ships, to the United Kingdom and to British possessions, many of which references are of very imperfect application to the circumstances of this State, even the circumstances which existed here when the Irish Free State was established in 1922, and are extremely difficult to adapt to Irish law.

I think Senator Duffy does not appreciate that there has been no specific adaptation of Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Since 1922 the position has been interpreted as allowing ships which would be previously entitled to register at Irish ports to continue to do so. The adaptation of that section would raise a very complex legal problem, and rather than deprive persons of any rights to which they might be entitled, it was felt that the most liberal interpretation of that section should be adopted. I think that it would be very undesirable to change that position until we have prepared and passed a comprehensive merchant shipping measure. The preparation of that measure—as I have pointed out—will be a very difficult matter and it will be some time before it can be completed. I think that we would be very unwise to rush into a premature decision on the most difficult parts of the measure before giving it consideration as a whole.

It is true that the outbreak of war did give rise to urgent problems which had to be dealt with by means of Emergency Powers Orders. It is those Emergency Powers Orders, and those only, which are being transferred to permanent legislation by the Bill which is before the Seanad. Even the 1931 Agreement, to which I referred, and which might have been followed up by legislation in the following years, is now in a somewhat doubtful position because its provisions would appear to be in conflict with the legal position here since the enactment of the Nationality and Citizenship Act and of the Constitution.

I do not see anything which would justify Senator Duffy's assumption that it was the obvious intention of the Government to permit the registration at Irish ports of ships owned by British citizens. That is a matter which will have to be considered. I would not like to suggest that a decision has been made. I think it is far more probable that the legislation which we will make will allow reciprocal treatment and will empower the Government to confer upon citizens of other countries privileges similar to those which our citizens enjoy in those countries. It could be by no means certain that a reciprocal arrangement in regard to the registration of ships would be made by the Government. I could not attempt to forecast what the ultimate decision of the Government here may be, and most certainly I could not forecast the decision of the Government of Britain.

Senator Duffy completely misunderstood the position in regard to the registration of ships in time of war. Ships registered here are completely under the orders of the Irish Government and of nobody else. By means of various Emergency Powers Orders, I took power over ships registered at Irish ports, to direct their routes and to control the classes of goods which they would carry. It was a matter of no importance whether a ship was wholly owned by Irish citizens or not; as long as it was registered here and sailed under the Irish flag, it was subject to our directions.

I mentioned on the Second Reading that a principle of international law required that, in time of war, ships owned in a belligerent country should be registered in that country, and we assented to the transfer from Irish to British registration of certain ships owned in Great Britain. Possibly it was to such a ship that Senator Duffy referred as being engaged at Dunkirk, for certainly no ship registered at an Irish port could act otherwise than in accordance with the direction given to the owners here.

My main argument against this amendment is that it would be most unwise to take any decision on a most complex question without giving it the fullest possible consideration. Certain matters arising out of the general relationship between merchant shipping legislation and the Constitutional position have delayed progress in the completion of a new merchant shipping measure. One of the most complex matters is Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, and he would be a very bold man who would say that he sees an easy solution of the difficulties that arise in that connection. I have given the matter very great consideration, but I could not say that I see an easy solution, and I would recommend that we should leave the position as it is until we have examined the position as a whole.

I think that the Minister's statement is far from being satisfactory in relation to the adaptation of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. He seems to have doubt as to whether Section 1 has been effectively adapted to this country. I cannot express an opinion on that, but I would say this: It is a rather strange admission that 25 years after this State set up its own legislation a matter of this kind should be still in doubt, having regard, particularly, to the provisions of Section 12 of the Adaptation of Enactments Act of 1922, which conferred on the Executive Council of Saorstát Éireann the power to make all such general or specific adaptation of or modification in any British Statute which, in the opinion of the Council, was necessary to enable such statute to be effective in Saorstát Éireann. If there was any doubt as to the application of the Act to Section 1 of the British Act of 1894, there was power taken in the Statute of 1922 to enable the Government of the day to make such adaptations in the British Statute as might appear necessary in order to make that statute effective in this State. If the Minister and his predecessors during the last 25 years were in doubt as to whether Section 1 of the British Statute was effectively enforced here, surely there was an obligation placed upon them, if not to amend the Act of 1922, at least to use the powers conferred by that Act to make Orders or regulations which would have the effect of making Section 1 of the British Act fully operative in this country.

The whole thing hinges on that. If the British Act has been effectively adapted for our purposes, then, I submit, that the registration in an Irish port by a British shipowner of the ship owned by him or any share in which is owned by him is done by lawful authority. The Minister did not meet that point, except to the extent that he said that there is some doubt as to whether Section 1 of the 1894 Act is effective in this country. But if there is doubt as to Section 1 of the 1894 Act—the section which determines who is the owner of a ship for the purpose of registration, the section which determines who is the owner of the ship in relation to the flag which it flies—the validity of the whole statute is in question. I respectfully submit that it is a very unsatisfactory condition of the law for a Minister to be able to say that there is doubt about it and that that doubt has never been resolved. I agree with the Minister that a very big issue is involved, but we do not solve our difficulties merely by passing them by. My complaint is that we have passed by this difficulty for 25 years and left ourselves completely in the dark. I want to know what is the legal obligation to this State of a shipowner who is entitled to fly the Irish flag. I want that settled. It is true that I am endeavouring to have it settled in a particular way. I do not know whether the House would agree with the proposal I make regarding the settlement, but there is no doubt as to what I have in my mind. What I am proposing is that we should apply the law in relation to the flag in the same way as that law is applied in Britain. In other words, I propose that in this country a citizen or a body corporate composed of Irish citizens, and they alone, may register a ship at an Irish port, entitling them to fly the Irish flag—just as the British authorities limit by statute the class of persons who in Britain may register any share or interest in a ship—so as to secure for that ship the protection of the Irish flag. I have already pointed out that, according to my interpretation of the Act of 1894, the persons or corporations entitled to register a ship in Britain belong to one of four categories —natural born British subjects, naturalised British subjects or persons made denizens, and corporate bodies, if the principal place of business is in Great Britain or in her possessions.

Surely there is no difficulty for us in saying that so far as an Irish registration is concerned it may be effected only by Irish citizens or by the bodies corporate which are composed of Irish citizens or are of such a category as may be registered in this country. The Minister, I think, suggests that it would be unwise to take that step. That, of course, is a matter for discussion. I do not think it is unwise. I think it is a natural sequel to the enactment for which the Oireachtas has been responsible during the last 25 years. I submit it is as reasonable to limit in the case of property in ships the categories of persons who may own these shares or ships as it is to enforce the Control of Manufactures Act so as to prevent foreign citizens or foreign nationals from owning other industrial concerns in this country. I made the point on the Second Reading and I want to repeat it now that registration in relation to a ship has a peculiar significance. Registration of shares in relation to a ship has the same meaning, in effect, as the registration of title in relation to land. The registration maintained at a port, whether it be Dublin, Cork, Newry or Galway, is the only record in existence of the ownership of a ship or of the shares to which the registration applies. If somebody wants to sell shares in a ship the sale must be recorded at the port of registration and all the documents—everything in relation to the ship and the property that passes—originate at the port of registry. Therefore, the question of registration is not merely a formal matter. It is not merely a question of someone walking into a port and saying: "I want to confer a favour on this port. I am going to call this ship Lady Tara and have her registered at Dublin”. He is doing very much more than that. When he registers his ship at the Port of Dublin he commences to build up all the title deeds relating to that ship. Everything that happens in relation to the property of that ship must be registered, noted, recorded and approved by a customs officer at the Port of Dublin until the registration is cancelled.

I think the statement which the Minister made in relation to British ships at the outbreak of war is one that might give room for some clarification. For convenience sake, British shipping companies operating here registered certain ships belonging to the concerns at the Dublin port. The moment war breaks out these ships, being the property of British subjects who are obliged to conform to the direction of the British Government, are immediately diverted from the Irish coastal trade, the cross-Channel trade or ocean-going trade and are brought into the service of the British Government. The Irish Government immediately releases these ships from registration or cancels the registration or transfer the registration as the case may be. It shows at once the dangerous position in which we are. Ships which are owned by people over whom we have no control and who owe allegiance to the British Government are registered here but when a crisis arises they are immediately made subject to the desires and the orders of a foreign Government and we must immediately acquiesce. Thus, these ships are released for the use of a foreign Government engaged in war at a period during which we ourselves need them. I do not think the Minister feels too happy about the matter. I can deduce that the matter is one which is a cause of concern to the Government and to the Minister, in particular.

I do not want to press the amendment if the Minister says the matter is receiving consideration. I shall not press the amendment if I can get an assurance that when this matter is being considered the point I have made and insisted upon will be kept in view —that no ship should be registered in an Irish port unless it is owned by Irish nationals or Irish citizens over whom we have control, or by companies who are entitled to be registered in this country under the Control of Manufactures Act.

I have stated that the application of the Act of 1894 to this country and to ships registered here is uncertain. I have pointed out that there was no specific adaptation of Section 1 of that Act. I admit the doubt. I make the point, however, that the whole question is a very complex one and that we should give careful consideration to the possible consequences of any step we might take. I do not think Senator Duffy is even remotely aware of all the possible consequences. There are, of course, a number of ships on the British register owned by Irish citizens. I do not know what Senator Duffy has in mind in regard to these.

Is that because they are British subjects?

No—ships. I am not going to discuss here what the motives of the British Government are in the matter. I do not know whether Senator Duffy's persistence in this amendment is due to hostility to that trade union which claims the right to organise sailors on Irish registered ships. I think it should be realised that if this amendment became law a number of ships would pass from the Irish register.

What has that got to do with it?

It means that a number of these ships will have to be transferred to the British register. Surely, the interests of the union would be affected.

That leaves me cold.

The Senator should consider the matter.

I have considered it.

If the Senator will consider it just a little further he will realise that there are a number of other points which we must keep clearly in mind before we bring into effect permanent legislation. While I admit a doubt as to the present legal position under the imperfect application of the 1894 Act, we should, I think, carefully consider what is to replace it when it is, in fact, repealed. I would refer to the provisions in this Bill embodying certain provisions of certain emergency powers Orders. To some extent in the future they will, at any rate, alter the position, as they give specific power to control the registration here of any ship or class of ship irrespective of ownership.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 and 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 3, line 32, to delete the word "ten" and substitute the word "two".

This section deals with the penalties inflicted upon seamen under certain circumstances. It provides that a seaman who is guilty of the offence of absence without leave in the circumstances specified in paragraph (b) of Section 221 of the Act of 1894 may, on summary conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding £10. It seems to me that that penalty is excessive. I would like to refer to paragraph (b) of Section 221 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894:—

"(b) If he neglects, or refuses without reasonable cause, to join his ship, or to proceed to sea in his ship, or is absent without leave at any time within 24 hours of the ship's sailing from a port, either at the commencement or during the progress of a voyage, or is absent at any time without leave and without sufficient reason from his ship or from his duty, he shall, if the offence does not amount to desertion, or is not treated as such by the master, be guilty of the offence of absence without leave, and be liable to forfeit out of his wages a sum not exceeding two days' pay, and in addition for every 24 hours of absence, either a sum not exceeding six days' pay, or any expenses properly incurred in hiring a substitute; and also, except in the United Kingdom, he shall be liable to imprisonment for any period not exceeding ten weeks with or without hard labour."

The Act as it stands seems to me to prescribe severe penalties. Absence in this case does not mean desertion. If the master of the ship considers that the seaman has been guilty of desertion he shall be convicted and punished for that offence. But this is a case in which the seaman merely absents himself; he may possibly go on a carousal and miss his boat; he does not present himself when the ship is sailing. In that case he is liable to these penalties with a maximum ten weeks' imprisonment, with or without hard labour, plus fines, plus a deduction of wages. On the last occasion the Minister said that in certain circumstances no wages might be due to the seaman and, in that case, it would be impossible to deduct wages under this head. I accept that that might be so in certain cases.

Section 6 of the Bill, however, is not dealing merely with the case of a man who absents himself before he has earned any money from the ship's owners. It deals with the case of a man absent in any circumstances, even a man to whom six days' wages may be due. A seaman, therefore, may lose the whole of that six days' wages and, in addition, he may be imprisoned with or without hard labour for 10 weeks. On top of all that we now propose a further imposition—a special penalty of our own—a fine not exceeding £10. We are leaving aside all the big issues. We are leaving aside the nationality of the ship-owners; we are leaving aside all the conflicting points and all the doubtful points as to what is or is not an Irish citizen for the purposes of this Act. But we are getting at the seaman who is already subject to penalties. In the minds of many they are severe penalties. We are amending one little spot of the Act so that we can impose as a privilege of our own an additional fine of £10 on to the seaman—a fine which he would not incur if he were in Britain or if he were employed upon a British ship. In view of the case the Minister made on the last occasion. I was not prepared to agree to the section, but I propose in this amendment now to reduce the penalty from a maximum sum of £10 to a maximum sum of £2, and I would strongly urge upon the Minister that he ought in equity to accept that compromise.

Senator Duffy's remarks, chiefly for the purpose of making an attack upon the Government's attitude to seamen, are, I think, thoroughly dishonest. He ignores the provisions of Section 12 which are inserted for the specific purpose of raising the standard of employment on Irish ships—raising the standard as high as it is anywhere in the world. I expressed the hope that we would be the first country to bring about its ratification of the International Conventions concerning conditions of seamen which were drawn up at the Seattle Conference last year. It is, of course, as much a matter of concern for the officials of seamen's unions as it is for ship-owners that seamen should join their ships in time. Senator Duffy need not pose here as the defendant of seamen. They have their own union to protect them. The provisions of this Bill were sent to that union and they took no objection to them. That satisfies me. It seems to me that it is not an unreasonable provision. The proposal of the Shipping Federation was that there should be a minimum fine. There are legal objections to minimum fines, and the proposal here is to establish a maximum fine. The amount of the fine will be determined in each individual case on the basis of the facts by a court of summary jurisdiction. There is no objection, so far as I know, by the representatives of the organised seamen of this country to the insertion of this provision in the Bill.

It may be a good debating point to tell me what the seamen's union did or did not do, but it leaves me cold. I am not a bit influenced or impressed by what seamen's unions may do. I remember years ago—the Minister may be able to throw his mind back to it—certain activities of seamen's unions which did not commend themselves either to seamen or to the public at large. That is not the issue here. This House is not concerned with any bargains made with trade unions in relation to matters of this kind. We must take the view of citizens. We must take the view of people who are concerned with making legislation for the good government of this country. We must take the view of people who are concerned with protecting defenceless people, even protecting them against officials and organisations, if it is necessary to do that. I, for one, am not going to be impressed for one moment by any argument based on the assumption that, because a document is sent to the officials of the union, then it is all right. It is not all right. From my angle, it is wrong, and I think there must be many in this House who would be apprehensive of a proposal based on that argument.

I still consider that there are very severe penalties contained in the British Act of 1894 in relation to seamen who neglect to turn up when their ships are sailing. We all know that seamen are not just like other classes of people. They live under different conditions; they live a life of their own; they are in an atmosphere of their own; they are away from ordinary civilisation. They do not meet their friends every night at 6 o'clock when the job is finished; they cannot go to the pictures when the job is finished. They sign up on a ship and may go on a voyage to Newfoundland and back, living on the ship all the time, living an unnatural life. They land in Dublin, where their homes and friends are. Some of them may go off on a good drunk and may not turn up late the next day or may not turn up at all. No doubt, that is a very unsatisfactory condition of affairs. I suppose it is an offence for which a seaman is entitled to be punished, just as a soldier would be severely punished if he neglected to be at the point of duty when wanted. My submission, however, is that the punishment imposed under the British Act of 50 years ago must be assumed to be a reasonable standard of prevention against abuses of that kind.

After all, laws have been modified, laws have been Christianised during the past 50 years and, in the main, they have been made softer, if you like, for the person who is guilty of a lapse. In our case, we do the very opposite. We are going to add a new penalty to those already imposed under a British statute of 50 years ago. I did not even ask to have the penalty removed in its entirely. I was prepared to meet the case the Minister made that, in certain cases, there may be no wages due from which a reduction would be made. I was prepared to allow that there might be a penalty of £2. I have grave doubts as to the validity of that penalty. The people who are going to suffer as the result of this fine being imposed are the seamen's wives and families. There is going to be £10 less for the wife and family. That is what we do in this legislation. Let us do it with our eyes open. Let us know what we are doing. I put it to the House that that is what they are voting for if they vote for Section 6 as it stands.

Why all this concern for the one man who fails to turn up to his ship and prevents the ship from sailing, who imposes appalling losses on the owners, and who inconveniences everybody, including the officials of the union, who have to try to get him on board?

What about the ten weeks' imprisonment?

Could the Senator remind me of when that penalty was imposed last? It cannot be imposed in this country, anyway. The law does not operate here. There is, admittedly, here a desire to deter seamen from taking action which involves delay in the sailing of ships through failing to join their ship in time. Everybody recognises the need for some deterrent, including those responsible for expressing the views of the seamen themselves. When I talked about the fact that there was no objection raised to this provision by the representatives of the Irish Union of Seamen, I was, in fact, implying that there was no objection to this by Irish seamen. It is Irish seamen who recognise the need for it. Presumably the officials of the union are expressing the views of their members. It is their members who recognise that there is a need for a provision of this kind.

Might I ask whether the British have amended their Act and imposed a new penalty of this kind?

I could not answer that question.

It is only in relation to Irish seamen that it is necessary to impose this extra penalty of £10.

I think it is very likely that they have, but I could not answer the question.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 6 to 9, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.

I move amendment No. 4:—

In sub-section (1), page 4, line 16, after the word "ship" where it secondly occurs to insert the words "to any person other than an Irish citizen within the jurisdiction of the State".

This section imposes on our own citizens what I describe as an unnecessary hardship. It makes it a condition before any sale or transfer or mortgage of a vessel between Irish citizens can take place that that business transaction must be referred to the Minister. I hope I can convince the Minister that, from his own point of view, such a provision is undesirable. At its best, it would be a very irritating and irksome formality. At its worst, it could easily prevent legitimate transactions taking place. Often in the case of the sale or transfer of a ship, and more often in the case of a mortgage, time is a very vital factor. If all details of the kind envisaged in this section have to be first submitted to the Minister, the inevitable delay can in practice impose very grave hardship on our own people. I am pretty sure from the tenor of the Bill, which I personally welcome and which I am sure the shipping interests also welcome, that the Minister does not wish consciously to impose hardship which can be avoided on our people. The wording of the amendment simply suggests that this reference to the Minister shall not be necessary if the sale or transfer or mortgage is between two or more citizens within the jurisdiction of our State. If I were to speak for half an hour, I could not add anything more to that. The case seems to me to be quite a simple one. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment or, if he has a good reason why it should not be adopted, I shall be glad to hear it.

Let me explain the position. I would have preferred to have the Bill drafted so as to confine the restrictions imposed by the section upon the transfer of the ownership of a vessel, to persons outside the State. I think, however, the Senator's amendment is ineffective as it would not really achieve the purpose were to be achieved, it would have to be through the insertion in the Bill of a provision prohibiting the transfer of ownership to a person outside the State. Even that, however, offers considerable legal difficulty. I would draw the Senator's attention to sub-section (3) of the section. It is the intention to make regulations under that sub-section. Under sub-section (3) the Minister may make regulations to declare a transaction to be an excepted transaction for the purpose of the section, that is to say, a transaction where all the parties are persons ordinarily resident in the State or companies incorporated in the State. These regulations will be made. There are advantages in having this done by regulation rather than by a provision in the Bill because circumstances will change and, as circumstances change, these restrictions will be modified until eventually they will disappear. That can be done far more conveniently by altering regulations rather than by altering legislation. I think it is better to do it in this way by regulation. If there is any doubt in the Senator's mind as to whether these regulations will be made, I can assure him that these regulations will be made and they will operate to declare transactions to be excepted transactions where they are entered into between persons ordinarily resident here.

The assurance given by the Minister will be received with great interest by the shipping interests in the country. I am delighted to have elicited that statement from him. Before I sit down, I wonder could he tell us what is going to happen ordinary day-to-day mortgages, apart from the sale of ships in their entirety?

As between parties ordinarily resident here, they will be excepted transactions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

In view of the Minister's explanation, I am not moving the two subsequent amendments.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.
Sections 10 to 15, inclusive, First and Second Schedules, and the Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take the Fourth Stage now.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the Fifth Stage now.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil.
Top
Share