This amendment is necessary to exclude inland waterways from the provisions of the Bill dealing with salvage. I understand representations have been made in this regard. Current hire operators on inland waterways have asked that the existing non-application of salvage law to such waters be continued. The Irish Boat Rental Association has indicated that on inland waters there is an informal voluntary system of co-operation among river users in the event of mishaps and it is practical to accept their point of view. They wish this system to continue to avoid the intrusion of financial risks arising from salvage claims. In general, large scale salvage operations would not arise on non-tidal inland waterways. The International Salvage Convention, 1989, permits the exclusion of inland waterways from the scope of the convention. I respectfully suggest that this amendment be accepted, given the views of the Irish Boat Rental Association expressed through the Irish Maritime Law Association.
Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Wreck) Bill, 1993: Committee and Final Stages.
There is a serious worry that we do not have any authority over the type of shipping coming into our harbours. The Minister spoke about "rust buckets". Is there any danger of a similar situation to that which occurred in Bantry where the ship had to enter the harbour because of heavy seas? Will an authorised officer decide whether ships should be allowed into our harbours? There is a great deal of worry, particularly in deep berthed harbours which are entered by ships with heavy tonnage.
I take the Senator's point which is fairly well covered by section 3 but I am not certain. I can deal with it on a later occasion by way of contact with the Senator. In relation to the question of how far into deep waters the remit of the authorised officer extends, an authorised officer appointed under the section will normally be a member of the Department's Irish Marine Emergency Services, a harbour master or a surveyor from the Department's Marine Survey Office. The authorised officer's job will be to take control of emergencies. This might allay the Senator's fears. Section 7 gives the officers powers to board vessels, require assistance from relevant persons and demand the use of vessels, vehicles and aircraft. Each authorised officer will hold a warrant of appointment which may be inspected by the persons affected. I take the Senator's point and will correspond with him on the matter, if that is to his satisfaction.
I appreciate what the Minister said. He spoke about information available which can pinpoint shipping even on small points on international seas. Is it possible for authorised officers to obtain, through an EC information bureau, information about ships before they enter Irish shipping lanes, so that we can protect our waters by preventing them entering.
When ships enter Irish waters or Irish ports, and, therefore, Irish jurisdiction, we have advance notice, in the ordinary way, of the vessel and its type and manifest. This is important from the Senator's point of view and I can allay his fears in this regard. I make the point, in response to his question and the points he raised on Second Stage, that modern technology could almost tell what one had for breakfast. Port state control systems advise us, by computerised systems, of vessels coming from other ports. The technological hardware is in place to enable the details of a boat coming, say, from France to Ireland to be entered on the same computer system. It is impossible for a boat not to have its port persona known from one port to another. This is how advanced we are in that regard. The port state control system takes care of this matter in a general way and in a global context.
Is the Minister saying he will reimburse harbour commissioners and local authorities? If he can explain this we may be able to withdraw some of the amendments we tabled, particularly to section 52. Will the Oireachtas reimburse local authorities moneys spent on the elimination of costs, irrespective of expenses?
The expenses incurred by the Minister are referred to in section 6. As far as local authorities are concerned, section 52(5) states:
Where a harbour authority, local authority or the Commissioners have incurred expenses in the exercise of their functions under this section or section 51 in relation to any wreck, then—
(a) if the proceeds of any sale under subsection (4) (c) in connection with the exercise of these functions in relation to the wreck are insufficient to reimburse the appropriate authority for the full amount of those expenses, they may recover the full amount of the deficiency from the relevant person, or
(b) if there is no such sale, the appropriate authority may recover the full amount of those expenses from the relevant person.
Or persons.
Or persons.
If reimbursement is not forthcoming from the person or persons because of bankruptcy, liquidation or whatever, does section 6 protect local authorities or harbour commissioners? The costs can be unbelievable, there are wrecks around the coast which should be moved.
This section does not protect local authorities or harbour masters.
In other words, this section only protects the Minister.
That is right.
It does not protect anybody else?
No, the Minister is protected, there is no doubt about that. I do not want to mislead the House in that regard.
In fairness, the Minister never does mislead the House.
Thank you, Senator.
Section 7(2)(c) reads: "demand the use of any vehicle, vessel or aircraft suitably equipped for the purpose required that may be near at hand." To take an extreme example, if a vessel is called to a ship in distress and that vessel itself becomes distressed or shipwrecked, who pays its owner? The assets of the owner of the first ship in distress should pay all the charges, but if he had gone into liquidation or if his ship was worth little, who would pay the person who went to his aid?
It is unclear where the functions of the authorised officer geographically end. I know where they begin, obviously, but do they end at the 12 or the 200 mile limit? I will assume for the moment that it is the 12 mile limit.
It is the 12 mile limit.
Reducing to six miles.
Well, there are two, one is a historic limit. There are six, 12 and 50 and 200 mile limits.
We have established that it is the 12 mile limit. A vessel in distress would not automatically mean that life is at risk but a dangerous cargo could have shifted. Is there provision in this section for an exclusion order in regard to a vessel? It can proceed to its flag port, which could be Great Britain, France or wherever, but it cannot come in here and subject this State to the threat of perhaps massive pollution. Can an exclusion order be made by the authorised officer?
The second point goes back to one Senator Burke made and I made earlier — who pays for this at the end of the day? We are conferring enormous powers on this authorised officer, customs officer or whoever. A person can have an expensive yacht which is their pride and joy costing £100,000 and somebody commandeers to rescue another ship. Ideally, one would recover the costs from the owners of the ship.
That is right.
If it is the sort of ship I described on Second Stage whose owner is unknown, which may have been registered in Greece, subsequently went to Panama and other parts of the world where there is no possibility of the person recouping any money, we need to know who pays. Subsection (4) states: "be liable to pay to the Minister the expenses". I am assuming — I am sure the Minister will correct me — that in the event of a defaulting owner the Minister pays the local authority.
Or the ship which goes to the rescue.
Or the commandeered ship.
Unfortunately, the Minister does not pay the local authorities. I think I already made that clear to Senator Burke. In relation to refusing the entry of or excluding a ship from a port, the law of the sea and the question of force majeure applies. If, as I say, a ship is in extremis, regardless of the type of cargo it is carrying, international law demands it be admitted, for a number of reasons, mainly to save life.
However, I would have thought, and I think I am right in this regard, that if a ship is not in distress, for example, and there is known to be a dangerous substance on board, the port authority would have no problems about not welcoming it into port. It could, in those circumstances, issue an exclusion order. I have no doubt that can be done. However, this only applies in exceptional circumstances such as where there is a serious problem in relation to the ship staying afloat on the one hand and the possibility of loss of life on the other. In those circumstances it would be difficult on humanitarian grounds, apart from whatever laws apply, to exclude it from the port to which it seeks to gain entry.
The other case mentioned by Senator Burke, the matter of a ship going to the rescue of another and subsequently getting into difficulties itself, is an extreme one and I hope it will never happen. However, I take the Senator's point. It is not covered in the Bill but I would look at such a case if the circumstances arose. All I would do is go into the area of "happy thoughtism"and wish and hope that it would not arise.
If the captain of the ship declined to go he can——
He will find himself in trouble.
I remember tugs based in Cobh which were privately owned, small one or two person crafts. If they were commandeered to go to the assistance of a vessel in distress on the rocks, which could take a fortnight, it would be an enormous expense. If they had to involve themselves in ruinous litigation they would probably go under, the company could not financially survive it. It seems that if we want to protect our coastline and effect a proper service to shipping we should not ask people to help if they are unable to bear the costs. The State has responsibility there. If an officer acting under the Minister's remit commandeers my boat and sends it out to effect a rescue, help with cargo or whatever he decides I should do, then the least I should be guaranteed is a refund of any expenses I incur. I think that is fair.
It is something I will examine seriously. It is not an unreasonable point of view.
Can we include it in the Bill?
There is a question of justice here. At the moment, as I understand it, the Bill does not cover that contingency but I take the Senator's point.
The authorised officer may ask the owner of a vessel to go to the assistance of a vessel in distress. Are we saying the owner will not even be able to recover the fuel costs or the crew's wages? Are we not allowing any recovery of costs?
I think the Minister would refund the expenses incurred in the hire of vessels, etc., and recoup his costs from the vessel in distress. That point was raised on Second Stage. A person who goes to a rescue at the request of the authorised officer would recoup his costs from the vessel in distress.
From the vessel in distress?
From the owner of the vessel in distress.
That is not the point.
This creates a dilemma. It has always been a tradition for ships in the vicinity to go immediately to the assistance of a vessel in distress. We should not create a situation where, if an authorised officer asks for assistance for a vessel in distress, people have to consider the cost of going to sea for maybe three days without any possibility of recouping their expenses. I am not asking what we pay for damage to the vessel as that will be covered by insurance but I do not want people on shore deciding not to use their vessels because they will not recoup even their expenses. We should not legislate for this because when something is incorporated into legislation it is very easy for officials to say no.
Could the Minister waive the relevant section and provide for the elimination of the offence aspect at the Minister's discretion?
That would be a matter for the courts.
It has been accepted on all sides that the Minister has been up front in relation to the Bill but it is defective in this area and I would simply ask the Minister to take on board what we say. It is not the end of the world; we have to do our business here and now.
I will tell of an incident I witnessed. I served on a coasting ship and on one occasion when we entered the Humber I happened to be on the bridge with the captain and the third mate who had command of the ship at the time. We saw a dead body in the water which had obviously been there for some time. The third officer moved the telegraph to stop and the captain pushed it forward again. In the ensuing row it became clear that the skipper was not prepared to take a dead body on board and be held up in Hull for two and a half days.
That is the sort of pressure that was put on skippers in the fifties and it is probably worse now. Unless there is an element of compensation for effort and time, very few people will get involved. As Senator Cregan said, one would be inclined to pretend one did not own the boat if it was to be commandeered. This is an area the Minister and his officials should examine.
I understand and accept what the Senator said about the row between the ship's captain and third officer about the captain's refusal to stop to pick up the unfortunate remains. I find it difficult to believe that he would not stop regardless of the cost to him. However, that sort of human condition is not provided for and cannot be provided for in legislation. That does not cover the Senator's point in its entirety but it certainly is something at which I will have a serious look arising from what Senator Magner, Senator Burke and Senator Cregan have said.
One could broaden subsection (4) (b) which reads:
Where the Minister considers it appropriate in exceptional circumstances, the Minister may waive the whole or any part of the liability of the owner of a vessel concerned to pay expenses to which paragraph (a) relates.
The offence could be included there.
Could the Minister waive the whole or any part of the liability of the owner of a vessel concerned?
This will be taken into account but I assume the Senator is accepting the section as it stands. I accept the spirit of what the Senator said. I would like to think that the spirit of the law will be applied. One can talk about the letter of the law and the spirit of the law but I think the Senators are talking about the spirit of the law.
Unfortunately where money is involved, it is usually the letter of the law which applies.
I appreciate that and I respect the points of view expressed but I would like to think that humanity has a role. I know that when money is measured against humanity, inevitably money is the victor. That is unfortunate but they are the standards by which we live.
It is a sad reflection on us.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 11, lines 22 to 24, to delete subsection (3).
There was a problem on Report Stage in the Dáil where two amendments were proposed to ensure that no liability would attach to a landowner whose lands might be used during a rescue operation. One amendment was proposed by Deputy Barrett and an alternative by myself. I called this amendment the Barrett amendment in the Dáil and here I am effectively accepting Deputy Barrett's amendment with an addition.
Due to a procedural error both amendments were accepted by the Dáil. It is now necessary to delete one of the sections and I have Deputy Barrett's permission to delete his section. The Dáil Official Report stated that the proposer of the amendment to be deleted — that is Deputy Barrett — was in complete agreement with the Minister's alternative amendment and I have Deputy Barrett's permission to delete his amendment in the Seanad. Effectively it is his amendment with an additional requirement I inserted arising from comments at the original Select Committee where the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, said he would look very seriously at Deputy Barrett's amendment.
Nearly all of Deputy Barrett's amendment is there but it introduces a new concept which might be examined. The landowner, in the context of what this Bill seeks to achieve, no longer has a liability and that is not a bad thing. This has been a matter of concern to landowners over the years.
This is a very important amendment and it may set a precedent for future amendments. I ask the House to accept the amendment as proposed by myself taking account of the fact that it enmeshes Deputy Barrett's suggestion.
This section is particularly relevant to people in County Clare and County Wicklow where many farmers are annoyed by what has been happening. Under this section a person shall have the power to pass over adjoining lands, unless there is a public road equally convenient, without being subject to interruption by the owner or occupier; any damage sustained by the owner or occupier as a consequence of the rights given by this section shall be a charge on the vessel, cargo or articles in respect of which damage is occasioned. When and how do we decide that the responsibility no longer lies with us, with the person in charge of the cargo or the authorised officer or officers? A person might have to travel up to three miles to the nearest road. Naturally we would look for the shortest route but how do we define that? I agree with the Minister and Deputy Barrett that we must be seen at all times to be taking every action possible to ensure that landowners are not held responsible if there is an accident. Let us take the example of the bad rail crash that happened down in County Kildare some time ago. That was very serious but we were lucky it happened near a public road. Many people sustained injuries trying to get to the trains to help the passengers. How do we define the distance between the site of the accident or the cargo coming ashore and when we are no longer on the farmer's land?
There is an assumption there that farmland will be involved. That is not necessarily the case. A vessel can be in distress against a quay wall and cargo may have to be carried through warehouses etc. I said this on Second Stage. This is a very intelligent provision. Common sense would apply this provision as it applies to fire brigades when they have to go from one premises to another. The more important thing is that we have a debate on the environment and people's right to walk the countryside and the liability that imposes on farmers. I am not talking about people hunting live animals, I am talking about people going for a stroll on Sundays. It seemed to be an insoluble problem, yet the Department of the Marine seems to have come up with a provision that quite rightly absolves people who co-operate with the authorities in the saving of life or of cargo. It is a very good provision, but we are not necessarily talking about farm land; we could be talking about the docks.
I agree with Senator Magner that this provision covers not only farm land, but the owner or occupiers of any land which would include farm land. I think that is the point the Senator is making. Senator Cregan will have to forgive me but I do not understand the point he is making in relation to the question of passage. Is he talking about passage over land?
I would like a definition in the regulations to make it clear that as far as possible, where goods are carried across private land, they will be brought not to the nearest point on a public road but to the most suitable point. In other words, if there is an accident at Roche's Point, it would be necessary to get to the nearest public road as fast as possible but the nearest point on that road is not necessarily the most appropriate. If the regulations say the nearest point, the best point might be ignored and if a person met with an accident trying to get to the nearest point, the farmer would not be covered. I do not worry too much about farmers but I can see their point in this regard. I wish to make sure that not alone the nearest point but the best and most appropriate point of public access would be mentioned.
At the regulation stage we may have a very serious look at that. Farmers are entitled to their rights too.
Of course they are.
I accept what the Senator says and will take it into account.
This section sets out the sort of information the authorised officer would be seeking from a vessel in distress. I presume port control in Dublin is the first contact body off the coast of Dublin. Does it automatically pass on that information? Is it obliged to pass on information if a vessel calls on Dublin Port with a particular problem, for instance with a dangerous, pollutant, cargo shifting? Who should the ship contact? Was it always the harbourmaster in Dublin, an authorised officer or someone else?
In this instance the authorised officer would be the harbourmaster. The question of notification presumably to other port authorities would be within the remit of the authorised officer and he would pass on that information to his counterpart at the vessel's next port of call.
I am thinking about all the regulations which could be made. We were talking earlier about exclusion authority. I accept that one renders assitance when possible from a humanitarian point of view but where a ship has a dangerous cargo, but no threat to life, is there an automatic transfer of the information that is in the Bill — such as the nature of the cargo, the nature of the damage etc. — to authorised officers so that one may be in a position to deny access to the port, to ask the ship to proceed on to Southampton or wherever it is supposed to go?
They can board ships, question witnesses and require relevant documentation to be produced. If that documentation is not kosher, or the cargo is unacceptable, bar force majeure, I would have thought that the ship would be sent on its way.
I am probably not making my point clearly. No documentation will be involved because it is a ship to shore communication. There is an oral transmission which says that the vessel has a problem and describes that problem. Where it is potentially a hazardous vessel, although not in terms of loss of life, is there an obligation or will there be an obligation on Dublin Port control or Cork Port control to inform the relevant authorised officer that there is a problem so that the authorised officer can refuse permission for that particular vessel to enter?
Yes, I think that is the position.
I will be brief. Section 11 (1) states: "Where any vessel is or has been in distress in the State, an authorised officer may question any person..." What is the definition of in "the State" here? If there is a problem in the Irish Sea and the nearest land is 22 miles away, how do we define whether it is a problem within our State or a foreign State? For example, an accident happened in Scotland in January this year and north-westerly winds could have done a lot of damage to the northern part of Ireland and the Dublin Port and Wicklow areas. The accident happened in Scotland by chance. How do we decide that was not Ireland's problem?
I would like to think that our jurisdiction would extend to the 12 mile limit and no further.
There is a danger there and I think the Minister can see it clearer than I can. A person in charge of a ship might find it easier to be seen within the 12 mile limit of the Republic of Ireland rather than within the 12 mile limit of another country — in this case Britain. Is there a danger there? Do we have the same regulations and laws? Are ours tougher or weaker?
They are the same laws and regulations.
In other words the Minister is saying that this Bill is relevant to the 12 member states of the EC.
Yes.
This is an eminently sensible proposal. I am familiar with the cruiser hire industry on the Shannon Estuary and cruisers run aground every day. People collect them, it is their first time sailing a boat and, from time to time, they run ashore. If the concept of salvage as we are discussing it came into operation, Emerald Star would go to the wall next season as they would be pulling boats out all over the place. This is a sensible provision and I welcome it.
This arises from the same philosophy and thinking behind the amendment to section 2 and meets a reasonable point of view expressed by the Irish Boat Rental Association through the Irish Maritime Law Association. I am grateful to the Senator for his support.
The provision relating to fixed or floating platforms is strange. There are two off the south coast, the Marathon gas platforms, Alpha and Bravo which are privately owned and taking gas from the sea bed in a private enterprise operation — and a profitable one at that.
Thanks to the State and to Mr. Justin Keating.
Thanks also to Marathon which is charged with maintaining those platforms, not just their superstructure but the anchorage — it is important it stays fixed on the spot. Nonetheless, as we have seen off the Norwegian coast and in the North Sea, rigs have broken their moorings on more than one occasion and created havoc. I do not know why they are excluded as they are privately owned platforms and the same sort of penalties should apply to those people as to ship owners. I do not know why we make a distinction.
Article 3 of the International Maritime Convention makes this provision and we are just transmitting it. The article excludes platforms and drilling units on location covered by other legislation. While it may not be covered by this legislation it will be covered by other legislation. However, it is a fair point.
The protection of our coastline is very important and Senator Burke made that point on Second Stage. Is the Minister satisfied that this section will do the job we want it to do? The way we are talking about ships in the night, as the Minister put it, passing so near our coast makes a laugh of this section. I am worried about that. Is the Minister aware that no matter what we say we can be heavily polluted because of EC regulations?
The Senator made a relevant point. All I can do is express the will of the State and the people in legislation, in statutory form, as this will become a statute or an Act of the Oireachtas in due course. I cannot legislate for human perfidy or weakness or any other human foibles which do not necessarily comply with what we might want in legislation. Subject to that, this will conform with the strictest possible regime in relation to the practicality of protecting our coastline in the context of legislation. As for the weaknesses of human kind and other actions it may take outside our legislation, I cannot control that in law. As far as the law of the land can be controlled in relation to the protection of our coastline, section 22 does that.
The Minister complimented County Mayo for having so many blue flag beaches. County Cork also has blue flags and we want to have more as do other counties. It is hard for counties on the east coast to try to get blue flags when there is pollution from areas for which we cannot regulate. Is that true?
With respect Senator, it is not true. We have the legislation but, as the Senator pointed out, our coast is protected to a large degree by the southwesterly wind. As for what people might do and how they might act on the high seas, if they throw material overboard passing a country's coastline, and are caught in the act, only then can they be prosecuted or brought to account. I take the Senator's point but the law is doing what it can.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 29, between lines 17 and 18 to insert the following paragraph:
"(b) or if there is no such person or the Company is in liquidation or insolvent that the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Marine reimburse the shortfall to the appropriate Authority".
The Minister may be able to help us in this regard. I draw his attention to paragraph (a). We are referring only to the local authority or the harbour boards. This amendment should be accepted. As the Minister is aware, great burdens have been imposed on local authorities and they should be able to reclaim any cost over and above the cost of carrying out their duties under this Bill.
I see the intention of the amendment but I cannot accept it. I respectfully suggest that this is the "bottomless pit" principle, that the State has a full purse. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
The spirit of the Bill places the onus on the owner to remove the wreck if it is a threat to navigation in the marine environment. I adverted to this on Second Stage. This is a significant improvement on existing legislation. If the owner fails to do what is required the local authority is empowered by this Bill to remove such wreck and recoup the cost from the owner. It would be inappropriate to enshrine in legislation a provision that the State, in the form of the Minister for Finance or the Minister for the Marine, should make good any shortfall on such operations. It would send the wrong signal to owners of wrecks who would be less inclined to bear the cost of removal if the alternative was for the State to do so.
An emergency or exceptional situation of calamitous proportions may arise in the future where the State may have to consider financial or practical assistance in the circumstances. Therefore, it is not entirely ruled out. I would like to think that the amendment will be taken into account but I cannot accept it in the context of previous sections related to it and my responsibility for ministerial expenses. I would not like to bind the State or the Ministers mentioned in the Deputy's amendment.
Senator Burke made a fair point. Wrecks are lying off the coast of west Cork, they do not contribute to the beauty of the area. Nobody is taking responsibility. The wreck is usually handed over to a salvage company.
Many of us are familiar with the wreck off Castletownbere. In low tide it is very ugly and the high part of the mast can be seen during high tides. We are saying here that nobody, if they do not have the money, should ultimately have the responsibility of removing it. That wreck was loaded with ore when it ran aground in heavy seas. The salvage company with responsibility for the wreck removed the heavy tonnage of ore, made a lot of money from that cargo but did nothing about the wreck.
If the owners are not prepared to remove the wreck it is very hard to put the responsibility on a local authority. Local authorities are responsible for what happens on land and harbour commissioners are responsible for shipping lanes and other services. However, we do not do a good job removing wrecks. It is not a usual occurrence. The wrecks on our coasts are usually small fishing vessels lost at sea. Sometimes lives are lost which is much more important than the wreck. The wreck breaks up and may spill 100 gallons of diesel but that is the end of it. However, in this case we are discussing heavy tonnage left on our shores. It could cost millions of pounds to move such wrecks yet we are saying that nobody should take responsibility for them if the local authority does not have the money.
We are giving the power to the local authority to carry out these functions but we are not giving them the finance. If it is too expensive the local authorities will not be able to do those tasks.
I know of the wreck at the entrance to Castletownbere Harbour to which the Senator referred. I have passed it and it certainly is an eyesore. I was not aware of the circumstances of the removal of its cargo. Deputy Sheehan raised the matter on many occasions in the Dáil and I know he will raise it again when I am answering parliamentary questions tomorrow.
Acting Chairman
He is not raising the wreck.
The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht is doing that.
There are wrecks and wrecks: there are the maritime kind and the human kind. I am referring to ships.
I have seen the sunken vessel and it is a blot on the escutcheon. I do not think the local authority in its wildest dreams could, from its own resources, remove that wreck. If the Senator withdraws the amendment I will look at the possibility of doing something about it although I do not know if I can. It has been there for some time and I will be exhausted trying to explain to Deputy Sheehan why I cannot remove it. I am sure his patience with my answers is running out. I am sure he is not satisfied with them and I do not blame him. Frankly, I also hope he does not read the Official Report of this House.
I will withdraw the amendment if the Minister gives a guarantee that he will look sympathetically at that case and any future one that may occur.
I am a very sympathetic Minister. I will do my best to address that problem. It has been lying there for a long time. I am not certain I can do anything about it but, if I can, I will.
As the section stands the master, not the owner, must give permission for a person to board a wrecked or stranded vessel. As the House will appreciate, a situation will arise where the master may not be available. For that reason I suggest we add the additional name or title of the owner by way of improvement. It is considered necessary to strengthen section 56. We are committing the owner as well as the master to granting permission for boarding a wrecked or stranded vessel. I urge the House to accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is offered.
Acting Chairman
As it is now 6 o'clock, I ask Senator Fitzgerald to report progress.
I would be grateful if we could continue because it will only take a few minutes.
We would appreciate that.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed?
I agree, with reservations.
Acting Chairman
The lost time will be substituted at the end.
In that case, it is satisfactory.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 7 to 15 form a composite proposal and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 34, paragraph (a), line 16, to delete "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months" and substitute "service under a Community Services Order made in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act, 1983".
In relation to sections 63, 64 and 65, if the Minister agrees to the inclusion of "a Community Services Order", I will withdraw the amendment.
I made inquiries about this matter and, as I understand it, this provision is automatically included by the courts.
I made that point in my reply.
Could we include it in the Bill?
There is no need to do so because the court has discretion to either imprison the individual or to apply community service in lieu of imprisonment. It is a discretionary matter for the courts and it would be inappropriate to include it in the Bill or the section. I would appreciate if the Senator withdrew it. Although it is not stated, it exists.
|
Session and Chapter or Number and Year |
Short Title |
Extent of repeal |
|
57 & 58 Vict., c.60. |
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. |
Part IX (sections 510 to 571). |
|
6 Edw. 7, c. 48. |
Merchant Shipping Act, 1906. |
Section 72. |
|
1 & 2 Geo. 5, c.57. |
Maritime Conventions Act, 1911. |
Sections 6 and 7. |
|
6 & 7 Geo. 5, c.41. |
Merchant Shipping (Salvage) Act, 1916. |
The whole Act. |
|
No. 10 of 1954. |
Consular Conventions Act, 1954. |
Subsection (2) of section 12. |
|
No. 18 of 1954. |
Defence Act, 1954. |
Sections 315 and 316. |
I would be grateful if this amendment could be accepted.
I propose we accept this amendment.
Acting Chairman
Acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of the First Schedule to the Bill.
First Schedule deleted.
Second Schedule agreed to.
I appreciate the manner in which contributions were made to this Bill. It is not a Bill which will cause great emotion but it is important for the future of the matters addressed in it. The contributions from the Opposition and the Labour Party, represented by Senator Magner, are appreciated. Although the views expressed are not enshrined in the Bill, they are on the record and reference will be made to and account taken of them. I am grateful to the Senators for their helpful contributions.
I congratulate the Minister and his staff for the efficient way they put through this legislation. This is due to the Minister's knowledge of the Bill. I thank him and the other Members for a worthwhile debate.
I agree with Senator Burke and I congratulate the Minister. I am sure the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Deputy O'Sullivan, will be pleased his Bill has been passed. I thank the Minister for the courtesy and clarity with which he presented the Bill this afternoon. As my mother would say, it is a pleasure to do business with him.
I thank the Members for their co-operation in extending the time limit to pass the Bill. I thank the Minister for the open and frank manner in which he discussed the Bill and brought it to a successful conclusion.