Perhaps the Minister would give a brief explanation of what is involved in this section.
Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Bill, 1996: Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides for the right to limit liability to be extended to non-seagoing ships. The 1976 convention applies automatically to seagoing ships but article 15 (2), as reproduced in the Bill, allows Governments to apply its provisions to vessels operating on inland waterways. This is the effect of section 10. There are a number of vessels providing passenger cruise services on our large rivers and lakes which it is considered should be covered by liability measures.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 20, after "paragraph 1 (d)", to insert "or 1 (e)".
Article 18 (1) of the 1976 convention, which is outlined in the Bill, permits adhering Governments of contracting states to "reserve the right to exclude the application of Article 2, paragraph 1 (d) and (e)". Under article 2 (1) (d) claims in respect of wrecked, sunk, stranded or abandoned vessels are, in principle, subject to limitation of liability. Under article 2 (1) (e) claims in respect of the removal, destruction or the rendering harmless of the cargo of a ship are likewise subject to limitation of liability. The section as originally drafted provides for exclusion of application only for article 2 (1) (d). In effect, we are applying to cargo what already applies in respect of sunken or wrecked ships. It is a technical matter which applies to the cargo that may be on board a ship.
The Minister will be aware that concern has been expressed about the failure to collect compensation for the clearing up of the pollution from the Kowloon Bridge. Has any advance been made since we last discussed the matter? A large sum of money was spent cleaning up the mess left by the Kowloon Bridge and it was the Government's intention to reclaim the money.
I am informed discussions are taking place and matters are coming to a head. I will keep the Senator informed.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 12 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill."
Comments were made recently about delays in the settlement of claims for damages. It was indicated that there were long and unnecessary delays in the payment of claims. Would the Minister comment on the unnecessary delays in the settlement of claims for damages?
What is in this section is what is stated in the convention. It is not open to us to amend the convention by way of an amendment to the legislation. I share the Senator's concerns about delays in settling claims. This is a civil liability matter and such claims often go to court, not just in the case of shipping claims but for motor or fire insurance claims. Delays in court hearings and processes may mean that people have to wait for their entitlements.
I hope that with the overall review of the courts system and the manner in which claims are dealt with nowadays, where liability is clear and there is a limit to the total amount claimed, it would be paid without fuss. There are cases in which liability is disputed and, if that happens, the claimant has to wait for the court hearings.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 29 to 37, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Question proposed: "That section 38 stand part of the Bill."
Section 38 refers to a "master" as "...the person having, for the time being, the command or charge of the ship;". Does that cover a pilot? In the Shannon Estuary a ship's captain may hand over to a pilot at Scattery Island to pilot the ship to Moneypoint, Tarbert or Limerick. This can be the most dangerous part of a voyage. Does the definition of "master" include the pilot who is in charge of the ship in such circumstances?
No. The master is in charge of the ship, irrespective of whether a pilot is on board.
Is it necessary to include the pilot in the definition?
I am advised it is not necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 39 agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the First Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."
With regard to article 7, I was anxious that we would strengthen the provision by including a time limit on claims. Comment was made recently about protracted delays in dealing with claims, especially where loss of life or injury to persons is involved. The convention may fix a time but it is not clear from the Bill whether there is a time limit.
I would have in mind that claims for loss of life or personal injury to passengers on a ship should be investigated and adjudicated upon within 30 or 60 days. There can be inordinate delays in cases where there are claims arising from loss of life. It might be useful to specify a time frame rather than have claims left in abeyance for months or years.
We are not in a position to amend this article because it is part of the convention.
I appreciate that.
All I can say in response to the Senator's fears about delays which I share is that a fund is established with a maximum liability. In the event of a disaster, one divides a claim into the total fund for 500 plus passengers. If there were 500 unfortunates on board a vessel which went down, the maximum liability would apply so one could pay out without any dispute. I looked at the Senator's suggestion but it is not possible to amend this article which is part of a convention we are not entitled to amend. It is not like other legislation to which I could accept an amendment. I would have no problem inserting time limits because very often people are left without when matters should be settled more quickly, but unfortunately I cannot do so.
I presume from time to time the Minister has the opportunity to discuss the changes in these protocols and conventions in another forum. If such an opportunity arises, he might avail of it to endeavour to include a time limit.
I will certainly do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 42, line 33, to delete "Article 3" and substitute "Article III".
The purpose of this amendment is to correct a typographical error which occurred when reproducing the text of the Brussels Convention in accordance with section 31 of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I would like to express our appreciation to the Minister and his Department for bringing forward this legislation which is long overdue. It is a sign of the ongoing work of the Department in modernising our maritime legislation of which we are fully supportive. I compliment the Department and the Minister on the passing of the Bill.
I thank the House for its co-operation on Second Stage and on the remaining Stages. This type of legislation needs constant updating as limits of liability change with inflation. I suggest I will be back here amending this legislation in the not too distant future.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 12.25 p.m. and resumed at 12.30 p.m.