I move amendment No. 22:
In page 17, subsection (3) (b), line 35, to delete “€100,000” and substitute “€250,000”.
Maritime Safety Bill 2004 [Seanad ]: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 20.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 17, subsection (4)(a), line 39, to delete “in waters or being in Irish” and substitute “into”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Amendments 24 to 26, inclusive, and amendment No. 28 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 18, subsection (1), lines 5 and 6, to delete all words and including "to" in line 5 down to and including "waters" in line 6 and substitute "or has gone out to sea or into waters".
This is a drafting amendment which makes it clear that the unseaworthy vessels targeted by section 21 are those which set out to sea and into waters in an unseaworthy condition.
This is related to an earlier amendment in which we targeted people going out to sea. In terms of authorised officials responsible for implementing this provision, is the Minister of State primarily referring to harbour authorities? It could also refer to the Garda Síochána or the Coast Guard.
Regarding how this provision will operate in practice, one will need a certain expertise to judge whether a vessel is unseaworthy. Which authorities will make such a judgment in respect of a vessel heading out to sea? It cannot be easy to determine how this or the previous section will be interpreted. An ordinary garda would not have a clear grasp of the matter. Who does the Minister of State envisage implementing this provision?
The marine survey officers are the experts and will give guidance to the authorised officers who will be appointed, whether by the Minister, local authorities or port companies. They will give a general set of criteria to authorised officers who will apprehend and detain a vessel.
In practise, who does the Minister of State believe the authorising officers will be in this case in preventing vessels from going to sea?
They will be either Coast Guard or marine survey officers.
Could they also be officers of the harbour authorities?
Not at present.
The Coast Guard's presence in a harbour is not a normal event.
There are more vessels now as a result of greater consumer spending and investment. We are anxious to ensure the Coast Guard will be involved. It has many members. It is like gardaí being present at every corner in an attempt to prevent an accident. They will be available as often as is practicable.
Primarily, we are talking about the Coast Guard because its staff has the technical expertise to know and judge whether a vessel is seaworthy.
And the Marine Survey Office.
Yes.
Amendment No. 25 supplements the powers of authorised persons by providing for the diversion of an unseaworthy vessel to a port or harbour or a safe haven rather than detaining it on the spot which might not be appropriate in all circumstances. This is self-explanatory. It would be wrong to detain a vessel in circumstances where it would only add to the dangers posed. Such a vessel should be diverted to a safe haven or port.
The purpose of amendment No. 26 is to provide for additionality in section 21(1) of the Bill in respect of the detention of a vessel pending the making of appropriate arrangements for its repair or other treatment or in respect of its detention pending the conclusion of court proceedings.
I seek clarification concerning the detention of a vessel. My understanding is that the powers given also apply to vessels registered outside Ireland. Hence, there is the power to detain a commercial ship in passage. Do the provisions of this Bill give us power or authority over vessels registered outside Ireland?
As long as they are in Irish waters and heading to Irish ports.
However, they do not apply to vessels if they are simply passing through. Let us take, for example — I may be extending the point too far — an oil tanker which enters Irish waters and is in an unsafe condition. Will this legislation apply or does it only address pleasure craft? Does the legislation extend to commercial craft? If so, must vessels be bound for Irish ports for it to apply?
The Bill covers all craft, not just pleasure craft, and concerns vessels travelling to Irish ports. There is a question of free passage in international law. However, if we find that vessels are unseaworthy, we will immediately contact the authorities in the country in which they are registered.
There are certain jurisdictions where the regulations may be more lax. Is the Minister of State suggesting that the right of passage in international law gives such a ship an entitlement to pass through Irish waters, regardless of its condition? I realise we may be digressing into other areas.
There is now in place a port state control system under which vessels are inspected in ports throughout most of the world on a regular basis. In Dublin and many other Irish ports the Marine Survey Office carries out inspections under port state control regulations. However, this does not deal with the Deputy's point. If such vessels happen to be skirting Irish waters, outside the 12 mile limit, we will have no rights under the legislation other than to communicate with the country of origin.
I wish to make a point concerning amendment No. 28 which applies even more to amendment No. 29. I do not understand why the text of these amendments was not included in the Bill as presented to the Dáil. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources appears to have a tradition whereby we start with one Bill and have another after Committee Stage. From the perspective of the Opposition having an input to legislation, this is extraordinary because we do not know what is the full gamut of the legislation. This is a general point which I wanted to make when I saw the ministerial amendments. Why should the committee be discussing such fundamental issues? Why were they not dealt with in the Bill as presented? Similarly, what is the position on the sea fisheries Bill and the licensing Bill which was to be appended to this legislation? Does it form part of these amendments?
I support Deputy Broughan. The number of amendments brought forward by the Department is extraordinary. While I fully appreciate that, in hindsight, they are deemed necessary, it is very much a case of a fait accompli. Undoubtedly, the Minister of State has a valid reason. Perhaps the amendments will be discussed on Report Stage.
I concur with the points made by Deputies Broughan and Perry. One way by which we might have room for discussions is to allow a certain amount of time for amendments on Report Stage. There was a short gap between Second and Committee Stages. If we had slightly more time between Committee and Report Stages to allow us to examine possible amendments to the new ministerial amendments, we could have a proper discussion on Report Stage.
I understand Report Stage will be taken next week.
This is difficult, particularly in dealing with technical issues where one needs background knowledge of other legislation in asking questions. That was the purpose of my earlier questions. It is not easy to properly amend amendments in the time available.
It does not surprise me that the Deputies should raise this issue. The Department has tabled 47 amendments with 20 from Fine Gael and ten from the Labour Party. I apologise. My explanation is that there is ongoing law reform. I saw a legislative opportunity to take full advantage of the Maritime Safety Bill by broadening its scope. All members are aware of the difficulty in placing legislation before the House. Some of the Bills I have dealt with since my appointment date back to 2000 and are only now coming to fruition. I am aware of the concerns of the Opposition and the Government regarding marine safety and anxious to ensure we will make progress. The Department is broadening the scope of the Bill which was incomplete when examined by the Attorney General.
Deputy Broughan referred to sea fisheries. As a result of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003, we could have found ourselves in the situation where, on 30 June 2005, many of our vessels, even though they are seaworthy, would not be allowed to go to sea because of a technicality. I will deal with that in amendments I intend to introduce on Report Stage. I cannot table those amendments today because the Chairman's office informed us it would be necessary to put down a motion. To overcome this, I will table the amendments in the Dáil on Report Stage. It is not a question of compromising on safety but rather of giving me some flexibility because it would not be realistic or feasible to expect surveys to be carried out on all vessels by the end of June or to expect total compliance from vessels by that date. That was not the intention of the 2003 Act.
I will take the opportunity to introduce the amendments on Report Stage. If I must apologise for that, I will do so. However, the amendments are aimed at improving the Bill. Bearing in mind that this has arisen so rapidly after Second Stage, I have arranged to have the amendments and explanatory notes circulated to members in advance so they would have an opportunity to read them. I did the same in the Seanad and it worked quite well. I cannot say that it will not happen again. It may happen but if it is to improve the Bill, we may be obliged to do it. It is unusual but I believe it is in the interests of all concerned.
The committee is aware that it is important to complete the Bill, particularly in light of the position regarding the 2003 legislation, and that is why it is being taken this week, when people believe the Houses are not sitting.
While I accept the need for urgency in terms of pushing certain things through, I am concerned that in the rush to do so we may miss something which will give rise to further difficulties. I am particularly concerned that we may be looking at amendments arising on Report Stage. In the case of amendments introduced on Committee Stage, we at least have the opportunity to tease some of them out and possibly put forward amendments on Report Stage. The arrival of a large item of new legislative provision on Report Stage, in the absence of the committee having had time to consider it and obtain expert advice, gives rise to the danger that we might make mistakes. Can the Minister of State explain why the amendments concerning sea fish vessel licensing have not been brought forward on Committee Stage?
We were advised by the Clerk of the Dáil that, as existing legislation was being amended, a motion would have to go before the House and that those amendments would have to be brought directly to the Dáil to be discussed by a committee of the entire House. This is the way these particular amendments must progress through the Oireachtas.
They will not be made on Report Stage.
A committee of the House will consider the amendments in the same period as Report Stage is being taken. It was not possible to introduce them at the select committee.
Why was it not possible to bring them before the select committee?
I am advised that because the Minister is amending the 2003 Act, the matter had to go before the——
Are we not amending other Acts?
It must be recommitted on Report Stage to a committee of the entire House.
The net point is that we have only one Committee Stage for the final Bill, which is Report Stage. We are not being allowed to have two cracks at the fishery licensing side of things in terms of the revision of the 2003 Act. The area of the marine should be represented by a full Department of State and the Minister of State should be a Cabinet Minister. It is impossible to do business in this important area when it is dealt with as a subsidiary of the main Department.
I assure Deputies that it is not my intention to introduce any additional amendments, apart from the nine ministerial amendments that were already tabled. I would be very happy to introduce those amendments here but, as the Chairman has explained, it is not possible to do so because they must be taken in the Dáil. If a motion had been tabled in the House last week, we could have discussed the amendments today. However, it is largely to do with the Long Title of the Bill which will be amended to include the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1894 to 2000 and section 222(1)(b) of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959. Urgency is required on foot of the 30 June deadline. I have no choice and am subject to the will of this committee and that of the House to have it enacted by then.
That is the reason this was done.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 18, subsection (1), line 9, before "seize" to insert the following:
"order the vessel to go to a port or harbour or a place of refuge or".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 18, subsection (1), lines 10 to 19, to delete all words from and including "until" in line 10 down to and including "her." in line 19 and substitute the following:
"until—
(i) such time as the vessel—
(I) if it is a pleasure craft is made to his or her satisfaction seaworthy, or
(II) if it is a vessel other than a pleasure craft or being a pleasure craft and he or she considers it necessary, is made seaworthy to the satisfaction of a surveyor of ships (within the meaning of section 724 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894) by a certificate issued in that behalf by the surveyor and produced to him or her,
(ii) arrangements (including arrangements for the repair, disposal, salvage or berthing) have been made by the person in command or in charge or the owner of the vessel which the member or authorised person is satisfied with, or
(iii) the conclusion of any proceedings in respect of the vessel brought under this Act.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 18, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following subsections:
"(3) Where a vessel is detained under subsection (1) and the vessel is not made seaworthy, within a reasonable stated period, to the satisfaction of a member of the Garda Síochána or an authorised person (within the meaning of subsection (1)) the member or person may give notice in writing, stating that after the expiration of 5 days, or such further period as is specified in the notice, it is intended to dispose of the vessel, unless representations are made within that time to him or her by the owner or his or her representative of the vessel.
(4) Where the member or an authorised person having considered any representations under subsection (3) decides to dispose of the vessel he or she shall give notice in writing to the owner of the decision.
(5) The owner of a vessel detained under subsection (1) or to whom a notice to dispose of the vessel has been given under subsection (4) may within 7 days of the detention or being given the notice, appeal to the District Court within whose district court area is the port, harbour or place where the vessel was detained or first brought after its detention, against the detention or notice.
(6) Where no appeal has been made within the period of 7 days against a notice under subsection (4), the notice has effect upon the expiration of the period.
(7) In hearing an appeal under subsection (5) the court may confirm the detention or allow the disposal or order the release of the vessel (with or without conditions).
(8) Any proceeds of the disposal of a vessel under this section remaining after the deduction of any reasonable expenses and court costs, shall be paid to the owner of the vessel.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 18, before section 22, to insert the following new section:
"22.—(1)(a) A goods vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer of a prescribed weight shall not be loaded onto a ship in a harbour in the State unless valid information in accordance with subsection (2) as to its weight (‘vehicle weight information’) is provided by the operator of the vehicle beforehand to the master of the ship. This information shall be used by the master of the ship to determine whether or not the vehicle can be safely loaded and accommodated on the ship and, if so, to ensure the proper loading and accommodation of the vehicle on the ship.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to a motor vehicle which is used only for loading trailers or semi-trailers onto, and unloading them from, a ship.
(2)(a) Vehicle weight information in respect of a goods vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer shall consist of—
(i) a certificate or a machine-readable record obtained from a weighbridge or other weighing machine situated within the harbour premises of the harbour at which the ship is to be loaded, or
(ii) data transmitted electronically by such a weighbridge or other weighing machine, giving the weight of the vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer and any load being carried by it, and shall relate—
(I) in the case of a goods vehicle, to the vehicle and its load, if any (but excluding its driver and any passenger carried by it), and
(II) in the case of a trailer or semi-trailer, to it and its load and, if it is being pulled by a tractor, that of the tractor pulling it.
(b) Reference to the load of a vehicle in paragraph (a) includes reference to—
(i) any water, fuel or accumulators used for the purpose of power for the propulsion of the vehicle, and
(ii) any loose tools and loose equipment.
(c) In exceptional circumstances, information obtained, with the consent of the Minister, from a weighbridge or other weighing machine situated outside the premises of the harbour at which the ship is berthed, may be accepted as valid information as to weight.
(3) The certificate, records and data referred to in subsection (2) shall be retained by the owner of the ship concerned, in accordance with arrangements specified by the Minister in a Marine Notice, and shall be made available in legible form to the Department on request during the period, being a period of not more than 12 months, provided for in those arrangements.
(4) A person who—
(a) supplies information for the purpose of this section which he or she knows or has grounds for believing that it is false, or
(b) forges or interferes with any document purporting to be a certificate or record referred to in subsection (2) or uses any such document or altered certificate or record or altered data with intent to deceive,
is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or both.
(5) The Minister may by regulations exempt from compliance with subsection (1) or (3) a class or type of ship, and subject to any conditions, specified in the regulations.
(6) Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
(7) In this section—
‘harbour premises' in relation to any harbour, means the docks, landing places and other works and land for the time being vested in, belonging to or administered by a harbour authority (within the meaning of Part 2);
‘Marine Notice' means a notice described as such and includes a subsequent Marine Notice amending or replacing a Marine Notice;
‘goods vehicle' means a mechanically propelled vehicle constructed or adapted primarily for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description;
‘prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister;
‘trailer' and ‘semi-trailer' means a trailer or semi-trailer constructed or adapted primarily for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description.".
The purpose of this section, which is a substantive amendment, is to require the valid weighing of goods vehicles and other loads before they are loaded on to vessels. In effect, this section replaces, with increased penalty and application to all vessels carrying goods vehicles, the Merchant Shipping (Weighing of Goods Vehicles) Regulations 1989 — Statutory Instrument No. 64 of 1989 — purportedly made under section 11 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1947 to cover passenger ships only. These regulations are of doubtful legality. The section is aimed at ensuring that goods vehicles will be weighed before they are loaded on to vessels.
This is extraordinary. One would imagine that this would have been done 80 or 100 years ago.
Where does the doubtful legality lie? We do not need to discuss the legal aspect but this relates back to what the Minister of State said earlier about ensuring that legislation is correct.
There was no clarity prior to this. We want to ensure that the vehicles and their loads will be weighed before they are loaded on to vessels.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.
Section 22 agreed to.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 19, lines 8 and 9, to delete all words from and including "(within" in line 8 down to and including "1992)" in line 9.
This is a drafting amendment and it is consequential to the insertion of the definition of pleasure craft in definitions in section 41 of the Bill by ministerial amendment No. 70, with which I will deal later.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Amendments Nos. 33 to 36, inclusive, will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 19, line 12, to delete "a person" and substitute "the defendant".
Amendment No. 33 is a drafting amendment and amendments Nos. 34 to 36, inclusive, are related and cover the addition of a further common sense force majeure defence in section 25, by the insertion of a new paragraph (c) which refers to a person accused of an offence under section 22 or 23 of the Bill relating to the careless or dangerous navigation or operation of a vessel.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 19, paragraph (a), line 16, to delete “or”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 19, paragraph (b), line 19, to delete “perform.” and substitute “perform, or”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 19, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"(c) he or she took all reasonable steps to avoid the collision or incident to which the prosecution relates but due to—
(i) the nature of the vessel and the service for which she was intended, or
(ii) the weather, tidal or navigational conditions prevailing at the time of the collision or incident,
it was not possible to stop the vessel or change course in time to avoid the collision or incident and it was not reasonable to do so.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 19, before section 26, to insert the following new section:
26.—(1) This section applies to the person in command or in charge, or another member of the crew, of an Irish ship in waters anywhere or any other vessel while in Irish waters.
(2) If a person to whom this section applies, while on board his or her vessel or in her immediate vicinity—
(a) does any act which causes or is likely to cause—
(i) the loss or destruction of or serious damage to his or her vessel or machinery, navigation equipment or safety equipment on board the vessel,
(ii) the loss or destruction of or serious damage to any other vessel or any structure, or
(iii) the death of or serious injury to any person,
or
(b) omits to do anything required—
(i) to preserve his or her vessel or machinery, navigation equipment or safety equipment on board the vessel from being lost, destroyed or seriously damaged,
(ii) to preserve any person on board his or her vessel from death or serious injury, or
(iii) to prevent his or her vessel from causing the loss or destruction of or serious damage to any other vessel or any structure, or the death of or serious injury to any person not on board his or her vessel,
and the act or omission was deliberate or amounted to a breach or neglect of duty or the person to whom this section applies was under the influence of alcohol or a drug or any combination of drugs or drugs and alcohol at the time of the act or omission, that person is, subject to subsection (4), guilty of an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both.
(4) In a prosecution for an offence under this section it shall be a defence to prove—
(a) that the defendant could have avoided committing the offence only by disobeying a lawful command, or
(b) that in all the circumstances the loss, destruction, damage, death or injury in question or, as the case may be, the likelihood of its being caused either could not reasonably have been foreseen by the defendant or could not reasonably have been avoided by him or her, or
(c) if the act or omission alleged against the defendant constituted a breach or neglect of duty, the defendant took all reasonable steps to discharge that duty.
(5) In this section—
‘breach or neglect of duty', except in relation to a person in command or in charge, includes any disobedience to a lawful command;
‘duty'—
(a) in relation to a person in command or in charge or another member of the crew, means any duty falling to be discharged by him or her in his or her capacity as such, and
(b) in relation to a person in command or in charge, includes his or her duty with respect to the good management of his or her vessel and his or her duty with respect to the safety of operation of his or her vessel, or machinery and equipment on board;
‘structure' means any fixed or movable structure (of whatever description) other than a vessel.".
This amendment arises from a full review of the Bill since it was passed by the Seanad and provides for the substitution of section 26 of the Bill by an updated and restated section 23 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1992, which outlaws comprehensively conduct endangering a vessel's structures or individuals. The provisions are now together in the same section.
In respect of "an Irish ship in waters anywhere", is it intended to provide the necessary resources? When last I asked the Minister of State about the register, there were nearly 120 Irish ships on it, many of which have never visited this country but which are located in various parts of the European Union and fly the tricolour. This amendment seems useful because it includes the good provisions of the 1992 Act in this Bill but can we ensure it will apply to Irish ships anywhere?
We will liaise with other countries even as they liaise with us. We wish to be able to deal with foreign vessels in our waters and to save lives rather than allow them to be endangered. We will liaise with other countries with a view to ensuring they carry out the necessary surveys.
The Minister of State said that there was a review of the Bill after the Seanad passed it. Are there any legal concerns about a Bill that has been radically changed, with major sections inserted before it went before the Dáil that alters its nature? In terms of legal constitutional issues, are there concerns that the Seanad passed a substantially different Bill?
The Bill will be returned to the Seanad.
It was in the Seanad first but, due to the major new sections, it must return to that House.
The Bill will go back before the end of June.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 38 not moved.
Question, "That section 26 be deleted," put and declared carried.
SECTION 27.
Amendments Nos. 39 to 41, inclusive, and No. 43 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 19, subsection (1), lines 37 to 39, to delete all words from and including "in" where it firstly occurs in line 37 down to and including "to," in line 39 and substitute the following:
"being in command or in charge or another member of the crew of a vessel in Irish waters or an Irish ship in waters anywhere shall not".
This amendment relates to alcohol and its purpose is to clarify that section 27 of the Bill outlaws the operation or control of a vessel by an ordinary member of the crew while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. As it stands, the section only targets the person in command or in charge of the vessel.
Amendment No. 40 in my name lays out in greater detail the precise alcohol limit for those caught under the influence while operating a boat. There would also be greater clarity of law, making it easier for the Garda to act. This would be quite similar to the Road Traffic Acts and would define clearer limits if the Minister of State were to incorporate it in the Bill.
Amendment No. 43 in my name deals with the same matter.
We will take the amendments together. Amendment No. 42 was discussed previously with amendment No. 18.
On Second Stage, we reviewed previous maritime disasters. I recall the famous Marchioness disaster on the Thames, where the skipper had allegedly consumed a large amount of alcohol and an entire party of revellers drowned. The phrase “Any combination of drugs and alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable”, which is used in section 27(1), seems strange and vague. Deputy Perry’s amendment addresses the issue of alcohol levels. The Marine Casualty Investigation Board, MCIB, advocated the standard of the IMO as a minimum safety level, which is outlined in Deputy Perry’s amendment, namely, a 0.8% blood alcohol level or 0.8 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milligrams of blood. The general feeling I had on first reading the Bill was that we should simply say it is illegal to have alcohol taken and be in charge of or have influence over a vessel. My amendment means there would be a standard. We would not leave the situation vague when it came before the courts, possibly allowing someone who had committed a very serious crime of negligence in the control of a craft to get away with it.
I ask the Minister of State to take these amendments on board as the issue is important. The amendments state categorically the limits of alcohol consumption. The Road Traffic Acts include this regulation and amendments Nos. 40 and 43 are similar in that regard.
Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 43 are very similar and I will address them together. Breath, blood or urine testing for purposes of criminal proceedings must be taken under Garda supervision, if not by Garda directly. Detailed legislation along the lines of the often challenged provisions of the Road Traffic Acts would take a considerable drafting effort without a guarantee that they would be workable in the totally different environment that is at sea or on inland waters. Such an effort would be questionable and such legislation would place serious additional demands on the already stretched Garda resources with dubious benefits.
I am making provision, via ministerial amendment to section 33 of the Maritime Safety Bill 2004, to include codes of practice for vessel operators, a guidance to prevent the abuse of alcohol or drugs aboard vessels and to guide safe use of alcohol on board vessels. There is a voluntary code of practice at present but I am anxious to ensure we include a code of practice for vessel operators and others. The Department will review the position in a year or two in light of our experience with the code of practice as part of the ongoing review of maritime safety law. I will give the committee and the House an assurance at a later stage concerning my seriousness about this issue. There is no question of trying to have this Bill passed and then taking another decision in the years to come. I would be anxious were this not to work. I will monitor the position closely and examine it later in light of experience at that time.
The Marine Casualty Investigation Board has done some outstanding work since its establishment. It has produced reports, of which those members who are marine spokespersons will have copies, on some terrible disasters. At least one indicates that alcohol was a major factor in what happened, including the loss of life. This is an opportunity for the Minister of State. He is doing something about the licensing system and this could be a fundamental step to take. Given what we know of the marine environment, working mariners and the history of the sea, we are aware of the tough life mariners endure. Although alcohol has played a role in this lifestyle in the past, nonetheless this is maritime safety legislation and it is incumbent on us to set a standard. I ask the Minister to consider my amendment, or that of Deputy Perry, on Report Stage as a minimum. One could take the view that it is unacceptable to be in charge of a craft or vessel when one has alcohol taken.
The fine work of the MCIB, which we salute, has created a platform and standard for the use of the marine environment and the Dáil must uphold this. The minimum report it has made, as I mentioned on Second Stage, is that amendment Nos. 40 and 43 should be included. Amendment No. 40 is probably better in that it is absolutely specific.
Deputy Broughan has put down a marker on the level of care and concern in respect of alcohol abuse. It could be a risk to pilots with passengers. Although it could be difficult to implement, the suggested provision would lay down a clear marker. A zero tolerance policy towards alcohol would be expected in respect of anyone steering a vessel. The effects of alcohol are seen daily on the roads and I have no doubt that the problem is also encountered in coastal communities. I would like the Minister of State to revisit this matter on Report Stage. Perhaps he could obtain a report from the Garda Commissioner in terms of how he views the problem. The Minister of State may be able to return with something that puts down a clear marker for people in this huge industry. Self-regulation regarding alcohol will be very difficult to police.
If we were to enforce this, we would need more detailed drafting legislation on measuring, recording and levels. If we are not doing this, and strengthening the codes of practice, why are sections 27 or 28 being put in place? If it is unenforceable, how can we expect a court to impose a €5,000 fine or a three-month sentence if we have not set out the detailed drafting legislation required to prohibit the consumption of alcohol? Are we including a section merely for the sake of being seen to try to take action, when, in fact, it will not be enforceable without detailed drafting on levels and policing?
This is not only about the abuse of alcohol. One does not have to be intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol to misbehave. The ambit of the section is much broader than that and it deals with misbehaviour in general. Many who misbehave may be teetotallers.
A fine not exceeding €5,000 may be imposed under section 27(1), which relates to being in command of a vehicle under a combination of drugs or alcohol. Given that we do not have the detailed drafting to regulate the recording, policing and charging procedures, why is that section being included?
If there are criminal proceedings, the court may take codes of practice provided into consideration This is a major step forward from the current voluntary code, which has no legislative basis. At least there will be a legislative basis with the codes of practice. I see no great difference between my thinking and that of the Opposition parties. However, I am looking at the practicalities and I am advised it would take considerable drafting effort. There is no guarantee that this would be workable in a different environment. This is the best advice available to me.
The person who must take responsibility is the individual. This applies to alcohol as much as it does to life jackets. We are all responsible for our own safety. If criminal proceedings are taken, a judge can take the codes of practice into consideration.
That is in regard to criminal proceedings. We are not providing for fines or imprisonment which cannot be applied because we are not providing the necessary drafting.
Is the Deputy referring to the codes of practice?
No. Section 27(2) provides for a summary fine of €5,000 or a three-month sentence. However, the Minister of State indicated that further drafting would be required in order to give that legal strength.
That is for the testing.
If it is not possible to test, how is it possible to go to court and state that someone is guilty of the offence of being drunk while in charge of a vessel?
The code of practice will——
It does not have any legislative effect.
I refer the Deputy to section 34(1) which states:
Where a code of practice has been published and there are any proceedings for an offence under the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 2000 and—
(a) the code of practice appears to the court to give practical guidance to the court on the safe operation, or any matter referred to in subsection (1) ...
Could the code of practice have any legality before the courts? I could not see it standing up.
I am advised that section covers it and that the judge can take it into consideration.
Will the Minister of State examine that again on Report Stage and obtain some advice for the members?
Of course. However, those opposite are suggesting that it should be similar to the Road Traffic Acts.
The members are suggesting that there is a question mark over this.
I will do as requested.
Perhaps the Minister of State could take Deputy Eamon Ryan's point about obtaining the advice of the Attorney General.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 40 to 43, inclusive, not moved.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 20, before section 28, to insert the following new section:
28.—(1)(a) The person in command or in charge of a vessel may—
(i) refuse to permit to board the vessel a person who, in the opinion of the person in command or in charge, is, by reason of being under the influence of alcohol or a drug or any combination of drugs or drugs and alcohol, in such a condition or misconducts himself or herself in such a manner, as to cause injury or serious offence or annoyance to persons on the vessel, to cause damage to the vessel or to obstruct, impede or molest a member of the crew of the vessel, or
(ii) put such a person ashore at any convenient place.
(b) A person who, under paragraph (a), has been refused permission to board, or been put ashore from, a vessel shall not be entitled to be repaid any fare paid by him or her in respect of any voyage or excursion to which his or her attempted boarding of, or presence on, the vessel related.
(2) If a person in command or in charge or another member of the crew of a vessel is, while on duty, under the influence of alcohol or a drug or any combination of drugs or drugs and alcohol to such an extent that his or her ability to discharge his or her duties is impaired, he or she is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €5,000.".
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 28.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 20, subsection (1), line 5, after "or" where it firstly occurs to insert "serious".
The purpose of this amendment is to qualify the reference to nuisance as serious nuisance so as to avoid frivolous or vexatious proceedings.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 46 not moved.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.
Section 29 agreed to.
SECTION 30.
Amendments Nos. 48, 51 and 52 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 20, subsection (1), line 35, after "action" to insert the following:
"or by reason of being under the influence of alcohol or a drug or any combination of drugs or drugs and alcohol".
This amendment is required to make it clear that it would be an offence under section 30 to endanger a vessel or persons on board through being under the influence of alcohol or drugs while on board that vessel.
What does the term "being under the influence" mean? It is the same point that was discussed previously.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 49 not moved.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 20, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that any act consisting of lawful industrial action or lawful conduct in the course of trade union activity by a person on board a vessel shall not constitute an offence under this section or section 31.”.
Sections 30 and 31 relate to the prohibitions on endangering a vessel or persons on board and disrupting safety. Section 31(1) refers to a person who "deliberately, recklessly or without regard to other persons on board disrupts through his or her conduct or behaviour compliance with procedures on board". The phrase "compliance with procedures on board" is somewhat reminiscent of the wording in the legislation relating to oil rigs and there may be concern that if a genuine industrial dispute occurred and workers or their representatives sought to make a case about pay and conditions, sections 30 and 31 could be construed in such a way as to make it difficult or impossible to put forward an industrial relations case.
I continually receive complaints about the Cork-Swansea ferry where SIPTU and the ITF find it difficult if not impossible to represent their members and have been ejected from vessels, which is intimidation of workers' representatives. We recently heard allegations that workers were taken on by Irish Ferries and paid extremely low wages which fell below the rate of the Irish minimum wage and that which applies in the country to which the vessel sails. We had a similar discussion in respect of oil rigs.
Anybody who would recklessly endanger a vessel would correctly be guilty of offences under sections 30 and 31. If, however, a workers' leader or a trade union representative was prevented from doing his or her work under these regulations, amendment No. 50 would then be necessary.
If industrial action did not involve endangerment of a vessel or person there would not be an offence under section 30. No one would condone any such endangerment for any reason. I took into consideration the views expressed by Deputy Broughan on section 31 and I have tabled amendment No. 51 to delete section 31 as it could conflict with section 30, as amended. I hope that will be acceptable.
Will section 31, in its entirety, be removed?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 20, subsection (2)(b), line 43, to delete “3” and substitute “2”.
To ensure consistency with the rest of the Bill, this amendment reduces from three years to two years the maximum term of imprisonment on conviction or indictment for the offence of endangering vessels or persons on board.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 20, after line 44, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) In a prosecution of an offence under this section it is a defence for the defendant to show that he or she could have avoided committing the offence only by disobeying a lawful command.".
This specifically provides a common sense defence for a person charged under section 30 with endangering a vessel or persons on board when obeying a lawful command. This is to avoid frivolous or vexatious litigation.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to
SECTION 31.
Amendment No. 53 not moved.
I move: "That section 31 be deleted."
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Amendments Nos. 54 to 56, inclusive, and No. 67 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 21, subsection (1), lines 10 and 11, to delete all words from and including ", in" in line 10 down to and including "anywhere," in line 11 and substitute the following:
"or another vessel carrying passengers in Irish waters, or being an Irish ship carrying passengers in waters anywhere,".
The purpose of this amendment is to cover any vessel carrying passengers in Irish waters which is not a passenger boat or passenger ship within the meaning of the 1992 Act. Amendment No. 67 is also a drafting amendment and is proposed to ensure consistency with the amendment of section 32, proposed in amendment No. 55, which is to include a hirer in the definition of owner.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 21, subsection (1), line 12, to delete "or hirer".
This is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 21, lines 25 to 27, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:
"(4) In this section—
‘passenger' and ‘passenger boat' have the meanings assigned to them, respectively, in section 2 of the Act of 1992;
‘passenger ship' means a ship carrying more than 12 passengers.".
This is a technical drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 21, before section 33, to insert the following new section:
"33.—(1) The Minister may make regulations specifying such charts, nautical directions or information or other nautical publications as appear to him or her to be necessary or expedient for the safe operation of vessels and such regulations may require—
(a) Irish ships, or such class or description of such ships as is specified in the regulations, to carry either at all times or on such voyages as is so specified,
(b) vessels which are not Irish ships, or such class or description of such vessels as is so specified, to carry at any time while they are in Irish waters or such of those waters as is so specified, either a copy of all, or a copy of such as are so specified, of the charts, nautical directions or information or other nautical publications so specified.
(2) If a vessel goes or attempts to go out to sea or into other Irish waters without carrying one copy of any chart, nautical directions or information or other nautical publication which it is by regulations under this section required to carry, the master and the owner of the vessel are each guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €5,000.
(3) The Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Nautical Publications) Regulations 1985 (S.I. No. 282 of 1985) if in operation on the commencement of this Act continue in force as if made under this section.
(4) In this section ‘copy' includes a copy in electronic form which is capable of being read in legible form by the person in command or in charge on board the vessel concerned at all times during the navigation or operation of the vessel.".
This amendment responds to points made by Deputy Broughan on Second Stage and its purpose is to make clear that a code of practice may provide tactical advice to prevent the use of alcohol and drugs and to ensure the safe use of alcohol on board vessels.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 33.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 21, subsection (1), between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(c) the prevention of the abuse of alcohol and drugs and the safe use of alcohol on board vessels,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 34.
Question proposed: "That section 34 stand part of the Bill."
It will be possible to use the codes of practice but I presume they will not have the force of law. We can return to that point at a later stage.
I will clarify the position.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 35.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 23, subsection (1), line 3, after "purposes" to insert "or specified purposes".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 36.
Amendments Nos. 60 and 66 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 23, subsection (2), lines 25 and 26, to delete "or section 35 or 36 of the Act of 1992".
These related drafting amendments are required to reflect the fact that sections 22 and 23, respectively, in Part 3 of the Bill replace sections 35 and 36 of the Act of 1992.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 23, before section 37, to insert the following new section:
"37.—If a vessel is detained on suspicion of a serious safety offence, it is deemed that papers served on the master of the vessel are also served on the owner of the vessel.".
Perhaps the Minister of State might clarify the current position.
I am not entirely clear about what the Deputy wants us to do.
I want to ensure that papers can be served on the registered owner because there could be a series of owners of a vessel.
I must consider that because the names of the registered owner or owners are normally on the registration papers. I will check the position in the coming days.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 23, before section 37, to insert the following new section:
"37.—If a harbour authority fails in its safety functions, and creates an unacceptable risk, the Minister shall have the right to reserve the power to give directions to a harbour authority to address this problem.".
Perhaps the Minister of State might clarify if there is a regulation to deal with this anomaly. If the harbour authority, which has delegated responsibility, fails in its duty, will the Minister have overall control? Will power of attorney be granted to deal with such a situation?
The Minister of the day will be a shareholder.
Would he have the power to act?
: I would be surprised if we had to do that. It is not envisaged that any harbour authority would fail in its safety functions and create an unacceptable risk to the safety of vessels or persons. The Bill does not affect any of the wide range of powers the harbour authorities have under the Harbours Acts 1964 to 2000, with the sole exception of section 43(a), which refines the dredging power in section 48.
Is there an independent audit team which can check if harbour authorities are doing their job? In business, people can carry out on-the-spot checks for safety procedures.
There is a safety statement and there is also the Health and Safety Authority, which has responsibility for safety issues.
Some of the harbour authorities do not perform as well as other authorities in their management of the ports. I am not saying they are negligent but there is a sense of non-compliance in terms of port development. It may be different as regards safety. Perhaps the Minister of State might give devolved powers to harbour authorities in order that there will be a contract of accountability.
We can do that. All authorities have a statutory responsibility towards health and safety. I am extremely anxious to get that message across.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 63 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 23, before section 37, to insert the following new section:
"37.—(1) The Minister may give a direction in respect of a ship if in his or her opinion—
(a) an accident has occurred to or on board the ship,
(b) the accident has created a risk to safety or a risk of pollution by a hazardous substance, and
(c) the direction is necessary to remove or reduce the risk.
(2) The direction may be given to—
(a) the owner of the ship,
(b) a person in possession of the ship,
(c) the master of the ship,
(d) a pilot of the ship,
(e) a salvor in possession of the ship,
(f) a person who is the servant or agent of a salvor in the possession of the ship and who is in charge of the salvage operation, or
(g) a harbour authority or the harbour master where the ship is in, or has been directed to move into, waters which are regulated or managed by a harbour authority or the harbour master.
(3) The direction may require the person to whom it is given to take or refrain from taking any specified action in relation to—
(a) the ship,
(b) anything which is or was on board the ship,
(c) anything which forms or formed part of the ship,
(d) anything which is or was being towed by the ship,
(e) a person on board the ship.
(4) In particular, the direction may require a person to ensure—
(a) that a ship or other thing is moved or not moved,
(b) that a ship or other thing is moved or not moved to or from a specified place or area over a specified route,
(c) that a cargo is or is not unloaded or discharged,
(d) that a substance is or is not unloaded or discharged,
(e) that specified salvage measures are taken or not taken,
(f) that a person is put ashore or on board a ship.”.
As regards a term of contract, the Bill does not state categorically who it is dealing with in terms of power. The amendment specifies the level of responsibility people would have on board a vessel.
I do not mean any disrespect towards the Deputy but these amendments are vague and I would like an opportunity to reflect on them before Report Stage.
That is fine.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 23, before section 37, to insert the following new section:
"37.—(1) The Minister may give a direction in respect of a ship if in his or her opinion—
(a) an accident has occurred to or on board the ship,
(b) the accident has created a risk to safety or a risk of pollution by a hazardous substance, and
(c) the direction is necessary to remove or reduce the risk.
(2) The direction may be given to a person in charge of coastal land or premises.
(3)(a) A person is in charge of land or premises if he is wholly or partly able to control the use made of the land or premises, and
(b) ‘coastal’ means adjacent to or accessible from the Irish Republic waters over which the public are permitted to navigate.
(4) The direction may require the person to whom it is given to grant access or facilities to or in relation to the ship or any person or thing which is or was on the ship.
(5) In particular a direction may require a person to—
(a) permit persons to land,
(b) make facilities available for the undertaking of repairs or other works,
(c) make facilities available for the landing, storage and disposal of cargo or of other things.
(6) A direction under this section—
(a) must be given in writing, or
(b) where it is not reasonably practicable to give it in writing, must be confirmed in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.”.
This amendment is similar to the previous one. Perhaps the Minister of State might communicate further with me on the general thrust of the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 37.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 23, subsection (1), lines 42 and 43, to delete "or section 35 or 36 of the Act of 1992".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 23, subsection (2)(a), line 45, to delete “or hirer”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 37, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 24, before section 38, to insert the following new section:
"38.—(1) On conviction of a person under this Part, the court may at its discretion, in addition to any other penalty to which any such person may be liable, suspend or cancel a certificate of competency held by the person and require the holder to surrender the certificate to the Minister.
(2) Where a certificate of competency has been suspended or cancelled under subsection (1), the court may, upon application to it, if it thinks the circumstances so warrant, direct the Minister to re-issue and return the certificate suspended or cancelled or it may reduce the period of suspension.
(3) Any certificate of competency suspended or cancelled under this section shall be delivered to the Minister as soon as practicable after it is suspended or cancelled.
(4) A person who fails to comply with subsection (3) is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €500.
(5) In this section—
‘certificate of competency' means a valid certificate of competency issued by the Minister under section 3 of the Merchant Shipping (Certification of Seamen) Act 1979.".
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 38 and 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40.
Question proposed: "That section 40 stand part of the Bill."
I oppose section 40. A section of this sort is common in Bills of this nature. It does not apply to "a warship, naval auxiliary or other vessel in the service of the Defence Forces or the navy of military of another state, or a vessel being used for coast guard, customs or police". Many citizens want to know why that is not the case or what is different about it. A Garda vehicle, an ambulance or another emergency vehicle on land is subject to the general traffic laws. Why is that not the case in this instance? I know it is difficult territory and uncharted waters for the Minister of State. I do not understand why anyone should be exempt.
I am obliged to take the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel who has indicated that this section must stand. I have also been advised by colleagues in the Office of the Attorney General that this would rule out frivolous or vexatious litigation.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 41.
Amendments Nos. 69 to 72, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 24, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
"‘master' in relation to a ship, means the person being, for the time being, in command or in charge of the ship;".
This is a drafting amendment to insert the definition of "master". Amendment No. 70 is a technical drafting amendment, amendment No. 71 provides a comprehensive definition of "seaworthy" for the purposes of Part 3 of the Bill dealing with reckless behaviour and amendment No. 72 is also a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 25, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
"‘owner' in relation to a vessel, means the person registered under the Mercantile Marine Act 1955 as her owner, or, if no person is so registered, the person who owns the vessel, and includes any part-owner, charterer, hirer, manager or operator of the vessel;
‘pleasure craft' has the meaning assigned to it by section 20 (as amended by section 42) of the Act of 1992;
‘ship' includes any description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars;".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 25, lines 5 to 8, to delete all words from and including ""unseaworthy"" in line 5 down to and including "or" in line 8 and substitute the following:
"‘unseaworthy' in relation to a vessel, means she—
(a) being unfit to go out to sea or into waters, by reason of—
(i) the condition of the vessel's hull, rigging, equipment or machinery, or
(ii) undermanning or overloading or improper loading, or
(b) does not comply with regulations made under the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 2005 relating to the safety of the vessel and”.
Is the amendment sufficiently comprehensive?
Yes. I do not intend to return with anything further on Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 25, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) In this Part (other than sections 22 and 23) a reference to a ship or vessel in Irish waters which is to a ship or vessel registered outside the State is a reference to the ship or vessel while in a port, harbour or other place in the State or within the territorial seas of the State while proceeding to or from any such port, harbour or place.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 42.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 26, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following:
"(j) regulate vehicles or prohibit classes of vehicles being carried on board a passenger boat designed to carry vehicles,
(k) regulate or prohibit the carriage of goods or materials of a specified class on passenger boats or on passenger boats of a specified class,”.
This amendment clarifies the scope of the ministerial regulation making powers for passenger boats under section 18 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1992.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 42, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 32, before section 43, but in Part 4, to insert the following new section:
"43.—The Act of 1992 is amended—
(a) in section 6(2)—
(i) paragraph (a), by substituting ‘€5,000’ for ‘£1,000’, and
(ii) paragraph (b), by substituting ‘€100,000’ for ‘£10,000’,
(b) in section 8(6)—
(i) paragraph (a), by substituting ‘€5,000’ for ‘£1,000’,
(ii) paragraph (b), by substituting ‘€100,000’ for ‘£10,000’, and
(iii) paragraph (c), by substituting ‘€100,000’ for ‘£100,000’,
(c) in section 9, by inserting after subsection (2) the following:
‘(2A) Where the Minister revokes or suspends a certificate in respect of a particular vessel, and is of opinion that it is in the interests of safety that the holder of the certificate should not be the holder of a certificate or licence in relation to other vessels, then the Minister may revoke or suspend any other certificate or licence held by the holder in relation to any other vessel.',
(d) in section 10(2)—
(i) paragraph (a), by substituting ‘€1,000’ for ‘£500’, and
(ii) paragraph (b), by substituting ‘€5,000’ for ‘£1,000’,
(e) in section 11(2)—
(i) paragraph (a), by substituting ‘€5,000’ for ‘£1,000’, and
(ii) paragraph (b), by substituting ‘€100,000’ for ‘£10,000’,
(f) in section 12(2)—
(i) paragraph (a), by substituting ‘€5,000’ for ‘£1,000’, and
(ii) paragraph (b), by substituting ‘€100,000’ for ‘£100,000’,
(g) in section 13(3)—
(i) paragraph (a)(i), by substituting ‘€5,000’ for ‘£1,000’,
(ii) paragraph (a)(ii), by substituting ‘€100,000’ for ‘£100,000’,
(iii) paragraph (b), by substituting ‘€2,000’ for ‘£500’, and
(iv) paragraph (c), by substituting ‘€5,000’ for ‘£1,000’,
(h) in section 14(2)—
(i) paragraph (a), by substituting ‘€5,000’ for ‘£1,000’, and
(ii) paragraph (b), by substituting ‘€100,000’ for ‘£5,000’,
(i) in section 14A(3) (inserted by section 4(c) of the Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1998)—
(i) paragraph (a), by substituting ‘€5,000’ for ‘£1,500’, and
(ii) paragraph (b), by substituting ‘€100,000’ for ‘£10,000’,
(j) in section 15(7)—
(i) paragraph (a), by substituting ‘€5,000’ for ‘£1,000’,
(ii) paragraph (b), by substituting ‘€100,000’ for ‘£5,000’, and
(iii) paragraph (c), by substituting ‘€100,000’ for ‘£50,000’,
(k) in section 16, by inserting after subsection (2) the following:
‘(2A) Where the Minister revokes or suspends a licence in respect of a particular vessel under subsection (2), and is of opinion that it is in the interests of safety that the holder of the licence should not be the holder of a licence or certificate in relation to other vessels, then the Minister may revoke or suspend any other licence or certificate held by the holder in relation to any other vessel.',
(l) in section 17(3)—
(i) paragraph (a), by substituting ‘€500’ for ‘£200’, and
(ii) paragraph (b), by substituting ‘€2,000’ for ‘£500’,
(m) in section 25(3), by substituting ‘€5,000’ for ‘£1,000’, and
(n) in section 30, by substituting ‘€5,000’ for ‘£1,000’.”.
This amendment is required to update the penalties for offences.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 43 to 46, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 47.
I move amendment No. 75:
In page 39, line 23, to delete "6" and substitute "12".
The purpose of the amendment is to restore a 12-month penalty on summary conviction.
Imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months is an appropriate penalty on summary conviction whether with or without a fine not exceeding €5,000 as a court might decide.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 47 agreed to.
Title agreed to.