Amendment No. 32p. has already been discussed with amendment No. 32n.
SECTION 72.
I moved amendment No. 32p.:
In page 56, subsection (1), line 4, to delete "master of first mate" and substitute "person in charge".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32q.:
In page 56, subsection (1), line 9, to delete "master of first mate" and substitute "person in charge".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32r.:
In page 56, subsection (1), line 42, to delete "master of first mate" and substitute "person in charge".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 72, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
The question of pilot exemption certificates being granted to masters or mates of ships carrying dangerous goods should be given further consideration. I wish to hear the Minister's views on this matter because I am contemplating an amendment on Report Stage.
In the granting of pilot exemption certificates, section 72 (7) requires that a port company must have regard to the hazards which may be involved in the carriage of dangerous goods or harmful substances on board a ship in cases where an application is made for a pilotage exemption certificate or a renewal or amendment of such a certificate in respect of a ship on which it is proposed to carry such goods.
It is reasonable that that provision should be made. Where danger arises, for example with spillages or harmful substances, it is certainly not intended that pilotage exemption certificates should be granted.
We will reflect further on it and deal more intensely with it on Report Stage. Increasingly, the problems associated with transporting dangerous goods require the most exacting safety provisions to guarantee greater protection for the public. For that reason I raised the matter and have indicated my intention to strengthen the amendment on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 73.
Amendments Nos. a32s., b32s., c32s. and d32s. are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. a32s.:
In page 59, subsection (5) (c) (i), line 38, before "the chief executive" to insert "the chairperson".
I propose that the composition of the board of inquiry should be changed. This section enables the establishment of a board of inquiry to consider whether a pilot's licence should be revoked or annulled because of some implied misconduct or non compliance with by-laws or requirements under the terms of this legislation. The persons whom the Minister proposes should comprise the board of inquiry are the chief executive of the harbour company or some other person nominated by him, a person nominated by the Minister and a person nominated by the holder or former holder of the licence or certificate concerned. I want to highlight the proposition to appoint the chief executive to the board of inquiry. In pilotage matters there is no guarantee that the chief executive would have any particular expertise. A person with a master mariner's certificate is a more appropriate person to appoint to this board.
One has to bear in mind that the chief executive has an employer-employee role vis-�-vis the harbour master. Even though the harbour master’s functions are laid down as statute, he is answerable to the chief executive in carrying out his duties. Where a dispute arises, it might be more appropriate if the chairperson of the harbour company was one of the members of the inquiry. Obviously, the Minister would need to have a nominee who I would expect to be qualified in marine matters and capable of giving advice to the other members as well as making a judgment on the alleged misdemeanours and whether a licence should be revoked.
My amendments propose that the Minister's nominee should be the chairperson, that the chairperson of the board should be other than the chief executive, and that the person whose licence is under consideration should have his own nominee to represent him. That would be a more practical proposition than the Minister's. Some chief executives have expressed the view that they would not feel competent to undertake this. Others have said that, because it is a staff matter, they would prefer it to be dealt with by a third party. The harbour company will have to be involved in some way. The chairperson, or somebody he nominates, would be a more suitable person rather than the chief executive because of the special working relationship between the chief executive and the harbour master. I would like to hear the Minister's views on what I propose.
I am not entirely clear on what size of board of inquiry we would end up with under Deputy Molloy's amendment. This board of inquiry would obviously consider whether a pilot's licence should be suspended or revoked, or whether a pilotage exemption certificate would be suspended or revoked in certain circumstances. The provision we have made is for a three member board of inquiry. One member will be nominated by the Minister, and Deputy Molloy is right, it is fair to assume that it would be somebody experienced and skilled in maritime matters. The chief executive of the company or somebody nominated by the chief executive would be on the board. The chief executive could, for example, nominate the chairperson if it was felt that was required, or the chief executive could nominate the harbour master or somebody else. The pilots would be represented on the board of inquiry. There is also provision for the board of inquiry to seek expert opinion and technical advice to assist its work if required. The balance provided in the Bill is reasonable. I am not entirely clear if Deputy Molloy is suggesting that both the chairperson and the chief executive of a board should be on the board of inquiry. I certainly would not agree to that nor would I agree to a formula whereby the board appoints the chairperson and the Minister appoints the chief executive or something of that nature.
There is a reasonable balance: the company, the Minister and the pilots. Within the provision there is flexibility in having all three. For example, it does not necessarily have to be the chief executive of the company. Somebody else can be nominated by the chief executive to be on the board of inquiry.
I accept that there could be some confusion in the way the amendment is written and that it could add the chairperson. I agree with the Minister to leave it at three persons but I would prefer the chairperson to be a member rather than the chief executive. Will the Minister consider that, and consider that the person he nominates should be the chairperson of the inquiry?
No. This is a case where we need a company nominee from the professional side of the company rather than from the policy side which would be the case with the chairperson. The appropriate person in this case is the chief executive or the chief executive's nominee rather than the chairperson.
I will accept the Minister's arguments but does the Minister not consider it appropriate that the person that the chief executive might nominate should be required under statute to have certain qualifications such as a master mariner's certificate?
It is very difficult to anticipate every possible circumstance where a board of inquiry may have to be set up — I hope that it will not happen too often — to examine a pilot's licence or exemption certificate. This is an area where we should provide the structure to deal with it but leave a certain degree of flexibility in the system to allow the board of inquiry to make the appropriate decision.
It should be left to the chief executive of the company to decide the best people to sit on the board. For example, if the revocation of a pilot's licence was related to technical or navigational aspects of the pilot's performance it would be appropriate to have somebody on the board of inquiry who was au faitwith navigational matters. However, if the revocation of the licence was due to other aspects of the pilot’s behaviour rather than just navigational factors, somebody else might be more appropriate. The various circumstances cannot be written down absolutely.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. b32s., c32s. and d32s., inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 32s:
In page 62, subsection (9), line 17, to delete "chairman", and substitute "chairperson".
This is a technical amendment making the section gender correct.
I do not agree.
A gender blunder.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 73, as amended, agreed to.
Section 74 and 75 agreed to.