The Chairman and the Vice Chairman are unavoidably absent today, so is it agreed that I take the Chair? Agreed.
Business of Select Committee.
I wish to make two points or order. Amendments Nos. 47 to 49, inclusive, 52 and 53 have been disallowed, allegedly because they are outside the scope of the Bill. This is the Bill that brings into law the Maritime Labour Convention which was adopted in Geneva on 23 February 2006. It is so long since we passed Second Stage that it is hard to put this together. Those amendments relate to flags of convenience. I brought these amendments forward before under a similar Bill, and I am trying to introduce a new Part Seven in amendment No. 47, which states inter alia that:
...where a person applies to the Minister, under section 21 of the Mercantile Marine Act 1955, to register a ship under the law of another country, the ship concerned being one that—
(a) is registered at a port in the State, and
(b) regularly proceeds to sea from a port in the State to any other port in the State or to a port in any other Member State.
(2) The Minister may on the application of a person to whom this section applies, consent to such registry by that person if but only if—
(a) that person is a national of a Member State or a body corporate established under and subject to the laws of a Member State, and
(b) the port at which it is proposed to register the ship is a port within a Member State.
This amendment sought to address the issue of flags of convenience and the damage they have done to the income, health and safety of mariners and maritime workers.
Amendment No. 48 states, inter alia, that:
In deciding under this Act whether to consent to registration or not of a ship, the Minister shall—
(a) have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed at Montego Bay, Jamaica, on the 10th December, 1982, which entered into force on the 16th November, 1994, and which was ratified by the State on the 21st June, 1996,
(b) have regard in particular to the need to ensure that the registry in the State of a ship will not be closed or transferred to a port outside the State in any circumstances that would amount to breach by the State of that Convention, and
(c) ensure that no recognition is given to the documents of registration issued by any other state to a ship [This is the most important point] in circumstances where no genuine link, within the meaning of that Convention, between that state and any ship concerned might exist.
Under amendment No. 49, a person who tries to register a ship under the law of another state in contravention of these sections, would be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of €5,000 on summary conviction or to imprisonment for a term up to 12 months——
You have made your point. Unfortunately, I have been advised that this is outside the scope of the Bill, and it has been ruled out of order.
Who decided that? This is the transport committee. This is a maritime labour law, but this very Bill is adopting the international labour convention. How can somebody have the gall to write down on a piece of paper that the amendments could be related to labour laws, entitlements and workers terms and conditions, when this is a Bill about the Maritime Labour Convention adopted at Geneva in 2006? That convention is about the fundamental lack of legislation that empowers people.
On Second Stage of this debate——
You have already made your point.
I have only made my first point. Those amendments should be taken and I demand that they be taken.
We note what you say.
It is no use noting it. I demand that they be taken.
We went into the Dáil in good faith last year and debated Second Stage of this Bill. We studied the international conventions and said a few words on it. At the time, I indicated that I would try to return to the issue of flags of convenience. A few weeks ago, several merchant shipping Bills were put on the Clár. One of them contained the amendments. The Minister has come forward with a list of 50 amendments that are bigger than the Bill itself.
Deputy Broughan——
I insist. This is very important. We are on Committee Stage of a Bill——
We should go into private session to deal with this.
You are trying to muzzle the Opposition. We have a different Bill in front of us today and we are then told that we cannot take the second Bill because we must take it in the Dáil. This is very bad parliamentary procedure. It is ultra vires and we should not proceed with it. I ask you not to proceed with the Bill today on two grounds. First, you have ruled that several amendments about the working rights of mariners are out of order. We do not seem to give a damn. This is very important. At least one of the Deputies is from a maritime constituency. We do not seem to give a damn about the rights of workers or about the slavery that some workers are placed in. That is in regard to my amendments. Second, we are coming here today with another Bill which we are lumping on top of this Bill. We have driven a coach and four through the rules of the House. I ask the Acting Chairman not to proceed with the Bill because what he is doing is ultra vires.
I appreciate the Deputy's comments. I will make two points to him. First, what he proposes is outside the scope of this Bill.
No, the Chair cannot decide that.
Second, the legal advice I have received today from the Clerk of the Dáil——
I ask the Acting Chairman to put that to the committee.
——is that the Deputy's proposals are ultra vires. I am ruling this out order.
I ask the Acting Chairman to put that to the committee.
I am informed by the clerk that I am within my rights in ruling on that.
I challenge that. I want the Acting Chairman to put that to a vote. I challenge the Acting Chairman's decision.
I do not want to be difficult but there are legal reasons the Deputy's motions have been ruled out of order.
We have barristers too.
Either the Deputy accepts the rulings of this House——
Hold on. Why are they are printed on green paper? My amendments are here today whereas the Minister's are not. The Minister has turned up after sending us a whole raft of information on approximately 50 major sections about nuclear carriers, gas carriers and all kinds of maritime vessels. While the staff have been helpful, we did not get any background information from the Minister or an introduction in regard to the second Bill. He is foisting a second Bill on us and is refusing to allow us to bring in legislation to protect maritime workers. I will not accept the judgment of the Chair.
While I will ask the Minister to respond, I do not have to do so under the strict terms of the rules of the House. I remind the Deputy again that we have amendments listed. I will call the Minister to respond briefly to the points Deputy Broughan has made.
I do not accept that.
We were prepared to discuss the amendments to which the Deputy refers but we have been instructed by the Bills Office that we cannot take them at this time. The Deputy is completely incorrect in his assertions in that regard. I do not know whether he has an urgent appointment somewhere else which would mean he does not want to deal with this Bill that he has been calling for.
I want to deal with it but the Minister did not——
I will not make any comment on the rulings of the Clerk of the Dáil. We have had to accept the rulings of the Clerk of the Dáil in regard to the amendments we have put forward. I would expect the same courtesy would be extended by the members opposite. As for our amendments, the Deputy has them since last October. If he did not read them, that is not my problem.
I did not have them since last October. I had a few outline points.
He had them since——
They were not set out. The Minister is introducing a new Bill today on the back of the other Bill. I am asking the committee to throw out the Bill.
I rule that the Deputy is out of order. I will proceed with——
I propose that the committee reject this Bill as currently certified.
I want to address a question to the Minister. Does he suggest that these amendments were not put to his Department, were ruled out beforehand and that he has never seen them? Does he suggest that they went to the Bills Office and never appeared anywhere except on Deputy Broughan's paper and were not——
We do not rule out amendments.
I am only asking a question. I did not say that.
It was the Bills Office.
The Bills Office has ruled Deputy Broughan's——
The Bills Office ruled out Deputy Broughan's amendments and ruled out our amendments as well.
I did not ask that.
Did Deputy O'Dowd hear that? The Bills Office ruled out of order Deputy Broughan's amendments and the Minister's amendments.
That is not the question I asked.
What is your question?
I asked whether Deputy Broughan's amendments were forwarded to the Department and whether the Department saw them. If so, did it have a response to them, notwithstanding the fact they may have been ruled out of order? I want the answer to that question.
As I understand it, Deputy Broughan's amendments have been ruled out of order by the Clerk of the Dáil.
That is not the question I asked.
If they are ruled out of order, they do not go to the Minister or his Department.
Can the Minister answer that question?
That is the normal rules of the House.
The Bills Office printed them. Normally, if a question is ruled out of order, it does not appear. The striking thing in this regard is that my amendments are there in green whereas the Minister's are not. The Minister's were ruled out because he is bringing in another Bill by the back door whereas our amendments are germane to the Bill, if anyone had read it. The Minister knows they are germane and he is prepared to address them. We are in a straitjacket and this is a set-up which is completely undemocratic.
On a point of order, I asked a very simple question. Were the amendments seen and commented on by the Department before they were rejected by the Bills Office?
They were seen and they were commented on. I am told they were printed in white. I do not see the relevance of this. Ours were printed in white as well.
I am not fighting about that.
The Deputy should hold on. Deputy Broughan seems to be trying to concoct some kind of a conspiracy theory.
Not at all.
Our amendments, which we gave the Deputy notice of last October and which we gave details of in January——
The Minister did not give details in January.
——and which we expected to discuss today, were ruled out of order by the Bills Office. Should I ask the Deputy as spokesperson whether he has anything to do with our amendments being ruled out of order or whether there is some conspiracy on the other side? It is a ruling of the Bills Office. Let us quit the messing and move on.
I have no problem discussing the Minister's amendments today.
I am making the ruling that the amendments are out of order as per the ruling of the Bills Office and directions from the Clerk of the Dáil. I am moving to the agenda. Before I call——
I want to make a point. The Minister alleges there is a conspiracy theory. We are just asking about the process. I asked a very simple question. The amendments were seen by the Department. That is all I wanted to know. The second question——
The Minister answered that.
I have not finished, Chairman. If the gentleman beside you——
The Deputy asked a question of the Minister as to whether he saw Deputy Broughan's——
I want to ask a further question, if I can speak.
What is your question?
Were those amendments commented on by the Department? In other words, did the Department send a document back to the Bills Office in regard to those amendments?
No document was sent back to the Bills Office.
I want to raise another point.
The Deputy has had more than sufficient time.
This is important.
What is your point?
It is that the substance of these amendments was a Bill I brought forward a couple of years ago. The Government did not oppose the Bill on First Stage. Quite clearly, therefore——
We are dealing with the Bill before us. We are dealing with amendments, not a Bill the Deputy brought in at another time. This is a meeting to which the Deputy agreed.
The Chair, like me, belongs to a democratic assembly. He belonged to Fingal County Council.
Yes.
He has seen situations like this arise. The only way forward on this is to have a vote. I am putting those amendments. I am saying to the Chair that those amendments——
I am not being anti-democratic.
You are.
The amendments are out of order, as per the rules of this House.
You are being used by the establishment.
I am not. I must operate by the rules of the House, as the Deputy clearly knows. I am ruling that the Deputy's amendments are out of order as per the instructions of the Clerk of the Dáil. The Minister had amendments which, equally, were ruled out of order.
There is no level playing pitch. The Chair is favouring the Minister.
I am proceeding with the meeting. Before we deal with the Bill I want to bring two items to the Deputy's notice.
The Chair is favouring the Minister. There is no level playing pitch.
First, in regard to proposals——
This is deplorable.
It was the Clerk of the Dáil who made the ruling, not the Minister.
That is the theory.
If the Deputy is making allegations, he is making them against the Clerk of the Dáil. That is a disgrace.
The committee should decide.
The Deputy is a disgrace.
This committee should decide.
The Deputy has had a fair hearing.
The Minister did not abide by the rules. That is the point. He brought in a second Bill and did not tell us.
Deputies Broughan and O'Dowd will be interested in what I have to say. On the proposed meeting with Iarnród Éireann, the Chairman, Deputy Frank Fahey, has met the parliamentary legal adviser in regard to next Tuesday's meeting. There are legal issues that may arise from such a meeting. The parliamentary legal adviser cannot advise us before that day as there is a judgment expected then which needs to be discussed. As such, our proposed meeting with Iarnród Éireann will have to be deferred. We tried to bring in the Irish Aviation Authority instead but that date does not suit it. Consequently, the committee will not meet next week.
What about the meeting with the Dublin Airport Authority?
I am informed that it will appear before the joint committee on foot of the publication of its annual report.
As far as I am aware, members had sought the authority's appearance straight away.
With respect, to have its annual report would be——
I do not have a problem with that. However, I had thought it was due to appear before the joint committee earlier. I refer to the issue in respect of jobs.
As the Deputy is aware, its representatives appeared before the joint committee last week to deal specifically with the Ryanair hangar 6 issue. However, the authority will appear before the joint committee once the annual report is——
On that issue, I asked that the legal adviser should attend on that date, if possible, because I have issues regarding an opinion she gave to members.
Does the Deputy refer to the CIE meeting? Is he requesting that the legal adviser should attend that meeting?
Yes.
The legal adviser has been asked to give a report that cannot be issued for the time being. However, I understand she is due to meet the Chairman next Tuesday.
I seek her attendance at a committee meeting because I have questions to ask of her.
I certainly will ask the Chairman to give consideration to the Deputy's request.
The point is that a meeting is scheduled for next week. Is that not correct?
It now has been cancelled because the legal advice regarding the meeting with CIE will not be available to members.
Meetings normally are held on Wednesdays at 3.45 p.m.
That meeting now has been deferred. The Irish Aviation Authority was due to attend as well but is not available to meet members that day. Consequently, members will not have a meeting next week.
That is a proposal the Acting Chairman has made. However, I believe the joint committee should meet the legal adviser, if possible. I do not refer to matters pertaining to CIE but members received another legal opinion that I am anxious the joint committee should discuss.
I will ask the Chairman whether he will consider holding a private meeting to discuss legal issues.
I have issues regarding the legal opinion she gave members previously in respect of Foynes.
I will ask the Chairman to consider a meeting next week on that subject.
Before proceeding with today's business, I have one question to ask on which I will be happy to accept the Minister's explanation. It pertains to the message from the Government regarding this Bill which appears on the Order Paper today.
Deputy O'Dowd, we have already deviated. Is he moving forward? The meeting has been convened for the purpose of the consideration by the select committee of the Merchant Shipping Bill.
Hold on a second. This issue affects the Bill. I have no difficulty with this Bill and will help——
Then the Deputy should allow members to deal with the Bill, amendment by amendment. Deputy O'Dowd then will have the opportunity of dealing with——
This is not a Star Chamber. I am entitled to ask a question.
I propose to start discussing each amendment.
I have no difficulty with that or in supporting the Bill. I do not in any way attempt to obstruct, defer or delay this Bill. However, the Order Paper today contains a message from the Government regarding this Bill. I ask the Minister to put this message into context.
When the Minister responds, I am sure he will take the opportunity to do so. I will proceed. This meeting has been convened——
This is not an issue pertaining to this Bill. I seek clarity regarding the message's reference to Article 17.2 of the Constitution.
I wish to make two points. On the point regarding the next meeting——
We have agreed to ask the Chairman to cover the legal issue. What is the Deputy's other point?
One subject that emerged on the committee's work programme was the travel tax. The Acting Chairman and I both raised some of these matters. While I acknowledge this issue pertains to the Department of Finance, it affects transport in an appalling fashion. If possible, the committee's staff should organise an effective meeting, if necessary with the Minister for Finance but certainly with Department of Finance officials, to tease out the associated issues, given the disastrous impact.
I will ask the Chairman to give consideration to that request.