I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The purpose of this Bill is to enable Ireland to accede to two maritime conventions. Both conventions are related and were drawn up at the same diplomatic conference and both have implications for the civil jurisdiction of the Irish courts in relation to maritime matters.
The more important convention is the 1952 International Convention relating to the arrest of seagoing ships. The intention behind this convention was to produce uniform international rules in relation to the arrest of a ship to secure a civil claim. Irish maritime interests have for some time advocated that Ireland accede to this convention. While the convention itself in Article 2 purports to limit the circumstances under which a ship may be arrested to secure a claim, our existing admiralty law is such that accession to the convention will in fact lead to an increase in our admiralty jurisdiction.
Accession to the Arrest Convention will have a double benefit for Ireland. Firstly, it will strengthen the position of parties in Ireland dealing with foreign ships and at the same time it will ensure that ships flying the Irish flag will be protected from arbitrary arrest in respect of civil claims in other contracting states.
A more immediate reason for our accession to the Arrest Convention arises from our recent ratification of the EC Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. This convention was given effect in Ireland by the Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act, 1988. During the negotiations leading to our accession to that convention it was agreed that jurisdiction in maritime matters would best be left to be dealt with by the Arrest Convention. As Ireland and Denmark were not parties to the Arrest Convention, transitional provisions, based on the Arrest Convention, were included in the accession arrangements to allow time for Ireland and Denmark to accede to that convention. In the case of Ireland these transitional provisions will last until 1 June 1991. If we did not accede to the Arrest Convention before the date our maritime jurisdiction in EC related cases would be governed by the general jurisdictional rules of the judgments convention and we would suffer a significant loss of admiralty jurisdiction as a result. As the Arrest Convention will not come into effect until six months after the date of our accession to it, it is essential that we accede to the Arrest Convention sometime before the end of 1990. With the co-operation of the House I am sure we will have no problem meeting that deadline.
Before I discuss the provisions of the Arrest Convention I should make some reference to the existing admiralty jurisdiction of the Irish courts. The distinguishing feature about admiralty actions is that it is possible to take an action in rem, usually against a ship or cargo. In such an action you may arrest the res which is the object of the action. For example, if an Irish company supply goods or services to a foreign ship while it is in an Irish port and the owner of the ship refuses to pay, the Irish supplier may initiate an admiralty action in rem against the foreign ship and have it arrested. If the owner does not enter an appearance the ship can be sold and the proceeds of the ship may be used to satisfy the claim. Normally, however, the ship's owner will enter an appearance, and the ship will be released on the payment of sufficient bail or security. Bail would be the amount claimed in the action together with a sum for costs. The action on the claim will then proceed in the normal way.
The action in rem is an extremely valuable procedure for persons dealing with foreign ships as it would usually be the case that the person liable, i.e. the owner, will be outside the jurisdiction and will have no assets within the jurisdiction to satisfy a claim other than the ship, which, of course, can disappear overnight.
Turning now to the provisions of the Arrest Convention, Article 2 provides that a ship flying the flag of a contracting state may be arrested in respect of a maritime claim as defined in Article 1 and in respect of no other claim. The list of maritime claims in Article 1 corresponds generally with the claims which can give rise to an admiralty action under existing Irish law and in some instances is wider. For example, existing Irish law makes no specific provision for an admiralty action in respect of disbursements made by shippers, charterers or agents. The convention does make such provision in Article 1 (1) (n) and because of this particular benefit the Irish Ship Agents Association and the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers have strongly advocated that we accede to the convention. Also if a person suffers personal injuries in connection with the operation of a ship but the injuries are not directly caused by the ship, there is a doubt whether he can take an admiralty action in rem. The position is clear under the convention. Article 1 (1) (b) defines a maritime claim as including loss of life or personal injury caused by any ship or occurring in connection with the operation of any ship and in such cases the in rem action will be available.
There are other benefits in our acceding to the convention. Under existing admiralty law only the ship in respect of which the claim arose can be arrested. However the Arrest Convention provides in Article 3 that a ship in the same ownership as the particular ship in respect of which the claim arose may also be subject to arrest. The right to arrest a sister ship will not apply however if the claim relates to a dispute as to ownership or between co-owners or a mortgage of a ship. In these cases only the particular ship in respect of which the claim arose may be arrested. The power to arrest a sister ship will greatly extend the admiralty jurisdiction of the Irish courts and should be of considerable advantage to Irish plaintiffs.
When the Arrest Convention has entered into force for Ireland, ships flying the flag of contracting states will be liable for arrest only in respect of those maritime claims set out in the convention. However, ships flying the flag of non-contracting states will be subject to arrest either under the provisions of the convention or under existing admiralty law.
Before leaving the Arrest Convention I should point out that it deals only with the arrest of a ship in connection with a civil claim. The convention itself makes this clear in Article 2 where it states that nothing in the convention shall be deemed to extend or restrict any right or powers vested in Governments, their Departments, public authorities or dock or harbour authorities to arrest, detain or otherwise prevent the sailing of vessels within their jurisdiction.
I will turn now to the other convention dealt with in the Bill, the 1952 international convention on certain rules concerning civil jurisdiction in matters of collision. The purpose of this, the Collisions Convention, is to prescribe uniform rules relating to civil jurisdiction arising out of collisions involving a ship or ships. The Collisions Convention affects both admiralty and non-admiralty jurisdiction and therefore has implications for the jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts as well as for the High Court.
Article 1 of the convention limits jurisdiction in cases of collision to: (a) the courts where the defendant has his habitual residence or place of business; (b) the courts where the defendant ship or sister ship has been arrested or bail furnished and (c) the courts for the place where the collision occurred provided it occurred in a port or in inland waters. The convention, however, does allow the parties to agree to confer jurisdiction on some other court and has provisions relating to counterclaims, cases where there are several claimants and cases involving related claims. The circumstances where the Irish courts would normally assume jurisdiction at present in cases of collision correspond more or less with those prescribed in the convention.
While the convention limits to some extent the existing jurisdiction of the courts I am satisfied that it does not do so in a way that is of material disadvantage to this country. For example, under existing law the Irish courts may exercise jurisdiction if the defendant has been served with the proceedings while temporarily present in the State. This jurisdiction is of a type regarded internationally as exorbitant — this means that few, if any, countries would enforce a foreign court order based on such a jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is no longer exercisable in our relationships with contracting states to the EC Judgments Convention and the Collisions Convention would restrict its exercise further in convention cases of a non-EC nature. This should not put Irish plaintiffs at any major disadvantage, however, as such jurisdiction is of limited value in any event because of the difficulties associated with enforcing a judgment obtained in such circumstances.
The major advantages of acceding to the Collisions Convention are that it will bring our law in this area into line with that of most other maritime countries as well as ensuring that ships flying the Irish flag will be protected from courts in other contracting states exercising exorbitant jurisdiction over them.
Having given an outline of the two conventions there is little left to say about the Bill itself which is relatively straightforward.
Sections 4 and 11 give the force of law to the Arrest Convention and the Collisions Convention respectively. Section 14 abolishes the Cork Local Admiralty Court. This is essentially a tidying up operation. The Cork Circuit Court when sitting as the Cork Local Admiralty Court is the only court in Ireland other than the High Court which has admiralty jurisdiction. However its admiralty jurisdiction, which is limited to claims not exceeding £2,000, is no longer availed of in practice. I understand that the Incorporated Law Society and the Southern Law Association have no objection to the abolition of the Cork Local Admiralty Court.
Section 6 of the Bill deals with the arrest of State ships. It is a recognised principle of international law that warships and ships in the service of a state, not being used for trading purposes, are entitled to claim sovereign immunity. This principle was specifically provided for in Article 5 of the Collisions Convention but there is no such provision in the Arrest Convention. Section 6 of the Bill is necessary, therefore, to avoid any danger that the Irish Courts would interpret the Arrest Convention as changing the law on the arrest of State ships. Since the matter has not been provided for in the Arrest Convention a formal reservation will be required to deal with the question when we deposit our instrument of accession. Many other countries have made a similar reservation.
The other provisions of the Bill deal with procedural matters and questions of interpretation.
I commend the Bill to the House.