Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 Mar 2010

Vol. 705 No. 3

Merchant Shipping Bill 2009: Instruction to Committee.

I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 127, it be an instruction to the Committee to which the Merchant Shipping Bill 2009 may be recommitted in respect of certain amendments, that it has power to make provision in the Bill to provide for a NEW PART 3 comprised of 7 Chapters to provide for maritime safety and the implementation of the Saving of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention of the International Maritime Organisation through the provision of regulatory and enforcement provisions in Chapter 1 — Chemical Tanker Rules, Chapter 2 — Liquefied Gas Carriage Rules, Chapter 3 — Nuclear Carriage Rules, Chapter 4 — High-Speed Craft Rules, Chapter 5 — safety provisions for Tendering Operations, Chapter 6 — Safe Manning Regulations and Chapter 7 — enforcement measures against Unsafe ships; to amend the Merchant Shipping (Certification of Seamen) Act 1979 (to provide standard provision for disposal of fees); to amend the Harbours Act 1996 (to provide for the medical fitness of marine pilots and to repeal the requirement for compulsory retirement at age 60) and to make necessary consequential amendments to sections 1, 11, 38, 39 and 40 and to the Long Title.

The Merchant Shipping Bill 2009 is important legislation in the strategy for improvement of the maritime safety agenda. A key aim of the Bill is to improve safety of life at sea by ensuring that our national law enables the further implementation of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, the SOLAS convention. I will now set out the proposed changes.

While waiting to have the Bill scheduled for Committee Stage the opportunity was taken to progress the preparation of additional SOLAS provisions to augment the contents of the Bill in that regard. The purpose of these new amendments is to provide for the implementation of additional elements of SOLAS. Ireland must have national legislation in place to enable the implementation of SOLAS. These amendments will meet this objective.

An increased number of tendering operations, the movement of passengers by boat from ship to shore, is being carried out here each year and an amendment to provide for safety regulation of tendering operations is proposed. A separate amendment is required to amend and extend the Harbours Act 1996. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to remove all statutory reference to the compulsory retirement of marine pilots on reaching 60 years of age. A new provision is proposed to require marine pilots to meet the required standards of medical fitness deemed necessary to carry out their duties. Suspension and appeal provisions are also provided. I indicated during the passage of the Harbours (Amendment) Act 2009 that I intended to address this outstanding matter in the Merchant Shipping Bill 2009. The inclusion of this amendment to the 1996 Act gives rise to an amendment to the collective citation in the Bill in section 1 and to the Long Title. Deputies opposite raised the matter with me at the time and I gave that commitment.

The proposed amendment to section 40 is standard to provide that any fees payable under sections of the Merchant Shipping (Certification of Seamen) Act 1979 be disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer. Some technical and consequential amendments arise in respect of sections 11, 37, 38 and 39 of the Bill as a result of those new provisions.

The proposed amendments to Chapter 1 of the SOLAS convention on chemical tanker rules, which comprises sections 16 to 24, provide enabling provisions for regulation and survey of Irish chemical tankers and the inspection and enforcement of the applicable SOLAS provisions for all chemical tankers engaged on international voyages. Ireland has two chemical tankers on its flag. Section 16 provides definitions for terms used in Chapter 1. Section 17 sets out the application of Chapter 1. Section 18 is an enabling provision to allow the Minister to make chemical tanker rules to prescribe structural, operational and survey requirements for chemical tankers. Section 19 provides for certification, endorsement of continued compliance and prohibiting a tanker from going to sea without having the required certification of fitness. Section 20 imposes duties on owners and masters to have the vessel comply with the requirements in respect of chemical tanker rules. Section 21 provides for continued compliance with standards and prohibits unauthorised changes to the structures and equipment of the ship. Section 22 sets out requirements on transfer of an Irish ship to a flag of a state to which SOLAS applies. Section 23 provides enforcement powers for surveyors of ships to check for compliance with this chapter through inspection of vessels and the issue of notices of non-compliance. Section 24 sets out the maximum monetary fines that the master or owner of a ship is liable for if convicted in court of breach of statutory requirements.

The proposed amendments in Chapter 2 comprising sections 25 to 33 provide enabling provisions for regulation and survey of Irish gas carriers and the inspection and enforcement of the applicable SOLAS provisions for gas carriers engaged on international voyages. Section 25 provides definitions for terms used in Chapter 2. Section 26 sets out the application of Chapter 2. Section 27 is an enabling provision to allow the Minister to make gas carrier rules to prescribe structural, operational and survey requirements for gas carriers. Section 28 provides for certification, endorsement of continued compliance and prohibiting a tanker from going to sea without having the required certificates of fitness. Section 29 imposes duties on owners and masters to have the vessel comply with the requirements in respect of gas carriage rules. Section 30 provides for continued compliance with standards and prohibits unauthorised changes to the structures and equipment of the ship. Section 31 sets out requirements on transfer of an Irish ship to a flag of a state to which SOLAS applies. Section 32 provides enforcement powers for surveyors of ships to check for compliance with this chapter through inspection of vessels and the issue of notices of non-compliance. Section 33 sets out the maximum monetary fines that the master or owner of a ship is liable for if convicted in court of breach of any statutory requirements.

Chapter 3 deals in the same manner with nuclear carriage rules and comprises sections 34 to 49. It provides enabling provisions for regulation and survey of Irish nuclear carriers and the inspection and enforcement of the applicable SOLAS provisions for all nuclear carriers engaged on international voyages. Ireland has no nuclear carrier on its flag at present.

Do we intend to have any?

No.

Section 34 provides definitions for terms used in Chapter 3. Section 35 sets out the application of Chapter 3. Section 36 is an enabling provision to allow the Minister to make nuclear carriage rules to prescribe structural, operational and survey requirements for Irish ships engaged or intending to be engaged in the carriage of nuclear cargo.

Section 36 is an enabling provision to allow the Minister to make nuclear carriage rules to prescribe structural, operational and survey requirements for Irish ships engaged or intending to be engaged in the carriage of nuclear cargo. Section 37 provides for the certification requirements for nuclear carriers and prohibits a carrier from going to sea without having the required certification of fitness. Section 38 imposes duties on owners and masters to have the ship comply with the statutory requirements in respect of the carriage of nuclear cargo. Section 39 provides for continued compliance with standards and prohibits the making of unauthorised changes to an Irish ship in regard to the carriage of nuclear cargo. Section 40 provides enforcement powers for surveyors of ships to check for compliance with this chapter through inspection of ships and the issue of notices of non-compliance. Section 41 sets out the maximum monetary fines for which the master or owner of a ship is liable if convicted in court for non-compliance with nuclear carriage rules.

Chapter 4 deals with high-speed craft. The proposed amendments in chapter 4, comprising sections 42 to 49, provide for the regulation under SOLAS of high-speed craft. The purpose of this chapter is to set out the separate standards and regulatory measures that are appropriate for high-speed craft. Ireland has no applicable high-speed craft under its flag at present. Section 42 provides definitions for terms used in the chapter. Section 43 sets out the application of chapter 4. Section 44 is an enabling provision to allow the Minister to make high-speed craft rules. Section 45 provides for certification and endorsement of continued compliance with standards for high-speed craft. Section 46 imposes duties on owners and masters to have the vessels comply with the statutory requirements. Section 47 provides for continued compliance with standards and prohibits unauthorised changes to the structures and equipment of a high-speed craft. Section 48 provides enforcement powers for surveyors of ships to check for compliance with this chapter through inspection of vessels and the issue of notices of non-compliance. Section 49 sets out the maximum monetary fines for which the master or owner of a ship is liable if convicted in court of breach of the provisions of this chapter.

Chapter 5 deals in the same manner with tendering operations regulations. This is comprised of sections 50 to 56, which provide for the safety regulation of tendering operations. Section 50 provides the definitions for the terms used in chapter 5. Section 51 sets out application of chapter 5. Basically, the owner or master of a passenger ship or boat who proposes to undertake a tendering operation must apply to the Minister for a permit to undertake the operation and this step consists of submitting a tendering operations safety plan. Section 52 is an enabling provision to allow the Minister to make tendering operations regulations and to prescribe requirements for safe operations. Section 53 provides for the issue of permits to tender and prohibits the carrying out of tendering operations without having a permit in force. Section 54 imposes duties on owners and masters of a ship or boat in respect of the carrying out of tendering operations. Section 55 provides enforcement powers for surveyors of ships to inspect any ship or boat, including a tender or a vessel's tender, to check that a permit to tender is being complied with. Section 56 sets out the maximum monetary fines for which the master or owner of a ship or boat is liable if convicted in court for breach of the provisions in this chapter. Section 11 of the Bill is a consequential amendment. If tendering regulations are provided in chapter 5, it requires that an amendment be made to the text to section 11 of the Bill to exclude a reference to "tenders".

Safe manning regulations are dealt with in chapter 6, comprising sections 57 to 63, the purpose of which is to put enabling provisions in place for the regulation of safe manning on SOLAS ships. Section 57 provides definitions for terms used in chapter 6. Section 58 sets out the application of chapter 6. Section 59 is an enabling provision to allow the Minister to make safe manning regulations to prescribe requirements for the appropriate minimum safe manning of ships. Section 60 provides for a procedure for the submission of proposals by the owner of an Irish ship on international voyages to the Minister for safe manning and the issue of safe manning documents. No unauthorised change can be made in the minimum safe manning of the ship and a ship is prohibited from going to sea without having a minimum safe manning document in force. Section 61 imposes duties on owners and masters of ships to which this chapter applies to comply with safe manning requirements. Section 62 provides enforcement powers for surveyors of ships to check for compliance with this chapter through inspection and issue of notices of non-compliance. Section 63 sets out the maximum monetary fines for which the master or owner of a ship is liable if convicted in court of breach of a minimum safe manning requirement.

Chapter 7, comprising sections 64 to 66, deals with unsafe ships and is to provide that any unsafe ships may be detained by a surveyor of ships. Section 64 provides that this deterrent and enforcement measure to detain an unsafe ship applies in respect of the proposed new SOLAS and safety regulation provisions in the chapters to which I have just referred. Section 65 provides that a ship or boat may be detained by a surveyor of ships in a port in the State on the grounds of being regarded as an unsafe ship until the relevant certificate, permit or document is issued. Section 66 provides for the issue of a notice of detention that is withdrawn when the defect is remedied.

As for other enforcement measures, I also propose amendments to extend the application of other enforcement measures under the Bill. Section 37 of the Bill prohibits the obstruction of a surveyor of ships while performing duties under the Bill. An amendment is required to section 37 to include the performance of duties under the proposed new chapters. Section 38 of the Bill provides that a surveyor of ships may apply to a Circuit Court for a compliance order where certain requirements under the Bill are not complied with. An amendment is required to section 38 to bring the new chapters within its scope. Section 39 of the Bill provides for the making of a fees order. An amendment is required to section 39 to cover new verification elements and to bring the proposed new chapters within its scope.

Members can see that the proposed SOLAS chapters and safety regulation provisions follow a clearly defined structure. Their purpose and intent can be clearly seen and the contribution they would make to significantly strengthen the Bill in respect of maritime safety is evident. I commend this amendments to the House.

First, I note Members are following an unusual procedure in this respect. It is rare and I presume this must be done because there is no other way of doing this. My criticism of this process is that while Fine Gael does not disagree with the content or nature of the provisions before the House, this is such an inherently complex and important matter that it ought to have been present in the Bill ab initio. While this process obviously is necessary now, it should have been done before this. Having rapped the Minister over the knuckles and sent him back to do his homework——

I accept the criticism.

Very well. That said, the task of Members this morning is to facilitate the Committee Stage debate as soon as it commences, which is the reason they have short points to make. This is a highly complex issue and it is important to get it right. Members must tease out on Committee Stage whether there are special or significant Irish aspects to this convention that ought to be included but which are not. Similarly, they must ascertain whether this international convention can be made stronger or whether there are areas in which one could add to the regulations to make it safer for all.

I wish to address two issues. First, the issue of alcohol consumption was raised during the Committee Stage debate and I tabled an amendment proposing new regulations to control drink-driving at sea. In other words, it pertained to a person on a vessel, not necessarily its master, who has consumed alcohol and is working on the ship. I note this issue is not included in these proposals. My key point at the time was that the Marine Casualty Investigation Board made a recommendation to the Department of Transport concerning the lack of legislation covering drunkenness on a vessel and the fact that a legal alcohol limit did not apply to anyone, be they masters or crew. The Minister indicated that he would address these issues on Committee Stage, but he has not identified them from what I see. What is the status of the proposal, which the Minister accepted in principle? It is important that it be addressed and that the same rules apply on boats as apply to drivers of land vehicles. I await the Minister's comments.

Marine safety is an important issue. During yesterday's Priority Questions, we debated the rescue services, particularly as they relate to people who get into difficulty on boats in the south east. I asked the Minister a direct question, but I was not satisfied with the reply. I asked whether the Air Corps had been consulted on providing the marine helicopter rescue service. Unless I am misquoting him, he told me that it had been approached. As I understand it, the Air Corps has made no assessment of whether it can provide such a rescue service from Baldonnel for the Dublin area. Were such an assessment carried out, it would show that the Air Corps had the capacity to provide the service and that the €500 million the Government will give the preferred contractor, who has gone through due process, would militate against the service's provision by the Air Corps.

Yesterday afternoon, we asked for the transport committee to meet urgently to debate this issue further before the Minister signs the order. Will he clarify the issue? The Air Corps was not consulted and has not carried out a fact-finding analysis of whether it could provide the service and what the service's cost would be. If the Air Corps was asked to conduct the analysis, we would find that the cost of providing the service would be significantly cheaper, that the Air Corps could expand its current role at Baldonnel, meaning that it would not need a new facility, and that it would be better for the country in the long run.

I wish to reiterate another of my points on marine safety that I made yesterday. The population, particularly the maritime population in the broadest possible sense from fishermen to vessel owners and so on, is concerned that if people get into difficulty outside the 12 hours during which a service is provided on-site, they will not all be reached within the golden hour. People are worried that, despite the €500 million that is to be spent during the next ten years, the Minister is not making the same provision for saving each of those lives as he has made everywhere else. There is no way a helicopter in Dublin can bilocate. If a vessel off the coast of County Waterford or Wexford is in difficulty, a helicopter from Waterford would get there more quickly than a helicopter from Dublin would irrespective of how powerful the latter is. People would be in the water for longer than necessary. This must result in tragedy. When immersed in water, survival time has nothing to do with being a good swimmer. Rather, it has to do with losing body heat. Someone can die quickly.

The decision the Minister is about to make places people at risk and will lead to tragedy. Despite the number of lives that could clearly be saved, the Minister's decision will save €1 million per year. For an extra €10 million in a budget of €500 million, the Minister would be able to guarantee the timely arrival of a rescue helicopter on a 24-7 basis in the south east. This is the core of my criticism of the Minister's actions. We are deeply unhappy with this situation and will raise it on Committee Stage. I want to Minister the revert to those who told him that the Air Corps, as opposed to the Department of Defence, had been asked to conduct an analysis.

The greater part of this debate will occur on Committee Stage. I have spoken with the Minister's officials. Key to this issue is that the end users who will be affected by these regulations should be consulted beforehand. This legislation will allow the Minister to make those regulations. There should be full consultation with every body or person that will be affected by these proposals. I accept the principle that we must apply international safety regulations rigorously and as quickly as possible. I would have no problem with supporting Committee Stage amendments to go above and beyond the international regulations. Will the Minister reply to my points, please?

I would like to place on the record of the House my unhappiness with the manner in which the Merchant Shipping Bill 2009 is effectively being given a second introduction. We have already gone through Second and Committee Stages of the Bill. This morning, we should have been finalising this critical legislation on Report Stage and sending it forward for signing it into law. Instead of dealing with Report Stage amendments, we are having a constricted form of a further Second Stage reading because of legal issues concerning the Minister's new amendments. In my time in the Dáil, I have never experienced this type of legislative messing.

It is clear that what we have before us is new legislation. In effect, the list of amendments is nearly 50 pages long, longer than the original Bill. We are introducing a new merchant shipping Bill as a series of amendments to the original Bill. Why were these amendments not introduced as a separate merchant shipping Bill? Three such Bills are on the clár of the Dáil. Why were all of the new chapters on rules on chemical tanker rules, liquefied gas carriage, nuclear carriage, high-speed craft, tendering operations regulations and unsafe ships not incorporated into the original Bill so as to give Deputies on the Opposition benches a proper amount of time to invigilate the provisions in the context of the whole Bill? Until recently, we had no procedure for the Government to introduce a new Bill by wrapping it around an existing Bill that had not yet been passed by the Oireachtas. It is incredible that legislation on the standards regulating the passage of tankers carrying chemicals and nuclear material in Irish and international waters would be treated in this shoddy and slipshod manner.

As I stated during the original Second Stage debate on the Bill in May, I welcome its belated introduction, in particular the provisions on enhancing the safety regulations for mariners, increasing access to passenger vessels for persons with reduced mobility and implementing the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, SOLAS, and the Maritime Labour Convention 2006. Many of these measures are long overdue and are a first step towards addressing the sometimes horrific conditions that marine workers are forced to endure. However, it is disappointing that it has taken since 2006 for the Maritime Labour Convention to be implemented into law. What further steps have been taken in the ratification process for this critical international convention? The Minister referred to an upcoming international maritime conference in the Philippines.

I have registered my opposition to the appalling way in which this Bill is being introduced to the House but I welcome the content of many of the Minister's new amendments in Part 3 to strengthen the law on rules and regulations for certain vessels, including chemical tanker rules, liquefied gas carriage rules, nuclear carriage rules, high-speed craft rules, tendering operations regulations and unsafe ships. However, I have grave concerns about the nuclear carriage rules and I will return to them later.

One of my key concerns is that the regulations contained in the Part 3, Chapters 1 to 7, are not strong enough, given the very dangerous situations we are, potentially, dealing with in this case. These concerns are reflected in the series of further amendments to the Minister's amendments, which I have submitted on behalf of the Labour Party.

One of the glaring problems, which I highlighted on Committee Stage, is the level of fines. I have submitted a number of amendments to update the level of fines in the ministerial amendments from €100,000 to 10% of annual turnover. In many cases we are dealing with global companies with an annual turnover of billions of euro. A fine of €100,000 may be nothing more than small change to these global conglomerates and act as no deterrent to the bad treatment of workers and misbehaviour in Irish waters. It makes much more sense to fine a company or a ship's owner or master based on their income and ability to pay. The United Kingdom has taken a lead in this area and it is one we could follow.

With regard to chemical tankers and vessels carrying liquefied gas or nuclear material, the Minister should have specified as a key part of the categorisation of these vessels that they all have double hulls. I would like the Minister to address that matter in his reply. We had a long campaign for double-hulled oil tankers. I believe that all ships which carry material of such a potentially dangerous nature should be designed and constructed to the highest safety standards, which clearly includes double hulls. I understand that in the aftermath of the horrific Exxon Valdez disaster the US government mandated that every newly built oil tanker using US ports must have a double hull. If double hulls are necessary for oil tankers, then they are just as or even more necessary for tankers carrying nuclear, liquefied gas or chemical materials. Why did the Minister not include a specific provision in each of the Chapters 1 to 7 in Part 3 on a specific requirement for double hulls?

These amendments are in a totally new format which I have not seen in legislation from the Department I invigilate on behalf of my party. They are organised on the basis of chapters, which we have not seen before.

The new Part 3, Chapter 1 deals with chemical tanker rules. The measures in this chapter would allow the Minister to make rules "prescribing requirements for the hull". Why were more specific provisions not prescribed in law in this regard?

The IBC reference in the definitions to this chapter refers to the international code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying dangerous chemicals in bulk. What happens to ships that are awarded an IBC code if they are transferred to a flag of another state, especially one that has not signed up to the code? I hope the Minister will clarify this matter in his reply. I welcome the mention of liquefied gas carriage in the Bill. Liquefied natural gas is of growing importance for the energy needs of European Union states. In Ireland, there is the proposed Shannon Estuary facility which we discussed at the Joint Committee on Transport. Our closest neighbour, the UK, has an even greater reliance on liquefied natural gas and it is a very important British industry. Clearly there are implications through the carriage of liquefied gas materials for our territorial waters. Can the Minister indicate the level of traffic through Irish waters that involves the carriage of liquefied gas? Yesterday, the joint committee heard an interesting proposal for a gas storage facility in the Larne estuary from a company in Northern Ireland.

I again highlight the vague nature of many of the provisions contained in Chapter 2 on liquefied gas carriage rules. In subsection (27)(a) why are there not more precise requirements on the regulations and strict safety and quality standards that the Minister must impose on any ships to which this chapter applies? In Chapter 2 subsection (28) what happens to a vessel that has been certified under the international code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk — the IGC code — but which then transfers to a different flag? These are very profound questions which the Minister must address.

Chapter 3 in Part 3 deals with nuclear carriage rules. This is of great interest to everyone in this House. First, can the Minister clarify whether the chapters on chemical tanker rules and nuclear carriage rules are only being given legislative effect due to our obligations under international maritime law and treaties and for the regulation of international waters? Are we accepting the carriage of nuclear waste and other nuclear materials through our waters? Serious concerns have been raised about the potential passage of certain ships in Irish waters especially those carrying nuclear materials. Can the Minister reassure us that there are not various ships traversing through Irish waters and carrying lethal nuclear or other dangerous chemicals that may put our people or environment at serious risk? Throughout the years we have had discussions and controversies about Sellafield and the Irish Sea. Are vessels with nuclear material actually allowed to travel through Irish waters? What type of chemical tankers use Irish waters? The Minister has said we have two of these and that we have no nuclear flagged vessels.

There have been very serious problems in the past in relation to the transfer of nuclear materials. Many people will remember in 2002 when the famous Greenpeace ship the Rainbow Warrior was involved in a campaign to intercept two armed merchant ships that were travelling through the Irish Sea en route from Japan to Sellafield carrying more than 200 kg of mixed oxide nuclear fuel. There has been an appalling environmental degradation of the Irish Sea, allegedly with nuclear waste especially from the Sellafield plant in Cumbria in the UK. As Mr. Frank McDonald reported in the Irish Times in 2008, Sellafield has the world’s biggest stockpile of plutonium and uranium. How will all of this waste be deposed of? Will it be transported through the Irish Sea? We saw some vessels going in the opposite direction and bringing plutonium waste back to Japan. Why did the Minister not introduce measures in this section to address the threat of further exposure in the Irish Sea and other Irish waters to nuclear waste?

In 2004, there was, rightly, a major outcry over the shipment of more than 300 pounds of weapons grade plutonium from the US to France by two ships which travelled just 150 miles off the Irish coast. I was my party's spokesperson on marine affairs at the time. The then Minister, former Deputy Martin Cullen, had to address intense public fears over the massive catastrophe that people feared if there was any kind of incident or accident involving this toxic cargo. I remember also that the Government at that time raised the issue at the International Atomic Energy Agency and sought clarification on the movement of nuclear waste in international waters. Most Irish people would totally oppose the movement of this type of deadly cargo through Irish waters.

Section 35 in Chapter 3 refers to "Irish Ships" to which this law will apply. The Minister has answered my question regarding Irish registered ships involved in the carriage of nuclear materials.

Regarding section 36 on prescribing rules for vessels involved in nuclear carriage, I again ask the Minister to accept the Labour Party's amendments on double hulls and to include much more specific provisions in the Bill.

Section 37 refers to certification of Irish ships under the international code for the safe carriage of packaged irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium and high level radioactive wastes on board ships. Are Irish registered ships involved in the carriage of high level radioactive material? By incorporating this provision into Irish law are we not, in effect, accepting the carriage of nuclear and potentially lethal material through our waters? Section 37(c) refers to some ships carrying nuclear waste as being “unsafe ships”. Given the toxic material they are carrying, can any ship carrying nuclear and radioactive material ever really be safe? Particularly with regard to the offences under section 41, the Minister must urgently strengthen the level of fines that can be imposed in this instance. I hope the Minister will provide urgent clarification on all of these matters pertaining to nuclear carriage rules.

Chapter 4 introduces provisions to deal with high-speed craft. In section 44(2), has the Minister considered introducing requirements on accessibility to these crafts for citizens with a disability? We discussed this matter when we debated Committee Stage of the previous Bill. I assume that high-speed craft may include some of the catamaran type vessels that provide short-haul passenger ferry services. If this is the case, why are there no accessibility requirements? In subsections (45)(3) and (45)(5) why again do these provisions not apply to all high-speed craft in Irish waters and what happens if the vessel is transferred to another state? Subsection (48) contains measures on the powers of surveyors. Can surveyors board and inspect any high-speed craft in Irish waters?

In the safe manning regulations in subsection 58(1) of Chapter 6, why did the Minister exclude ships of war, troop ships, fishing vessels under 24 m in length and pleasure yachts not engaged in trade? In subsection 59(3)(b) in the same chapter why are these regulations only for use “where applicable”? Surely this undermines all of the important regulations on training requirements in relation to fire fighting and emergency and life-saving equipment if there is a “get out” clause for vessels. Will the Minister clarify when these regulations will be applicable?

I welcome subsection (60) on safe manning documents and urge the Minister to ensure that there is strict invigilation of these documents. The Minister should also strengthen the level of fines applicable to those found guilty of offences under this chapter.

Chapter 7 deals with unsafe ships and I believe that the question must be asked again whether we can ever designate a ship that is carrying nuclear waste and radioactive material as safe. Surely all ships involved in nuclear carriage are unsafe.

Finally, I ask the Minister to clarify the amendment he is introducing in this section regarding the retirement age for maritime pilots. With other Opposition Members I made strong representations to the Minister on this matter when we debated the Harbours Bill. Many maritime pilots have been in contact with me who were desperately opposed to the current legislation which forced all maritime pilots to retire at 60 even when they are perfectly competent and in the full of their health. Will the current amendment mean that maritime pilots will be able to continue working indefinitely once they have passed the relevant fitness to practise and competency tests?

The manner of the Bill's introduction is disgraceful. We have waited a long time for these changes. One of the most profound deficiencies in all of the marine legislation that the Minister and his colleagues have introduced is his refusal to address vessels that are in Irish waters but are not sailing under the Irish flag. I appreciate that there are difficulties in this regard but it is appalling that the Minister has not even tried to take a first step to address this problem. That is the reason I introduced a series of amendments to the Minister's amendments. I sought to ensure that these new rules and regulations will not simply apply to an Irish registered ship but that they will apply to any ship travelling in Irish waters.

I am sure the Acting Chairman has often heard me say the phrase, "if you bought it, a ship brought it". Mariners throughout Ireland have often repeated this phrase. Some 99% of our trade and imports come through our ports and marine workers on Irish and non-Irish registered ships play a vital role in this regard. It is the maritime laws, or lack of them, in place where the ship is registered that applies on board any ship and which gives carte blanche to some appalling operators to mistreat and exploit their workers.

As a maritime nation, why do we not take a lead on this issue? I tabled a series of amendments on Committee Stage, which basically amounted to a resubmission of my Bill on the abolition of people using flags of convenience, but they were ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle after a vote on Committee Stage on what is now the first Part of the Bill. I do not understand why we, as a maritime nation, do not take a lead and expose the nonsense of ships registered in places like Mongolia, the Grenadines and other places in the West Indies.

One of the greatest disappointments in the new Bill before us is that the Minister has still refused to accept my amendments on mariners' rights and those relating to the legislation I submitted on flags of convenience, the enhancement of the port state control mechanism to include the monitoring and invigilation and fiscal and salary entitlements of marine workers and the introduction of regulations to enhance the system of monitoring wages and conditions of maritime workers on Irish and non-Irish registered ships and ports.

I published my Private Members' Bill, the Mercantile Marine (Avoidance of Flags of Convenience) Bill 2005, to tackle the use of flags of convenience. I submitted an amendment that was a summary of my Bill to be part of this Bill and I deeply regret that the Minister did not accept it.

I welcome the content of much of this new amended Merchant Shipping Bill but I strongly protest at the manner in which the Minister has introduced these new sections. Certain amendments are necessary to strengthen the monitoring and enforcement regime and to address the horrific exploitation of seafarers. I would like the Minister in his reply to address all the concerns people have about carriage of nuclear materials and whether, by accepting this measure, we are accepting that other states and maritime companies would be allowed to carry dangerous, toxic materials through our waters.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about marine safety and the safety of merchant shipping, particularly the search and rescue services that provide that safety and especially the services, as my colleagues said, that exist in the south and south east. The Minister was not present for the matter we raised on the Adjournment last night on which Members from the Labour Party, Fianna Fáil Party and Fine Gael Party spoke. It is worthwhile repeating some of the points made because they are pertinent to a service on which people's lives depend. Decisions that will be made by the Government in the next week will affect the lives of fishermen and people who use the water, not only people offshore but people inland who rely on our Coast Guard service and have done so in my area since 2004 when Members on the opposite side lobbied successfully to have a 24-hour service in the south east.

With regard to what has occurred over the past three or four days, it began this week at a meeting with senior officials of the Department of Transport and the head of the Irish Coast Guard service. A comparison of the subsequent comments by the Minister with the comments of the officials we met on Monday reveals some contradictions and extreme variances. First, and possibly most significantly, the Minister made it clear in an interview he gave on Monday at a road opening in Kilkenny that the Coast Guard service was the entity which made the recommendation that went to Cabinet and that the Cabinet decided the three and a half bases and the downgrading of the service in Waterford after 2013. It was made clear to us at the meeting on Monday that this was not the case. In fact, the Coast Guard service submitted a range of options to the Department.

The Department was the entity that crafted and constructed the recommendation that went to Cabinet and no one else. Therefore, it is completely wrong, misleading and untruthful to say that the Coast Guard service was the entity that issued that recommendation. We asked the officials specifically about the process and that is what they told us.

With regard to the Minister's comments about a better service being created for the south and south east, that is simply not the case. The officials made it clear to us at the meeting on Monday that they could not say it was a better service for the south or south east because, in a case of emergency, the helicopters would not arrive as quickly after 2013 as they do now. That represents a massive variance and a contradiction of what the Minister has been saying during the week.

The meeting we had on Monday and the debate that has continued throughout the week rests upon one simple premise, namely, how can much more money, in this case €20 million extra per year, be spent on a service and there be a downgrading of an aspect of it? That is simply down to bad governance. It comes down to a cost of €1 million per year for the protection of south and south east coastlines in terms of the search and rescue service and the availability of an extra €1 million. The Department officials made it clear to us that the Department did not have the required €1 million. When one examines the issue, the way Government is proceeding, what has occurred during the past five or six years and the mismanagement the Government is culpable of, one can point the finger of blame directly at the mismanagement by Government when it comes down to a small amount of money that would maintain the search and rescue service in the south east after 2013.

I have asked the newly appointed Minister of State at the Department with responsibility for fisheries, Deputy Seán Connick, and the newly appointed Minister for Defence, Deputy Tony Killeen, to examine the budgets in their Departments, which have direct relevance to seafaring issues, the subject of merchant shipping that we are discussing and fisheries. There is also the relationship between the Coast Guard service and the Department of Defence. In other words, I am doing the work the Government should be doing. No one in the Government seems to be bothering to come up with the money required through different Departments that have direct relevance to the Department of Transport. Collectively, this would not be a hard thing to do. From among those three Departments, particularly in regard to the fisheries area and the protection of fishermen, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that those Departments could take time to make those necessary contacts to try to work this out.

I said on the Adjournment last night that I noted a massive contradiction. The Road Traffic Bill was debated in the House yesterday and I will not go into the argument of the rights or wrongs of it, the specific element of the blood-alcohol level and the lowering of the those levels. The premise for the Bill and the lowering of the blood-alcohol levels was that it might save five or six lives over the course of a year. That argument was trotted out by many Members, including the Minister. This approach is contradicted by the decision to remove a night-time marine health and safety service as its removal will affect lives. While the Government justifies the lowering blood alcohol levels for drivers by a purported concern to reduce road deaths, its decision not to fund an essential safety service after 2013 will have an effect on people's lives. That is a major contradiction.

I live alongside the channel of the Colligan River as it enters Dungarvan Bay. In the six years that I have lived in my home I have been woken at night at least four times by the Coast Guard helicopter fishing bodies out of the channel or searching for people who have fallen or jumped in at the quay in Dungarvan. It takes 45 minutes for an emergency helicopter to be loaded for take off. This means 45 minutes will elapse before the helicopter is off the ground. Even if the new helicopters are 50% faster than those they will replace, provided there are no head winds a further 30 or 35 minutes will be needed to reach Dungarvan.

I have been told by helicopter crews and others involved in this area that the pocket of sea where most problems arise is 50 or 60 miles south of the Hook. The reason we need a helicopter in Waterford is to deal with incidents where people get into difficulty. While the Minister may argue that the helicopters are faster and the service will be better, people who get into difficulty in my area will be more vulnerable and will die if an appreciable period elapses before a helicopter arrives on the scene.

There is a week left before the contract is signed. The Government must change the decision it made. As Deputy John Browne, chairman of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party, stated in the Chamber last night, the decision is daft and does not make sense. It is bad government, a poor use of resources and money and it will cost lives.

The Minister indicated during the Second Stage debate in May that the objective of the Bill was to put in place a safety regime ensuring the highest standards for safe construction, design and operation of vessels and the up-to-date safety equipment and arrangements that will support skilled and competent seafarers across the trading, fishing and leisure areas of the maritime sector. The SOLAS matters in the Bill, as published, include construction rules for passenger vessels, cargo ship construction and survey rules, radio rules, navigation and tracking rules, cargo ship bulk carrier rules, fire protection rules, rules for life saving appliances and arrangements and improvement of service stations for inflatable life saving appliances.

The main new amendments are the subject of the motion and relate to chemical tankers, gas carriers, carriage of nuclear cargo, safe manning and additional SOLAS related measures. I appreciate that the proposed SOLAS and safety amendments that are the subject of the motion are lengthy and technical in nature. In light of this, the Minister gave advance notice of the proposals to Opposition spokespersons in December last and requested the Bills Office to provide early release of the proposed amendments to give extra time for their consideration. On behalf of the Minister, I thank the Bills Office for facilitating earlier release of the proposals on 28 January to members of the Select Committee on Transport. A detailed briefing note was issued by the Department in early February. The Minister hopes this information has been of assistance in informing the debate.

The contents of each of the proposed chapters on SOLAS are set out in the standard framework to provide enabling powers to make rules or regulations for Irish ships to which the chapters apply and other ships engaged in such carriage while in any port in the State and to provide for the survey and certification of Irish ships to which the chapters apply. They set out the duties of owners and masters, provide powers to surveyors of ships for inspection and enforcement and set out offences and maximum levels of court fines.

A number of issues were raised regarding the structure of the amendments. The reason the amendments were structured as they are is that Parliamentary Counsel has adopted a new drafting format for complex Bills designed to improve clarity in primary legislation. The proposals in the Bill follow this format. While this results in a higher number of sections, the structure in the chapters and sections is clearer in presentation.

I understand Deputies O'Dowd and Deasy raised questions and queries concerning the issue of alcohol and drug testing. The thresholds for alcohol are not specifically provided for in maritime legislation at present. The approach taken in Ireland was to make provision in the Maritime Safety Act 2005 to prohibit the operation of vessels where a crew is impaired by being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Section 28 prohibits operating a vessel while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Section 29 outlines the offences on drunkenness of a crew and section 30 sets out offences on the control of drugs and alcohol by the masters of vessels.

I note Deputy Deasy's remarks and will bring them to the attention of the Minister who was called away to attend another engagement. Deputy O'Dowd raised the issue of Air Corps involvement in search and rescue. The Department of Defence has confirmed that the Air Corps does not have the capacity to undertake maritime search and rescue, in particular, in terms of trained pilots, winchmen and properly equipped helicopters. Air Corps helicopter assets are not configured for maritime search and rescue and there are no plans to restore this capacity as significant investment in equipment and training would be required over many years before it could be brought to an operational level.

Deputy Broughan raised issues regarding troop ships. The reason certain vessels, including troops ships, ships of war, fishing vessels and certain recreational craft, were excluded is that these vessels are excluded under SOLAS and the purpose of the Bill is to put in place enabling provisions for the implementation of SOLAS. Separate domestic legislation applies to fishing boats, etc., under the earlier Merchant Shipping Acts.

Deputy Broughan asked what would happen if a ship which had the IBC code certificate, etc., under one state was transferred to a non-convention state. The proposals in the amendments provide that the international certificate of fitness for chemical, gas and nuclear carriage cease to be in force upon transfer of a ship to the flag of another state. I hope I have provided some clarification. I will bring Deputies' comments to the attention of the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn