Recommittal will be necessary for amendment No. 1. It is consequential on amendments Nos. 107 and 108. Amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendment No. 107. Therefore, amendments Nos. 1, 2, 107 and 108 may be discussed together.
Merchant Shipping Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments No. 1 and 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 15, after "2005" to insert the following:
"AND TO AMEND AND EXTEND PART IV OF THE HARBOURS ACT 1996".
I propose to take amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 107 together. The purpose of amendment No. 107 is to include an amendment to the Harbours Act 1996. As a consequence of amendment No. 107, amendment No. 2 is required to amend the citation in section 1. Amendment No. 1 is required to expand the long title to reflect the amendment to the Harbours Act 1996.
By way of explanation, Deputies will recall in our debate during the passage of the Harbours (Amendment) Act 2006 that the issue of compulsory retirement for marine pilots upon reaching 60 years of age arose. I had hoped to address this issue during the passage of that Act but, as I outlined during the debate, several complex issues were identified during discussions between my officials and the Office of the Attorney General. The matter required further examination but I am pleased to indicate now that we are in a position to bring forward this amendment to remove the compulsory retirement provision for marine pilots at age 60 years.
As I outlined in the previous debates on the matter, a key area of concern was the need to maintain the highest standard of maritime safety, especially in light of the vitally important role our marine pilots play within the shipping industry. Deputy Broughan raised this issue in particular. As well as removing the provision of compulsory retirement at age 60 years, the amendment introduces a new section to the Harbours Act 1996 which would require all marine pilots to satisfy the relevant port company that they meet the required standards of medical fitness deemed necessary to carry out their duties. Furthermore, the section states these examinations should be carried out not less than once every two years, which is in line with the medical requirements imposed upon seafarers generally. I am satisfied that the removal of this compulsory retirement at 60 years of age provision together with the medical fitness requirements will help to ensure not only that capable marine pilots are allowed to continue in work beyond 60 years of age, but that the crucial demands of navigational safety will be met.
The introduction of the provision requiring medical fitness standards in the profession mirrors the current situation and practice where such requirements are common place. It was also one of the recommendations of the investigation into the Bro Traveller incident in Dublin in 2005. The report recommended that port companies implement the IMO, International Maritime Organization, pilot resolution A9.60 on which medical health requirements are based. The section also provides for the suspension of a pilot from duties should he or she not meet the required medical standard. The amendment provides for an appeal process for both licensed and employed pilots should their licence or employment be suspended or revoked. The appeal process is similar to an existing appeal process contained in section 73 of the 1996 Act with regard to the suspension or revocation of a pilot's licence. Amendment No. 108 tabled by the Labour Party proposes to address the matter by substituting "65" for "60", but the Deputy will agree that the way we are doing this is probably better because it does not create any limitations except health ones.
I thank the Minister and welcome the amendments to the Harbours Act on the retirement age for pilots. This is a contentious matter because many pilots felt that they were being unfairly discriminated against.
I commend the Minister for listening at the time that we debated the Harbours Bill, when he gave an undertaking. He has come forward now with this formula, which, as I understand it, will be probably the way of the future in that if one is fit enough to do the job, age does not enter into it. This is the way matters are progressing.
The original amendment I tabled on the age of 65 was proposed by the pilots' association. However, I welcome the amendments and I thank the Minister. It is often stated that being in Opposition is a fruitless task, but sometimes Ministers listen. On this occasion, the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, listened and I welcome that. It will be good for those who work in the area.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, line 23, after "this Act" to insert "(other than section 42)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, line 4, after "Oireachtas" to insert "for approval".
This is a standard amendment that we, in the Labour Party, often table to major new legislation. Often we are unhappy about the way materials are laid before the Oireachtas. We are suggesting that every order, regulation and rule be laid before the Oireachtas for our approval.
There was an interesting example of this recently when it was reported in the media that Opposition Deputies had received a copy of the latest Kelly report on the Dublin Port tunnel which commends or apparently gives a clean bill of health to the NRA, but I have never seen this document. It is an important issue which my colleague, Deputy O'Dowd, has raised on many occasions at the Joint Committee on Transport.
I ask that the Minister consider this small amendment, under which we would have to give approval to major changes in the legislation or to regulations introducing major elements in far-reaching legislation.
As the Deputy stated, it is a fairly standard amendment tabled by the Labour Party to most Bills that come before the House and the response he will get is fairly standard as well. No doubt if the roles were reversed I would be getting the same answer from him.
It is not considered necessary to go through this particular procedure for secondary legislation. The section provides the standard element in the process, that either House may within 21 days pass a resolution annulling the secondary legislation instrument if it does not approve of the order, regulation or rule that is being made under the Act. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.
I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 23, 26, 28 to 30, inclusive, 83 and 94 are cognate to amendment No. 4. Therefore, amendments Nos. 4, 23, 26, 28 to 30, inclusive, 83 and 94 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 8, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"(e) the flag under which the vessel is registered;”.
These amendments relate to each element of the Bill on the flag state. As the Minister will be aware, on Committee Stage I tried to move amendments relating to the flag and, in particular, to try to get rid of flags of convenience. The essence of my amendments, which the Ceann Comhairle ruled out at this Stage, was basically to make flags of convenience illegal in so far as it affected our trade or ships going off our register.
As the Minister will be aware, it has been a long discussion. I launched that Bill, which, I think, is still on the Clár and was on the Clár of the previous Dáil. Obviously, it relates to the long years of suffering by maritime workers, those who carry out 99% of our trade, of bad wages and bad conditions.
During the previous debates on this issue, I particularly commended the work of the late Mr. Tony Ayton of SIPTU and the International Federation of Transport Workers. Mr. Ayton spent a large part of his life trying to invigilate vessels coming into our waters and carrying out our trade in the major ports, such as Cork, Dublin and Waterford, and generally trying to improve the lot of maritime workers.
We had a major debate on all of these matters, which the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, dealt with in his previous ministry in 2005 when Irish Ferries moved to sack 543 workers and outsource the work to workers from Eastern Europe on massively degraded pay and working conditions. Anybody who uses the ferries regularly, as I do, will find that there have been significant changes in working conditions in the major ferries connecting Ireland with Britain.
There was also the long saga of the notorious MV Normandy where they were working for four months in total on a ship and then being forced to take three weeks’ unpaid leave. There were also serious allegations brought before this House about the MV Defender, which is berthed in Irish waters and whose crews, allegedly, were owed thousands of euro in unpaid wages.
I note that Mr. Ayton's successor, Mr. Ken Fleming, of the international transport federation and SIPTU, has continued to campaign vigorously on this matter. In this Parliament, I want to support strongly his efforts. As he told the Irish Examiner a couple of years ago, he found mass exploitation, effectively slave labour, of foreign national seafarers coming to our shores carrying out the vast bulk of our exports and imports, and he felt that major action needed to be taken against it.
The Bill deals mainly with carriage rules, construction rules, etc. However, I felt it would be important, given that it is a major merchant shipping Bill, to try to include some prescription on flags in it. Ireland is a maritime state and we should begin to take a leading role on this issue. Even where we are bringing into force the international conventions such as SOLAS and the maritime convention, we should begin to set a few headlines and move towards ending the days where states such as Mongolia, the Bahamas, Cambodia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines — perhaps 30 countries — are where so much of world trade is allegedly, unofficially or illegally based, and where the end result is desperate suffering for maritime workers. That was the reason I introduced the Mercantile Marine (Avoidance of Flags of Convenience) Bill in 2005 on behalf of the Labour Party to try to tackle these flags of convenience.
Although I accept the Minister will probably state that is the reason we cannot put this type of prohibition into the Bill, I ask that at least we would provide for a requirement that the flag of the vessel be an element of the Minister's considered powers in all the matters before us in the Merchant Shipping Bill — in other words, that the flag would be an important issue and that perhaps later on, if the Minister attends the maritime convention which will follow from this Bill being passed in this House, he might state that Ireland is one of those countries, perhaps the first, to take a strong role in the matter of the misbehaviour and ill-treatment of workers by the misuse of flags, and particularly these notorious flags of convenience.
I strongly urge the Minister to accept all of these amendments, first and foremost, in the memory of the great Tony Ayton and his campaign to make Ireland a headline country in the matter of the abuse of workers on the seas which is happening right this minute to tens of thousands of workers, especially from Asia and Eastern Europe, and that we take a step today. I urge the Minister to accept amendment No. 4 and all the other amendments to this effect throughout this Bill.
We had this discussion before on Committee Stage. While I have no problem accepting the principle of what Deputy Broughan has said on the matter, this is not the Bill for this particular type of amendment. As a fellow Trim man, I know of the work of Tony Ayton in this area. Nothing will give me greater pleasure but to be as progressive as we possibly can on these matters when we debate ratifying the Maritime Labour Convention. I accept Deputy Broughan is committed to the amendments' intentions. However, they are very separate matters to those covered by this legislation.
Amendment No. 4, concerning the flag under which the vessel is registered, may actually defeat its intended purpose if accepted since we have no regard for any flag or otherwise. This Bill will apply the rigours of the inspection system to every ship regardless of whether it is registered. Inserting this amendment will not strengthen this legislation.
The concept of the flag of convenience is not actually formally recognised anywhere. The officially recognised system in both the EU and international organisations for identifying high-risk systems is the black, grey and white list of flag states, published by the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control and available on its website. The list is used so that urgent safety inspections can be carried out on ships visiting Irish and European ports. Details of the inspections and detentions carried out under the port state control regime are also published on the Department's website.
The Maritime Labour Convention will consolidate and update 68 existing International Labour Organization, ILO, conventions and recommendations adopted since 1920. Countries that do not ratify the new convention will remain bound by the previous ILO conventions that they have ratified. There is a major incentive for a ship to register under a flag of good repute so as to avoid the potential of having a large number of inspections and detentions.
We will deal with the matters the Deputy has raised directly when ratifying the Maritime Labour Convention, hopefully before the end of the year.
The Minister has repeated what he said on Committee Stage. Originally this started as one Bill and has been merged with various others, making it very difficult to follow the amendments and the amendments to the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 83 and 94 refer to codes of practice and fire safety rules. It would be an enhancement of the Minister's powers if he accepted these amendments to invigilate against ships under flags which repeatedly give trouble with the bad treatment of workers, fire safety standards and so forth.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 75.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies John Curran and John Cregan.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 9 are cognate on amendment No. 5 and amendment No. 11 is related. Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, and 9 and 11 may be discussed together by agreement. I call Deputy Broughan to move amendment No. 5.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 9, line 30, after "installation" to insert "including full microwave and video links".
These amendments relate to our discussion on Committee Stage. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us that the radio installation referred to includes full microwave and video links. The Minister will recall I gave the example of the race into Galway of the Green Dragon, which appeared on our televisions from 700 miles off coast. I wonder if these are conditions in relation to construction and so on and if at each stage radio installation does in fact include full radio-video installation. A key point is that vessels could be in constant contact. We heard recently of progress being made in microwave radiation in regard to aeroplanes. I note the Ryanair service in this regard appears to have been withdrawn. Given the spread of microwave and radio communication, I ask that the Minister reassure the House that the full gamut of radio-television-video is included in the phrase “installation” which is used repeatedly in the Bill.
I can give the Deputy the reassurance he requires. The term "radio" is included in the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act 1952. The Deputy is proposing to insert references to full microwave and video links in respect of the type of radio equipment to be used and to require that video logs be kept. Section 15 of the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act 1952 provides that ships to which the radio communications rules apply must be provided with radio installations of such a nature as may be prescribed by the rules. The existing statutory provision is left broad and generic and does not preclude any particular type of radio communications equipment. Consideration will continue to be given when the radio rules are being made to prescribing the appropriate types of radio installation for the purposes of merchant shipping law. The existing term "radio installation" is not defined in the 1952 Act. The term, therefore, is sufficiently broad to include electromagnetic microwave and video modes to which the Deputy refers. It is not necessary to be more prescriptive in the primary legislation by including a definition of the term "radio". For this reason, I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment and reassure him that what he is seeking is already covered.
In addition, radio rules may prescribe requirements for the keeping of a radio log book. Consideration will be given when the rules are being made to prescribing the appropriate communications modes recorded by radio logs for the purpose of merchant shipping law. This relates to the Deputy's request to have video records kept. Again, it is not necessary to be prescriptive in the primary legislation in respect of the recording medium to be kept on a vessel's radio log. The intent of the Deputy's amendment is fully met and can be strengthened further when we come to addressing the radio rules.
What input does the Minister have in making the radio rules? Is it, for example, possible for him to require the keeping of a full video log? Can the Minister do that?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 10, 12, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27, 93 and 96 are cognate on amendment No. 8. Therefore, amendments Nos. 8, 10, 12, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27, 93 and 96 may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 11, line 2, after €100,000" to insert the following:
"or ten percent of annual turnover whichever is the greater".
These amendments were also discussed on Committee Stage at which time I stated my belief that the fine of €100,000 was perhaps too restrictive for the State and should be considered in the context of the development of modern regulation. The Minister may recall my discussion with him when Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in relation to how UK regulators in communications have the remit to fine an errant type communications up to 10% of turnover. I believe the same approach should be adopted in regard to marine companies. We should be able to hit them hard if they break the construction or carriage rules which run throughout this Bill. It should be possible for regulators to impose a serious fine through the courts system. We all remain devastated having heard yesterday's reports from the Minister for Finance, as is the public. The nub of that issue was the total and abysmal failure of regulation on one level and the non-existence of regulatory powers. We should try to remedy this for the future. In this case, in terms of misbehaviour in the marine industry, we should go for 10% of turnover of companies that seriously misbehave. I urge the Minister to accept these amendments.
I indicated on Committee Stage that I would consider for Report Stage the inclusion of the formula of 10% of annual turnover as a factor in determining the maximum monetary fine a court could levy. The Deputy mentioned on Committee Stage that a penalty based on a percentage of annual turnover features in some judgments and law. As the Deputy correctly stated, we both have experience of passing such legislation.
Having considered the matter, all of the advice is that while there is no objection in principle to this, it would have to be done in a careful and measured manner. When taking actions, we would have to consider issues such as it being feasible to accurately assess relevant annual turnovers in all cases arising in this sector, that a court would be in a position to use the annual turnover formula to determine in a timely manner the maximum monetary penalty available to it and to ensure the introduction of the annual turnover factor would not result in unintended consequences or inequitable or inadequate penalties. Also, it would be necessary to put in place new legislative and court administration procedures to quantify the annual turnover of a company and, where applicable, of individuals including masters and owners who are convicted on indictment.
The appropriate accounting period or periods would need to be identified in the legislation and the courts would need access to audited accounts. A problem could arise due to different accounting and certification practices in different jurisdictions. The introduction of the measure in this Bill would mean the annual turnover factor would only apply to a small number of offences provisions, while other offences provisions which are provided through the Merchant Shipping Acts will continue to provide for a specified maximum monetary fine for which a person will be liable. We would introduce an anomaly into the Act.
As a result of the complications, more time will be needed to inform the policy making process to assert if any ramifications could arise in other areas. I propose to wait until the consolidation of the merchant shipping legislation has been undertaken in my Department and then try to apply, as appropriate, uniform measures across the new statute. In that context, we would consider this. I propose to maintain the provisions as published and ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendments.
Unfortunately, we have run out of time.
Debate adjourned.