Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 May 1966

Vol. 61 No. 3

Public Business. - Merchant Shipping Bill, 1966: Second and Subsequent Stages.

The purpose of this Bill is to enable Ireland to implement the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960. This Convention was adopted by an international conference of maritime States, including Ireland, convened under the auspices of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (more commonly known, from its initials, as IMCO).

As Senators will have observed, the Bill is a rather technical one. Nevertheless, it deals with a subject which is of the greatest importance, not only to ships' crews and officers, but to all of us who have occasion, at one time or another, to travel by sea.

Living as we do on an island, it is, I think, only proper that we should as a nation have a particular interest in maritime matters. While the scope for Irish talents, in this as in so many other fields of activity, was for centuries restricted by unfavourable circumstances, nevertheless Irishmen succeeded in making their mark in seafaring. Senators may be interested to recall that the first regular steamship service in the world was undertaken—in 1823—by the Dublin Steam Packet Company. Other Irish "firsts" were the "Sirius"—an Irish-owned and Irish-manned vessel, and registered at the port of Dublin— which made the first all-steam crossing of the Atlantic from east to west, in 1838, and the Galway Line, which commenced the first regular transatlantic service, in 1850. It was, of course, also during the nineteenth century that the great shipbuilding industry of Belfast was developed.

But the sea, while it offers tremendous advantages to those who have the initiative to exploit its possibilities and resources, has also, throughout history, been a hazardous element, with its own special risks and dangers. The fear of the deep, of the perils of rock and wind and wave, finds expression in the literature of all ages and all countries. It is a sobering fact that in spite of the technical developments of modern times, there still occurs periodically some disaster to serve as a reminder to us that the age-old perils of the sea remain to be reckoned with.

Broadly speaking, it is only within the last hundred years or so that any concerted efforts have been made to ensure that ships complied with minimum standards of safety. I hope Senators will be interested in a brief sketch of the developments in this regard which have led up to the present Bill.

The great growth of both passenger and commercial shipping in the first half of the nineteenth century, particularly in the North Atlantic, and the unrestricted competition which prevailed in the laissez-faire era, led to scandalous abuses. Ships were regularly sent to sea in a dangerously overloaded state so as to secure the last possible penny of revenue; outworn vessels were kept in service; and in order to reduce operating costs the number of crew was often below the safe minimum.

The risks to which crews were exposed do not seem, as far as we can judge, to have given rise to any great public alarm. What did eventually cause public concern were the conditions in which the rapidly growing transatlantic emigrant traffic was carried. The graphic name of "coffin-ships" is one with which we, as Irishmen, have more cause than most to be familiar, since it was in such vessels that so many of our ancestors were compelled to risk the lives of themselves and their families when emigrating from their homeland in the period of the Great Famine.

The first attempts at State control of shipping were made slowly and reluctantly, being contrary to the economic doctrines of the day, and were initially applied only to passenger vessels. However, various enactments regulating merchant shipping including the safety of life at sea, were gradually passed in the second half of the last century. These culminated in the comprehensive Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, which codified and extended the scope of the law relating to shipping. This Act enabled the prevention of unseaworthy or undermanned ships from putting to sea, and provided for the survey of ships, the carriage of lifeboats, etc., the prevention of collisions by adherence to standard rules of navigation, the holding of inquiries into shipping casualties, and the suspension or cancellation of the certificates of ships' officers found to have been negligent.

The tendency towards the adoption of international standards of safety for shipping was given a powerful impetus by the "Titanic" disaster of 1912, following which an international conference of the principal maritime states was called to consider what steps they could take to render their national laws on the safety of life at sea more effective. The resulting International Convention was signed in January, 1914. It provided, among other things, for standards of construction of passenger ships; the testing of watertight doors etc., on these ships; and the carriage of sufficient numbers of lifeboats and rafts. Further provisions relating to passenger steamers covered the internal arrangement and the lighting of ships, manning of boats, certification of life-boatmen, fire prevention, and a requirement that ships carrying more than 50 persons should be fitted with wireless telegraphy equipment, that is, morse code apparatus. Passenger ships meeting these requirements would be eligible for a safety certificate; without this certificate they could not proceed to sea. However, the implementation of this Convention was held up, indefinitely as it turned out, by the outbreak of war.

After the war, measures to implement the 1914 Convention were postponed repeatedly, until eventually, in 1929, a fresh International Conference was convened to consider what alterations were necessary to the 1914 Convention. Experience during and after the war, and the great advances recorded about this time in such matters as radio communication, suggested the need to bring the original Convention up to date.

The 1929 Convention was modelled on that of 1914 but was of considerably wider scope and more detailed in character. It applied in the main only to passenger ships engaged on international voyages. Such ships were required to possess a general safety certificate, to be issued annually upon confirmation by survey that the ships complied with construction, life-saving and wireless telegraphy requirements; cargo ships of 1,600 tons gross and over were also required to carry certificates to show that they complied with the wireless telegraphy requirements. The Convention was implemented in Ireland by the Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Act, 1933.

With the passage of time and with further technical development, but more particularly in the light of the extensive experience of the working of safety equipment and procedures at sea during the Second World War, the need was felt to revise the 1929 Convention, and in 1948 another international conference was convened, which drew up a new Safety Convention. The principal advance made on this occasion was the extension of certain requirements to cargo ships. For the first time there was international agreement that cargo ships of 500 tons gross and upwards should be required to carry life-saving appliances. The range of life-saving equipment to be carried by passenger and cargo vessels was extended, varying with the size of ship. Lifeboats were required to have fixed or portable radio equipment, and ships were required to have mechanical davits for launching the lifeboats.

With regard to radio, all passenger ships, and cargo ships of 1,600 tons and upwards, were required to maintain a continuous watch on the distress radio frequency either by qualified radio officers or by automatic equipment. The requirement to carry radio was extended down from cargo ships of 1,600 tons to cargo ships of 500 tons. Whereas formerly only passenger ships of 5,000 tons were obliged to have a direction-finder, all ships, passenger and cargo, of 1,600 tons and over were henceforth required to have this equipment. Most of the Convention's provisions were applicable not only to ships of the ratifying country but to foreign ships while within that country's ports.

The 1948 Convention was given effect in Ireland by the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act, 1952, and by a series of statutory rules made under the Act in 1953.

In 1960 a further international conference was held under the auspices of IMCO to revise the 1948 Convention. IMCO, which is a specialised agency of the United Nations, came into being subsequent to 1948. It is concerned solely with maritime affairs; its first objective is to facilitate co-operation among Governments in technical matters of all kinds affecting shipping engaged in international trade and to encourage the adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning maritime safety and the efficiency of navigation. The Convention adopted by the conference in general covered the same ground as the 1948 Convention but once again was more detailed than its predecessor, and prescribed higher standards.

A notable advance was that for the first time in the history of the shipping industry it has been agreed at an international level that the hull, equipment and machinery of cargo ships of 500 tons gross and over engaged in international trade should be surveyed periodically to ensure that the various components are adequate for the service for which the ships are intended. Other advances, though not so spectacular, are the requirements regarding the carriage of radio apparatus on cargo ships of between 300 and 500 tons gross, the carriage of inflatable liferafts, and more stringent requirements regarding the subdivision of some types of passenger ship, stability, watertight integrity, safety of electrical installations, and fire control.

The 1960 Convention came into force internationally in May, 1965, when it had been accepted by the required number of 15 countries, including seven countries each with at least a million tons gross of shipping. Up to the present date the Convention has been accepted by 45 countries of the 55 in all which were represented at the 1960 Conference. Acceptor countries include Britain, France, the Netherlands, West Germany and the United States.

It has been Ireland's policy to adhere to the highest accepted international standards of safety of life at sea. Furthermore, the recognised bodies representing Irish shipowners and seamen were consulted by my Department at an earlier stage about the Convention and they had no objections to its terms. The present Bill has, therefore, been drawn up with the object of enabling Ireland to implement the Convention.

The main provisions of the Bill convey the necessary powers for the making of rules prescribing requirements regarding the construction and periodical survey of the hull, equipment and machinery of specified Irish registered cargo ships; the issue of the appropriate certificates to such ships which comply with the rules; and the application of the rules to foreign ships which are in a port in the State unless they hold appropriate certificates from their own Government. It gives power to appoint bodies such as Lloyd's Register and Bureau Veritas who would be authorised to survey the ships concerned, in accordance with the rules, and to issue the appropriate certificates, in the same way as if the vessels had been surveyed by my Department's nautical survey staff. It requires the owner or master of a ship for which a certificate has been issued to notify the issuing authority of any alteration to the hull, equipment or machinery of the ship, and it prohibits Irish ships from proceeding to sea unless they hold the appropriate certificates. Power is also taken to fix, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, fees for the survey of cargo ships for construction certificates. Provision is made for the retention of the fees by any outside body, such as those I mentioned a moment ago, who may be authorised to carry out the survey.

The Bill, as Senators will note, is primarily an enabling measure. The actual process of giving statutory effect to the detailed technical requirements of the Convention is due to take place later, through technical Rules to be made by me in virtue of powers contained in the Act of 1952 and in this Bill. These Rules will take the form of statutory instruments, and I hope that they will be made within the course of the next few months. The Rules will be laid before the Dáil and Seanad in the customary manner.

Senators will have noted that an International Conference on Load Lines was held recently under the auspices of IMCO and was attended by 60 countries including Ireland. The Conference drew up the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966. This Convention establishes minimum free-boards for ships engaged on international voyages and constitutes another important contribution to the safety of life and property at sea. The Convention will come into force internationally 12 months after it has been accepted by at least 15 countries, seven of which possess not less than one million gross tons of shipping. This Bill, has, of course, no connection with the Convention and I mention the matter only to illustrate the fact that constant attention is being devoted to the safety of merchant shipping. Further legislation will be necessary to implement the Convention in due course.

The Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960, with which the Bill is concerned, is an agreed international document which is designed to achieve a raising of world-wide standards of safety of life at sea, in the light of continuing experience and having regard to new technical developments and inventions. It has at the same time the great advantage of ensuring as far as possible that no individual country will be deterred from adopting these high standards through fear of placing its shipping at a disadvantage relative to its international competitors. Accordingly, I confidently recommend the Bill for the approval of the Seanad.

My first remarks on this Bill must be remarks of approval. Firstly, one must approve the adherence of this country to international Conventions such as the IMCO Convention of 1960 which gives rise to this Bill. One must approve of a country, such as ours, taking as active a part as possible in all matters concerned with such international Conventions. One must approve—even though we are not a great maritime nation but we are an island—that we are concerning ourselves with things maritime. One must approve of a Bill which brings such an international Convention into effect. Finally, as a Member of the Seanad, one must approve and applaud the action of the Minister in taking the unusual step of introducing this Bill into the Seanad. At least we shall have this Bill going through the legislative process carrying the characteristic colour of Seanad Bills.

When one takes a look at the Bill the first thing that strikes one about it is that here we are in 1966 passing a Bill which implements, or will allow the Minister in future to implement by regulation, a Convention which was signed in 1960. As the Minister has told us in his introductory speech the succeeding Convention of 1966 has already been held. It is quite true to say that those Conventions cannot be implemented immediately, that it is necessary, as the Minister himself has pointed out in his speech, that those Conventions be approved by a certain number of the greater maritime nations before the Convention can have any effect.

It seems it has in the past taken about four years for us to implement the various Conventions which the Minister mentioned in his opening speech. The Convention of 1929 was implemented in this country by the Act of 1933. The Convention of 1948 was implemented by us or empowered to be implemented by us, in an Act of 1952. It took four years in each case but this time it seems to have taken six years. The Minister, six years after the Convention was signed, brings us a Bill here into this House.

Examination of this Bill, and comparison of it with the British Merchant Shipping Act, 1964, indicates that what the Minister presents us today is a Bill which, with the sole exception of section 18, is a word for word copy of the Merchant Shipping Bill introduced into the United Kingdom Parliament in 1964. I think this a perfectly correct procedure. It is perfectly appropriate that the Merchant Shipping Bill for Ireland should follow in virtually every respect the Merchant Shipping Bill for the United Kingdom but we are entitled to ask the Minister why does it take two full years to copy a statute of the United Kingdom? I believe this could have been dealt with with some more despatch.

I have mentioned that the Bill is a copy of the United Kingdom Bill—and that I agree that it is proper for us to follow the United Kingdom Bill—with the sole exception of section 18 which refers to the question of certain vessels putting to sea on international voyages without approved signal lines. This signal discrepancy naturally makes one curious. I would like to ask the Minister a specific question as to why section 18 is included in the Bill? Was it that in the past previous legislation we forgot to include this provision, or is there something in our requirements in this country which calls on us to have this particular provision which is not necessary in the British legislation?

I should like, having said that I approve in general of everything in connection with this Bill except the delay which has occurred in bringing it into effect, to go on and discuss briefly the provisions in the Bill. The changes which were made in the 1960 Convention are all very much to be welcomed. They deal with the various lines of defence used in regard to safety at sea because in this question of safety at sea there is a multiple defence system.

There are, firstly, the regulations which attempt to ensure the safety of the ship itself. Those have been tightened up in many respects in regard to the present Convention and the present Bill. There are, as a second line of defence, the provisions in regard to distress signals and the manner in which those shall be sent out in the case of danger. The third line of defence deals with what is called out-of-water support, the question of adequate provision of lifeboats and of rafts. Here we have the new provisions in regard to inflatable rafts which are in the 1960 Convention and which are, indeed, a very welcome amendment and addition to the provisions for safety at sea. Furthermore, there are the further provisions in regard to the final line of defence in regard to the safety of persons at sea, the regulations in regard to lifejackets and such safety instruments. As I say, those things were agreed on by negotiation in 1960. They came into force in May, 1965, when sufficient countries of adequate size had approved the Convention. Those changes are ones to which we can certainly adhere and approve of without reservation whatsoever.

There are just a few points which I should like to raise in regard to certain matters which may or may not be the subject of regulations under this Bill. I should like to ask the Minister whether he intends to use his power to make regulations for ships smaller than 500 tons. Has he yet made a decision as to whether he will implement any of the non-obligatory requirements in the Bill or not? I should also like to ask the Minister whether he does not consider the time has come to introduce regulations to control the safety of smaller craft. There can be no doubt that a craft which carries a cargo of a substantial amount or a craft which will carry passengers in excess of 12 calls for attention. There is a great deal to be said for protecting the users of yachts and pleasure craft against the consequences of their own folly. If the Minister has any views on this point the House would welcome very much hearing what he has to say on it.

In regard to the provisions here, these are provisions enabling the Minister to make regulations carrying the 1960 Convention into force. If this House were to do its job properly with regard to this Bill and this Convention it would be necessary for it to do as it has done with the previous item on our business here today with regard to the Income Tax Bill, and refer the whole matter to a Special Committee so that it could be gone through in detail. It is not possible in open debate in the House such as we are having this afternoon and can have in ordinary committee, without reference to a Special Committee, to deal with technical and detailed matters such as this. I do not, however, see any necessity for doing so on this occasion, because this Bill follows the similar and almost identical Bill which was passed through the British House of Commons. This House and Dáil Éireann can in this particular instance just go forward on the assumption that in regard to the implementation of the 1960 Convention the House of Commons has done its work well. We are perfectly entitled to make this assumption. Britain has been a great maritime power down through the years and a great pioneer in regard to the question of safety at sea. Indeed, all the international meetings with the exception of the 1960 meeting, which was held under the aegis of a specialised agency of the United Nations, were summoned and convened at the instance of Britain. We can be sure that there would be sufficient expert opinion available in the British House of Commons to make sure that the British Merchant Shipping Act of 1964 of which our Merchant Shipping Bill, 1966, is a copy does not contain any obvious flaws. Accordingly, there should be no difficulty in ensuring that the Seanad will approve the Bill which the Minister has proposed to us today.

The Minister has told us that this Bill will give him power to make the necessary regulations to comply with the Convention of 1960. Like the previous speaker, I immediately began to wonder why we had to wait six years to get this Bill. Granted our own ships have a good record in regard to safety at sea, nevertheless I think that we should as far as we can show good example and enact in this Parliament the necessary laws in order to comply with a Convention of this type.

The Minister has told us that there had been consultation with the unions representing the workers involved in this case, and I take it that what is proposed to be done under the Bill has the approval and agreement of the trade unions concerned.

I notice, too, that the previous Bill came some four years after the 1948 Convention, and in this case we have a Bill coming six years after the Convention meeting and agreeing. I hope that the Minister will tell us in his reply why it was necessary to have this great delay. Would it not have been possible to have the legislation at an earlier date? It surely is not necessary for other powers owning a big tonnage of shipping to enact the law themselves before we can take our own initiative within our own Houses of Parliament and try to bring our laws into agreement with the International Convention.

Apart from these comments as to the delay involved, I welcome the Bill and the assurance of the Minister that the regulations intended under it will be made quickly and that there will be no delay in that respect. I congratulate the Minister on being quite poetic in his speech. He has looked from high on his subject and has told us of the fear of the deep and the perils of rock and wind. I approve of the Bill and hope that it will have a quick passage through the Seanad.

I thank the House for their reception of this Bill. So far as the timing of the Bill is concerned, the Convention only came into force internationally in May, 1965, and so it does not seem to me that there has been any undue delay in producing the Bill in regard to the time taken by other countries in bringing into force such international instruments. Again, the Bill is an empowering measure only. The question of examining technical detail does not arise in this connection because it will be dealt with in the rules to be made under the Bill. I might say for the benefit of Senators that this is an immensely complicated business, and one would have to be a technical expert in something almost as elaborate as electronics in order to understand the meaning of many of these regulations which are in this International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea 1960 Publication. It includes many elaborate algebraical calculations in relation to measurements——

First year mechanics would cover most of it.

——things that might be beyond some people in the Seanad and people like myself. As Senator Dooge has stated, our law is based on the British merchant shipping law, which goes back to 1894, and it is quite reasonable, therefore, that our Bill should follow on the same lines as the British Act.

I was asked a question about the carrying of marine signalling lamps. Senator Dooge was right in assuming that provision for this was not in the previous Act and that, therefore, section 18 of the Bill has been inserted because this is a very important requirement, and we felt that it should not, in fact, have been omitted in 1952 and it is now present in this Bill.

I was also asked about whether I proposed to apply the Convention to ships of less than 500 tons gross. My answer is "yes". It is important to have a high standard of safety for ships of all tonnage. Naturally in the case of smaller ships it will be necessary to consult with the industry as we also consulted in the case of the general terms of the Bill.

I was asked a question about smaller craft. Senator Dooge, I take it, was referring to questions raised from time to time in regard to safety of pleasure craft on the Shannon and so forth. It is an extremely complicated business. Local authorities have certain powers in regard to waters adjacent to them for the preservation of life but these powers are not well determined, are not well known, and the Board of Works and Bord Fáilte, in view of the growth of pleasure boating and fishing around the coast, are consulting to see what form of legislation we could introduce, which would be reasonably easy to enforce, to ensure greater safety in the use of small passenger craft. I imagine it will take some time before we can arrive at any conclusion. I think I have answered all the questions that have been put to me.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill considered in Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".

The Minister, in replying on the Second Stage, indicated there was not any undue delay in regard to this matter and pointed out that the Convention came into force internationally in 1965 and that there was not any great delay in our moving to approve it in 1966. I see no reason why we should be at the end of the queue. We are a small country. These Conventions are for the greater protection of small countries and I think we should certainly be among the first to approve them. There may have been practical difficulties in regard to our deciding exactly how we should implement this Convention until Britain had spoken. That is the harsh reality of the situation. However, the fact is that Britain approved it in 1964. The British Bill was in draft and British intentions were made known and announced in the British Parliament even before then. I do not think there should have been a delay of two years or more between Britain's adoption of the Convention and ours. I wish the Minister would take to heart what has been said by Senator Murphy and myself in this respect. We should not have waited until everybody else had done something and then come in. It is for us to be active and not late in matters such as the adoption of these conventions.

There is just one point I wish to make on this section. I observe in Regulation 15 of the Convention that these safety certificates shall be issued in the official language or languages of the country issuing them. Could the Minister give us an indication if these licences will be issued in the Irish language which might avoid the kind of complication which arose recently in regard to the issuing of insurance certificates?

We have not made any decision as yet.

Surely it is not for us to make a decision. The regulation states that all certificates shall be drawn up in the official language or languages of the country before they are issued. Surely this is a matter of convention and international law, not of Ministerial decision.

Both languages, as the House knows, are official.

I am only expressing preference for the official——

We have two official languages. Do we take it these certificates, which will be based on reports by Lloyds of London, will be issued in both Irish and English?

I could not give that assurance. There is a question of our following international rules. In applying international regulations, we may have the whole thing in the Irish language as well as the English language. I shall consider it.

As the Minister says, these regulations are complex. This is only one regulation. We find, after two years' delay the Minister being hesitant. He says he still wishes to investigate the matter. Surely this is a matter that should have been decided by now.

The form of certificate is set out in the Appendix. The Minister should know what language the certificate will be set out in when issued.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill".

I should like to return to the point made on the Second Reading which arises in subsection (3) in regard to "sea-going ships of not less than such lower tonnage and of such description as the Minister may by order specify." The Minister has indicated that he intends to cover such ships of lower tonnage and he indicated it would be necessary to have discussions with the industry on this matter. I hope it is not the Minister's intention unduly to lower the standards which must apply to ships of 500 tons in applying the regulation to ships of lower tonnage. Indeed, many of these vessels of lower tonnage are less equipped to avoid collisions at sea, less equipped to deal with such hazards as fire outbreaks. I should like the Minister to give us some idea of his approach which, I trust, will be that he will apply the full standards of safety in regard to construction and otherwise to such smaller vessels whose operation and whose safety may be a matter of greater hazard than vessels of larger tonnage.

We are taking into consideration all the matters of which the Senator has spoken. Of course, a good deal will depend on the use to which ships of such tonnages are applied. International sea-going is very different from coastal shipping which varies from area to area according to the nature of the sea and weather conditions. This Bill applies to vessels likely to be built in the future which will be Irish registered. I agree we should maintain reasonably high standards, and that hazards of sea-going will apply with equal force to very small vessels not properly equipped. We intend to examine this matter with a view to having the best possible standards maintained that can reasonably be applied.

The subsection mentions ships "of such lower tonnage and such description." What is the force of the word "description"? One of the matters at present being discussed in regard to safety at sea concerns the problem in regard to the carriage of dangerous materials. I understand that IMCO have a working party on this subject at the moment. Would the Minister be able to do anything in this respect under the regulations? Would he be able to stretch the word "description" in order to cover the question of carriage by smaller vessels of particular materials?

Dangerous cargoes are already taken care of under statutory rules in previous legislation. "Description" means that one can make a distinction between tankers and dry cargo ships and one might have a different set of regulations in regard to tankers because of the fire hazard element as distinct from dry cargo ships. The word "description" covers this distinction in the sense that the Minister can provide regulations for different types of ships.

The difference between dry cargo ships and tankers?

Or any other appellation.

Could the Minister then issue regulations in regard to a ship carrying a dry cargo of chemicals?

We apply the rules for dangerous cargo which are in another Act.

The Minister will appreciate that saying it is provided for in another Act does not deal with the problem. The fact that IMCO are dealing with the matter indicates that present regulations are not adequate. The Minister may be able to use this Act as a transition measure until IMCO have reported. Apparently the Minister will not make any order until four to eight years after IMCO have made their report. I am concerned about the position in the meantime.

This Convention does not apply to regulations concerning what one puts into a cargo ship. These come under separate regulations and we have to await a decision by IMCO if we are to improve the safety measures for the safety of cargo.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill".

Do I take it that the rules under section 9 apply only to passenger vessels? I should like to ask the Minister whether these regulations apply only to passenger vessels carrying 12 or more people.

This is what might be described as a section which relates only to certain matters that were omitted in connection with passenger ships and it relates to the display in passenger ships of certain plans and information in relation to the construction of the ship. These were not inserted into the previous Convention. Although the Bill in the main applies to cargo ship construction and other safety measures, we have taken advantage of this Bill to include the requirements that certain information shall be made available and on display in passenger ships.

Then it refers not to equipment but advertising the equipment.

It refers to displaying plans on public notice boards.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 10 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill".

Again, I am concerned about the question of small cargo ships. Would the Minister give us any idea of what is the present position in regard to the radio requirements for small cargo ships?

Ships of 500-1,600 tons are required to have a radio telephone at the moment. We are not required to have it in ships under that tonnage and that is one of the regulations we may apply to ships under 500 tons.

What is the position in regard to a radio transmitter?

A radio transmitter is compulsory up to 1,600 tons but not below that.

This is a direction in which the Minister might move rapidly so as to make this available. Again, there is a question of these small ships and the lives of those in them which should be of great concern to the Minister.

When I was in charge of Fisheries, and I am sure this is the position since, all the boats issued by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara had standard radio installed, that is, in 1956. There are a great many radio installations in small ships all around the coast so I do not think the position is as serious as might appear in providing new regulations.

I would like to press the Minister by saying that the position is a serious one. I am glad to hear that these deep sea fishing vessels have this equipment but I think every cargo vessel should also have it. The Minister mentioned on a previous section that there must be a difference between deep sea-going vessels and coasters. Of course, international voyaging has different meanings. An international voyage would mean going from Dublin to Liverpool, while a coastal voyage might mean travelling from Dublin to Donegal. These differences are not very meaningful but I would like to see the position where every sea-going vessel was obliged to carry a radio transmitter, not only for the safety of the ship itself but for the communal safety of ships at sea.

There are provisions elsewhere for the reporting of hazards to navigation such as high winds and storms and the Minister should not be satisfied with anything less than complete coverage in this particular regard.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 14 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill".

As I understand it the definition of a passenger ship is a ship that carries 12 passengers or more. It has become popular to sail to continental ports on cargo boats which may carry a lesser number of passengers. This is something which did not occur to anything like the same extent when this definition was made in 1874, or perhaps it is 1894. Is there not the same case for treating as a passenger ship a vessel which carries anybody for hire or reward?

In relation to this Convention which we are discussing passengers who go on cargo ships of that kind proceed at their own risk and there is no provision in this Convention to compel the owners of cargo ships to comply with the regulations applying to passenger ships. That is quite clear and definite. The Senator is probably quite right in saying that it would be better if there were such regulations under the Convention.

It may be something our representatives will keep in mind in future. On this question I take it there may be some of these vessels which the owners would keep up to full passenger standards. Would one have any way of finding out in regard to a particular vessel whether it is necessary to display the fact that they are full passenger vessels? Would one have to write and ask the owner?

Most of these cargo boats are advertised by travel agents and I am quite sure that on the ticket purchased all the risks, privileges and regulations are indicated.

I would also say that to my knowledge of the tourist world a great many of these vessels have a very high standard and are generally run by companies who provide safety for their cargo crews. While there may be exceptions to that, on the whole on British, German, Swedish or Dutch lines there would not be any undue reason for such passengers to go on such cargo vessels.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Barr
Roinn