Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

I am also delighted to welcome the Maritime Safety Bill 2004. Although I will submit some amendments on Committee Stage, I broadly welcome a Bill that deals with such an important and, unfortunately, often neglected issue as maritime safety.

The legislation builds on the consultations held by the marine safety directorate on the wearing of life jackets and personal flotation devices a few years ago. Unfortunately, as so often seems to be the case, it took a disaster, in this case the appalling Pisces tragedy in 2002, before the safety code for life jackets and safety equipment for all leisure craft was introduced by the former Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern.

In May 2003, I welcomed the former Minister's decision to implement the regulations under the Merchant Shipping Act 1992 requiring all passenger boats, including angling boats, to be licensed and equipped with life jackets at all times. Of course, it was only at the beginning of 2003 that the former Minister requested the owners of smaller vessels to wear life jackets at all times. Regulations were finally brought forward in 2004. I commend the former Minister on moving in this area which the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, is also doing. Both Ministers have a personal interest in maritime safety. With the introduction of this Bill, we have taken a major step forward in upgrading safety standards.

The Labour Party strongly welcomes many aspects of the Bill. We hope this will indicate a much greater commitment to furthering maritime safety and establishing the highest maritime safety standards possible, especially to eliminate the circumstances which led to the tragedies to which we have had to react in recent years.

The establishment of the system of by-laws for the regulation and control of craft has been long overdue and will enable the relevant authorities to act effectively in their region and combat reckless and dangerous maritime behaviour. It is also welcome that a generally transparent system has been established that will allow citizens to understand the procedures and practices involved and respond accordingly if they are caught up in any legal action in this regard.

The most important and welcome parts of this Bill are those that make the law more effective in dealing with the incorrect use of recreational and pleasure craft. That, of course, includes jet skis which, when used recklessly, are a scourge on our waterways and coastlines. As the Labour Party spokesperson, I have had ongoing complaints of the improper use of jet skis in many locations around the country, in particular midland lakes and important fishery rivers. The problems of improper use of such craft are many and range from fatalities to serious noise pollution and congestion of our coastline to the detriment of other water users.

I welcome the fact this Bill establishes greater powers for the relevant authorities to stop and penalise such irresponsible jet skiers and to seize relevant craft, if necessary. I further appreciate that the local or harbour authorities may now be emboldened to introduce by-laws that specifically deal with such matters in their localities and, therefore, strengthen their ability to act. It is only through strict and effective enforcement of legislation against such reckless jet ski users and users of other small pleasure craft that the coastline will become a safer place for everyone. I am very disappointed the Minister of State did not go further in regard to jet skis and set up a register of owners and users and a licensing system, as in other jurisdictions. That is a key point to which I will refer later.

The Bill strengthens the law to combat dangerous behaviour in the operation of vessels and to encourage better standards generally in the operation of all sea vessels. The need for such measures is clear when one looks at the number of incidents that the Marine Casualty Investigation Board has investigated since it was established in 2002. I have counted over 20 reports issued by the MCIB since it was set up, which were all to investigate very serious marine incidents, often involving casualties. These accidents include the terrible tragedy of the Pisces at Fethard-on-Sea, County Wexford, where five people lost their lives.

The provisions in this area legislate for the necessity of a ship's commander to ensure the vessel is seaworthy, to operate the vessel in a careful and responsible manner and to prohibit the consumption of alcohol or drugs while operating the vessel and to direct crew and passengers in a mature and conscientious way. There is also a corresponding duty on any passenger or crew member to refrain from engaging in any behaviour that might jeopardise the security or safety of anyone else aboard the ship or vessel. I have one small caveat about section 31 to which I will return later.

In this regard the proper procedures and best practice for operating and participating in any sea journey are more specifically legislated for and the Bill strengthens the powers to stop, board and inspect vessels and subsequently charge or penalise offenders. It is a worthy feature of this Bill that persons may be authorised by the Minister, especially those connected with local authorities or harbour authorities, to act for the purposes of the enforcement of this legislation. If our hard-pressed Garda resources are tied up, or a local harbour authority feels it necessary to designate specific officers to combat these problems, it is possible to do so by authorising appropriate people to do so. Sections 17 and 35 are therefore valuable additions to existing law.

While I welcome any codes of practice that advance the cause of maritime safety I wonder whether aspects of the code of practice could be more strongly enforced. This arises in regard to section 34 of Part 3 which states that codes of practice may be used in criminal proceedings. Flouting the code is not breaking the law, but elements of the code might be better legislated for to ensure that the highest safety standards possible are in place in terms of seamanship, safe operation and the prevention of pollution nuisance to other persons.

The updating of the penalties liable to be incurred for breaching maritime safety regulations is timely and essential as a deterrent to offend in this area. In this regard, however, the decision of the Minister to amend Part 5, section 47(a), of the Harbours Act 1996 to increase the maximum fine of £1,500 to €5,000 but to decrease the term of imprisonment which the court can impose from 12 to six months seems counterproductive. In all these matters a strengthening rather than a weakening of penalties is essential to improve our maritime safety record.

I broadly welcome this Bill and appreciate the legislative improvements it brings to maritime safety. Maritime history in Ireland in recent years has not been without tragedy. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources reports that more than 84 people die each year in water-related accidents. Although this includes accidents not involving mechanically propelled craft it indicates the serious level of casualties associated with a lack of maritime safety each year.

Furthermore, since 2002 the Marine Casualty Investigation Board has undertaken over 20 investigations into serious maritime incidents. Many of these accidents involved factors for which this Bill attempts to legislate. These include faulty and unseaworthy vessels, reckless behaviour aboard the vessel and alcohol consumption that caused tragic accidents.

A few omissions could be rectified or improvements introduced. A welcome development in 2002 was the establishment of the Marine Casualty Investigation Board under the aegis of the Merchant Shipping Act 2002 to investigate marine fatalities that occur in Irish waters or upon Irish registered vessels. This institution's remit is to investigate the circumstances of any such marine casualties and to recommend improvements to the Minister that might prevent similar tragic events occurring. The excellent work of the Marine Casualty Investigation Board, which I commend, has ensured that many lessons have been learnt and improvements made to try to improve safety at sea for all concerned.

Unfortunately, although the Marine Casualty Investigation Board was established to advise and make expert recommendations to the Government in this regard, in this Bill the Government has not gone far enough in adopting such recommendations. This is especially true in regard to the consumption of alcohol by the skippers and crew of a vessel, about which the Marine Casualty Investigation Board has made significant statements in recent reports. While the measures introduced in this Bill to deal with alcohol consumption and marine activities are most welcome, the establishment of a maximum alcohol blood level, or perhaps a total prohibition, would have immensely strengthened the legislation and incorporated the most stringent global standards to tackle this problem. As Deputy Perry said, being an island nation we should take the lead in this matter. A maritime economy could in the future be one of the strongest assets of this State.

The Marine Casualty Investigation Board published a report into the collision between the yacht Debonair and the cargo ship Bluebird in 2001 in Dublin port which tragically resulted in the deaths of four people. In light of this the Marine Casualty Investigation Board recommended setting a maximum blood alcohol level for seafarers in a bid to combat vigorously the dangerous role of alcohol consumption in marine accidents. We can also recall the Marchioness tragedy on the Thames in London in which the skipper had consumed a large quantity of alcohol.

The need for firm action in this regard is reinforced by the fact that according to the Irish Water Safety organisation in 2002 alone alcohol consumption played a role in 37% of water fatalities. The Marine Casualty Investigation Board recommended adopting the standard advocated by the International Maritime Organisation of 0.08% blood alcohol level, namely, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, as a minimum safety measure. The International Maritime Organisation in section B of the 1995 revised International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarer's, STC 78/79, called for all members to adopt this and to prohibit the consumption of alcohol four hours prior to working aboard a vessel.

This Bill deals with the criminal consumption of alcohol prior to or during the operation of a vehicle. However, if an international expert body such as the International Maritime Organisation and the Government-established Marine Casualty Investigation Board stress the worthiness of this specific measure, surely it would be appropriate to adopt it.

Section 27 lays down a prohibition on operating vessels while under the influence of alcohol or drugs but the phrase in line 43 "to such an extent as to be incapable of properly controlling or operating the vessel in carrying out the task on duty" is too vague. What does that mean? It would be a subjective judgment if the offence came to court. Who is capable of making such a judgment on which the garda or authorised persons will give evidence? I will attempt to amend this section on Committee Stage to insert a prohibition on drinking or drug-taking for people navigating or with key roles in vessels, or, failing that, to encourage the Minister to adopt the recommendations of the Marine Casualty Investigation Board which could be the objective test in establishing the capacity of a skipper or a crew member.

Two other issues arise from section 27. If there is no prohibition on drinking or drug-taking even to the drink-driving limit, how can section 27 be implemented? I cannot locate a reference in Part 2 to the use of jet skis and other small pleasure craft while under the influence of drink or drugs. Will section 27 be replicated in Part 2 on Committee Stage?

The legislation regarding personal and recreational water craft, especially jet skis, is welcome and timely. The safety of these craft is a growing problem across all Irish waterways, whether coastal or inland. There are many complaints from midland lakes and the great River Shannon. Incidents are reported from all over Ireland ranging from fatal accidents to concerns about noise pollution and congestion that such craft often cause. The report of the Irish Coastguard in 2003-04 notes that incidents involving recreational craft to which the coastguard was called have "significantly" increased in the past couple of years.

One measure that has not been introduced in this Bill but is in operation elsewhere is the requirement that all such craft be registered. In states where jet skis must be registered the obligation to display the registration number prominently increases the ability of the police to identify and apprehend any rogue or reckless users of jet skis.

In Ireland the Garda must try to identify such users from their cars parked on the shore. They often do not have the time to wait on the shore until the jet ski drivers return to land, leaving their reckless and often dangerous behaviour unchecked. In combating rogue jet ski users other jurisdictions have police operating similar crafts which facilitates the authorities in stopping them and implementing provisions similar to those in this Bill.

Due to the risks attached to jet skis some jurisdictions insist that a licence is necessary before a jet ski is put to sea. In the state of New South Wales in Australia, for example, a personal water craft driver's licence is necessary to operate a jet ski and drivers must pass a qualifying test to be issued with one. The jet ski driver must understand and, I hope, practise a minimum level of safety rules. The regulations for jet ski use in the Bill are welcome but perhaps the Minister will consider or add further steps to make it more effective and to increase the safety of all those who operate or come into contact with jet skis. I note from his speech that the Minister is beginning to set out a comprehensive programme whereby everybody in charge of pleasure craft or a vessel of any kind will have to have appropriate training as my colleague said. We need to look at that issue and, perhaps, it should be the subject of legislation in conjunction with our training agencies.

On Committee Stage we would be interested to work with the Minister to implement a system of registration and licensing of users of jet skis and other pleasure craft. With regard to the detail of the Maritime Safety Bill 2004 I welcome especially Part 6 which gives power to local authorities, harbour authorities and Waterways Ireland to make by-laws to regulate and control jet skis and other small pleasure craft. I commend especially my colleagues, Deputy O'Shea our former spokesperson and the cathaoirleach of Fingal County Council, councillor Peter Coyle, for their long-standing campaign and interest in this matter.

Deputy O'Shea has consistently raised the lack of legislation with regard to the regulation of small pleasure craft, most recently on the Order of Business a few days ago. Councillor Peter Coyle repeatedly raises the issue of jet skis in Baldoyle Bay in my constituency and the lack of any national or local legislation. Deputy O'Shea has called repeatedly for the implementation of the Adventure Activities Standards Authority Act. It is unbelievable that this Act was passed in 2001 and still there has been no establishment day. Like Deputy Perry, Deputy O'Shea has also strongly represented in the House the concerns of Mr. Michael Davies of Grantstown, County Waterford, who launched a personal campaign following a great family tragedy in this area.

In section 7 the requirement that seven days will be the minimum period for submissions to by-laws by interested parties is too short, from my experience of planning legislation, and should be extended. Perhaps the Minister will re-examine that. I welcome sections 8 and 9 which legislate for the need to cease operating such a craft when requested to do so by a Garda or authorised person and the seizure of such a craft when it is being used unreasonably or dangerously. It is also valuable that we are now closing a gap in the law in regard to the protection of national heritage areas and any underwater archaeological monuments and artefacts. That is a valuable step forward.

The provisions relating to new powers to stop and board, powers of arrest, forfeiture of craft and prohibitions from operating such craft in sections 11 to 15, inclusive, are also important and necessary. In regard to sections 16 and 42, where they amend the 1992 Act, and section 43, where it amends the 1946 Act, we will now have a system of on-the-spot fines or fixed payment notices. I add a small caveat that I hope the on-the-spot fines will not be used in substitution for the heavier and, perhaps, well deserved penalties which misusers of pleasure craft and vessels might deserve.

In regard to the welcome sections 20 to 40 on the prohibition and operation of unseaworthy vessels and codes of practice for the safety of vessels, I hope the Minister will spell out how the new codes of practice will be implemented and financed and what resources will be available in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.

Recently the Irish marine register has greatly expanded through the work of the Maritime Development Agency. When I began to represent the Labour Party in this area more than two years ago we had approximately 35 vessels flying the Irish flag. I understand that at the start of this year there were 114 vessels flying our flag. How does the Minister intend to ensure this legislation will be implemented for the whole Irish fleet, given that many of the new vessels on our register, so far as I understand, have never visited Ireland having been inspected abroad by our surveyors? For example, section 26 refers to a vessel in Irish waters or an Irish ship in waters anywhere, in regard to exposing a crew to dangers through recklessness and lack of seamanship. Will the Minister ensure the Irish Maritime Development Agency will have sufficient marine surveyors to carry out this work to these new standards. I hope that day will never come. This is the concern I raised with the Minister's predecessor. I welcome the expansion of our fleet. There was also a debate in the House in regard to tonnage and so on but we did not get a chance to participate. We support any attempt to progress our marine industry. I am concerned that if a tragic incident occurred involving a ship flying the Tricolour in a distant sea, we would have responsibility for it. We must have the resources for our surveyors and our colleagues in the Civil Service to be able to do this if we are to have a much larger fleet.

I ask the Minister to look again at sections 30 and 31. Section 30 refers to disruption of safety procedures on board vessels. Some mariners may be fearful that those provisions could be used by unscrupulous employers against workers' genuine rights to good wages and conditions and against their trade union representatives. I have heard of such measures being used against trade union representatives who, when they tried to board a vessel to represent the workers, were accused of disrupting safety procedures and so on. One has only to recall the events at Normandy this week and also the ongoing difficulties for SIPTU and the international transport federation which are valiantly trying to represent workers on the Cork-Swansea ferry and which have been prevented from doing so by unscrupulous employers.

I wish to refer briefly to three other key maritime safety issues. The Minister inherited from his predecessor a policy which he has not changed, that is, the proposed closure of the Dublin marine rescue co-ordination centre. It was established in the early 1990s and employs approximately 18 people and along with Malin, in County Donegal, and Valentia, in County Kerry, it safeguards the seas of the nation. The staff do a wonderful job in co-ordinating it. Staff were shocked a couple of years ago when they heard the Dublin centre would be closed and staff would be relocated to Malin Head and Valentia. The Minister may recall I came into the House to defend Malin Head because I considered there was a need for the three stations. I still say it was wrong to close the Dublin centre as the Irish Sea is one of busiest sea lanes in the world with over 80,000 passengers and crew at sea during bank holiday weekends and huge movements of freight, including dangerous cargoes, to destinations such as Sellafield and Cumbria.

In the event of a major Irish Sea emergency, such as a pollution incident like the Prestige disaster off Galicia in Spain, the marine rescue, fire brigade, ambulance and Garda services would then only be co-ordinated from two remote ends of Ireland. That has been compared to air traffic control at Dublin Airport being run from Knock or elsewhere on the island.

In February 2005 the Minister told me that the Department was bringing together the safety services provided by the Irish Coastguard and the maritime safety directorate into a single body for greater co-ordination and more effective delivery of services, and as part of this process that, of the three marine rescue co-ordination centres one would be closed. This is a bad decision and on safety grounds I reiterate that I strongly support the retention of all three marine co-ordination centres.

The Minister mentioned that the Coastguard-Maritime Safety headquarters would be located in Drogheda, a decision I applaud, given the importance of the Irish Sea. Will the Minister take a firm decision to retain the Dublin marine rescue co-ordination centre and ensure it remains on the east coast? If not in Leeson Lane, I recommend the port of Howth as the location for that centre or failing that, Drogheda. We should have an east coast centre.

I wish to raise briefly another matter I have raised on several occasions and on which I ask the Minister to work diligently, that is, the acquisition of an emergency towing vessel for the Irish Coastguard. Prior to Christmas, the Minister addressed the incident in January 2003 in which a ro-ro passenger ferry lost engine power for 30 minutes after leaving Rosslare Harbour for Fishguard and drifted towards Tuskar Rock lighthouse. Fortunately the vessel's engine regained power one and half hours later and a disaster was narrowly avoided. We could have been here talking about a terrible disaster because we did not have an emergency towing vessel.

The Minister informed me then that the Department had been studying this matter for the past seven or eight years. In 1999 a working group in the Department recommended strongly that Ireland should have access to emergency towing vessel capacity to protect the coast from the consequences of major oil pollution and vessels in difficulties. It was also recommended that the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources consult the Department of Finance and other relevant Departments and that Ireland and the UK would consult on the possible sharing of an emergency towing vessel to cover the east coast.

Six years and several Ministers later and after several serious marine scares, we have nothing. Unfortunately it is a long time since I was in a Government and I hope the day will come that if I am lucky enough to be in the next Dáil, I will be involved in a Government and able to make things happen. Will the Minister of State demand that provision for an emergency towing vessel be included in the Estimates for 2006? The Labour Party believes the purchase of an ETV should be a priority. Will the Minister of State ensure it is included in the chapter on net capital expenditure?

The Chicoutimi tragedy showed the vulnerability of Ireland and its maritime community to a marine pollution disaster. The British Maritime Coast Guard Agency now has four emergency sea tugs on stand by, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, in the Northern Isles, the Minches, the south-west approaches and the Dover Straits. The House of Commons select committee on the marine criticised the British Government for not doing more about maritime safety and the provision of stand-by vessels and Ireland has none of this system. I urge the Minister of State to ensure it is included in the Estimates for 2006.

I welcome the legislation which will establish a high safety standard and it is to be hoped that it will be a deterrent to unscrupulous users of small pleasure craft such as jet skis and people in charge of important vessels in our seas. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State in his contribution has given the House some interesting information about the development of codes of practice for recreational craft. He referred to a small vessel register and a national hydrographic service which is another important step forward. Ireland has joined the international hydrographic organisation which is commendable.

Will the Minister of State reconsider the Marine Casualty Investigation Board's recommendation on blood alcohol levels to see if the prescription in the section can be tightened? It could be complete prohibition which is perhaps desirable. It may be difficult to uphold the section's provisions in court. Will he consider taking the final decision on jet skis and consider whether there should be registration of users and a licensing system? Will the Minister of State look at section 31? The intention behind the section is good but some unscrupulous owner or skipper might try to deprive workers of their rights in the difficult maritime environment.

This is a good day for the Irish maritime community and the Minister of State is to be commended. The Labour Party supports the Bill.

See this speech in context