Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

That would be good.

Some 1.2 million to 1.5 million seafarers and marine workers are out on the seas around our country and across the oceans of the world, with many of them living in appalling conditions, perhaps working for months on end without pay and very often without proper fresh water or food. Obviously, when they come into ports which adhere to reasonable civilised standards, their conditions can be recognised. It is shameful that despite Ireland being one of the most active trading nations on the planet for its size, if not the most active, much of the €150 billion to €200 billion trade of this country is brought here by seafarers who work in appalling conditions which we would not tolerate for a moment in this Republic. In recent days in the House we have discussed terrible scandals in our country in decades past but we should remember that at this very moment there are hundreds of thousands of workers in those conditions to whose rescue we need to go as soon as possible. I hope this convention is the beginning of that process.

Given the huge challenges that currently face the maritime sector and the ongoing allegations of massive exploitation and abuse of marine workers, when one studies the Bill in detail one finds it is not ambitious and comprehensive enough. For example, why does the Bill say nothing about the issue of flags of convenience? On behalf of the Labour Party, some years ago I brought in a Bill which effectively tried to criminalise the use of flags of convenience into and out of our ports, certainly for Irish ships. This was not supported by the Minister or his predecessor but the Bill was still an effort on the part of the Labour Party to address the issue. There are pernicious and long-standing problems with regard to workers' rights, treatment and salaries in this sector. The current Bill is only a starting point and goes nowhere near far enough to addressing those issues.

I referred to concerns in regard to connectivity from Ireland in the debate on the Harbours Bill, in particular connectivity from Dublin, Rosslare, Waterford, Cork, Shannon and Galway. It is an issue to which I may return. I do not know why the initiative, as with regard to the Cork-Swansea issue, always has to come from local communities or local business communities or why the Minister does not play a more proactive role.

Given the importance of shipping and ferry connectivity to our island nation, it is essential the highest maritime safety standards are adhered to and implemented. Why has it taken since 2006 for the maritime labour convention to be brought before the House? In Article VIII, the convention states:

3. This Convention shall come into force 12 months after the date on which there have been registered ratifications by at least 30 Members with a total share in the world gross tonnage of ships of 33 per cent.

4. Thereafter, this Convention shall come into force for any Member 12 months after the date on which its ratification has been registered.

The Minister referred to 2011 but what progress has been made on this issue? I notice that under Article IX a state can denounce the convention ten years after it enters. It seems a flimsy enough basis for international maritime law. There are a series of amendments to SOLAS that have different deadlines for implementation. Which amendments are we dealing with in the Bill and what is their timeframe?

The bulk of sections 5 to 15 of the Bill introduce measures to facilitate amendments to the critically important SOLAS convention, which the Labour Party greatly supports. SOLAS is clearly one of the most important legal mechanisms for regulating maritime safety standards and the earliest version of this convention was, tragically, first passed in the wake of the sinking of the Titanic, a ship built in our own country. I strongly believe that given the importance of safety at sea regulations and the need to absolutely prioritise safety standards, all amendments to SOLAS should be considered and adopted into our law as a matter of urgency. Section 7 specifies construction rules for passenger ships that lay out standards for hull, equipment, machinery, fuel used and so on. Section 12 deals with cargo ship construction and section 14 with bulk carrier rules.

With regard to the fuel used provisions, will there be stipulations for more fuel efficient engines? I recall the debates we had on the Minister's former energy portfolio in regard to CO2 emissions and we are now continuing this with regard to transport and the marine. The marine area is one of the biggest polluters. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency figures for marine bunker CO2 emissions for Ireland were 330.25 kilotonnes for 2005, rising to 404 kilotonnes in 2006 and still close to 400 kilotonnes in 2007. We only have provisional figures for 2008. What action are we taking with regard to CO2 given the importance of marine emissions?

I recently asked the Minister about a study by the International Maritime Organisation and the way maritime emissions should be assessed in the successor to the Kyoto Protocol to be agreed in Copenhagen in December 2009. The Minister told me the Government supports the "adoption of a mandatory CO2 design index for ships" and the development of market-based measures. Where is this in the Bill? Clearly, it is an important element of transport pollution which we will have to address. There are no measures in place to directly target global maritime CO2 emissions. If no agreement is reached in the International Maritime Organisation, then, as the Minister states, Ireland will work within the European Union on the development of suitable measures for Europe. Is he suggesting that fuel efficiency and emissions limits may eventually be introduced for passenger and cargo vessels?

Section 8 refers to radio communications. I note that the Green Dragon yacht competing in the Volvo ocean race was able to communicate live with "The Late, Late Show" despite being 700 miles from Galway. Does this mean we could have much more comprehensive radio, television, video and telephone communications with fleets across the globe? The Minister might refer to this in his response.

A strange aspect of the Bill concerns why section 10 of Part 2 exempts troop ships and military vessels from most provisions, including in terms of construction, radio, navigation and tracking, and bulk carrier rules. Why are there specific provisions and why should Ireland exclude itself from safety and accessibility requirements in regard to the Naval Service? The Leas-Cheann Comhairle may have noticed that the UK courts decided that the European Union equality and civil rights rules will apply across the British armed forces. Why should we have this old-style exclusion? All of the accessibility issues also refer.

Part 3 of the Bill provides absolutely critical measures to enhance access for persons with reduced mobility. The Labour Party, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will remember as he was a member of that Government, established a Department concerned with equality and began the major campaign which continues down to the present for rights for all citizens. Given that we have campaigned so long for full accessibility, it is good to see it at long last in legislation. Again, however, we must ask why it has taken four years for the Disability Act to be reflected in any kind of legislation on marine transport. Will the Minister explain whether all passenger vessels will be subject to invigilation for disability and reduced mobility access? While citizens with disabilities can avail of the usual lift from the car deck on the fine ships that sail out of Dublin and Rosslare, they continue to face disability challenges elsewhere on ferry services. Will ships be modified to facilitate all citizens?

In welcoming Part 4 of the Bill I join Deputy O'Dowd in paying tribute to the work of the Marine Casualty Investigation Board. As Labour Party spokesperson on the marine, I read each of the board's valuable and helpful reports. The reports which are usually clearly and cogently written give us a great sense of the safety problems that can arise on Irish boats and ships. My colleague, Deputy O'Dowd, has detailed all of that work. The Minister is right to validate the statutory basis of all of the board's reports. I was so struck by them that I asked the Minister, following discussions on road safety with Mr. Noel Brett, whether similar reports could be compiled on every traffic collision. Perhaps that proposal can be reconsidered at this time.

My colleague in the other House, Senator McCarthy, has called on the Government to reverse its appalling decision not to salvage the Asgard II which represents a critical part of the country's marine heritage. The Labour Party candidate in the East constituency in the forthcoming European elections, Nessa Childers, has been emphasising the fact that insurance money of €3.1 million is readily available to facilitate the salvage of the vessel. I urge the Minister to plead with his colleague, the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, to reverse the Government's decision on the matter.

One of the most important aspects of the Bill is the proposal to give the force of law to the Maritime Labour Convention 2006. As I said, it is critically important that seafarers' rights be protected. The events at Irish Ferries some years ago heralded the start of the maritime industry's race to the bottom when it comes to employment rights. In 2006 the national secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, Mr. Paddy Crumlin, said, "seafarers' lives are often marred by crushing exploitation, savage intimidation and life and limb threatening neglect." Many Irish people were shocked when Irish Ferries announced its redundancy and outsourcing plans which involved the sacking of 543 workers and their replacement by east European workers. The use of foreign flags of convenience means migrant workers are paid a pittance, have much poorer working conditions and are not protected by minimum Irish labour laws. Mr. Tony Ayton highlighted such profoundly disturbing trends in the marine employment sector over many years. His colleagues in SIPTU and the International Transport Workers Federation have continued that work.

In the case of the old Cork-Swansea route, many workers from eastern Europe had to endure rates of pay that were approximately half the level of the Irish national minimum wage. They had to work under an excessively harsh regime of long hours and unpaid leave. Crews on the MV Normandy had to work for four months before getting three weeks unpaid leave. When will that type of regime become illegal? The Maritime Labour Convention 2006 clearly states workers should be paid monthly, that payments should be made into their bank accounts and that there should be no possibility of contract work only. It states seafarers are entitled to received statements of working conditions, setting out the actual work they are expected to do. When will the convention come into operation?

Earlier this week I submitted a parliamentary question asking the Minister to report on the entry of the MV Defender into Irish waters and to comment on allegations that its crew members were owed thousands of euro in unpaid wages. According to the reply I received, the vessel which is registered in Cambodia "was detained in Cork on 17 April 2008 following an inspection carried out by marine surveyors" from the Department of Transport. The reply indicated that the surveyors' inspection "revealed a total of 14 deficiencies, 5 of which posed an immediate and serious threat to the safety of the ship and the crew". It continued:

During January 2009 the vessel was under detention for 11 days in the United Kingdom. On 3rd March 2009, the vessel was inspected in Cork and the surveyors noted several deficiencies, including watch keeping arrangements, safety management and matters related to living and working conditions onboard, which warranted the further detention of the ship.

The International Transport Workers Federation established that, on all three occasions when the MV Defender entered Irish waters, the crew had not been paid. The reality is that significant trade activities are being undertaken by workers who have to endure terrible wage and working conditions. In his reply to my parliamentary question the Minister claimed that his Department "does not have responsibility for the non-payment of wages on board foreign flagged ships". He argued that "it is a matter for the flag State, in this case Cambodia."

A couple of weeks ago the Irish Examiner published a shocking in-depth interview with Mr. Tony Ayton's successor at SIPTU and the International Transport Workers Federation, Mr. Ken Fleming. He gave details of the horrific system of "mass exploitation" in operation on the seas. He said that, in effect, there was a system of "slave labour" in operation among foreign national seafarers. This system is facilitated by the use of flags of convenience to circumvent employment law that provides for, at least, the minimum national legal protection for workers. Unfortunately, ferry companies are re-registering their ships in jurisdictions such as the Bahamas, Cambodia, Mongolia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The fact that ships are being registered in Mongolia which is landlocked is an indication of how utterly disgraceful the international system of registration is. Hundreds of ships have been re-registered in the Mongolian capital, Ulan Bator, which is high in the mountains. Workers on ships supposed to be part of the Mongolian fleet are sailing into ports throughout the world, including Ireland.

In the light of the serious problems in the maritime employment and shipping sectors, some of which I have mentioned, the enactment of the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 which will bring together more than 60 existing conventions is greatly welcome. All ships of a certain size will have to carry a labour certificate. The Maritime Labour Convention is a comprehensive document. I greatly welcome the strict guidelines, regulations and standards on wages set out in it. I am pleased that seafarers' wages will be paid at intervals of no greater than one month. I also welcome the regulations on hours of rest, minimum wages, leave entitlements and the minimum age for seafarers. I note that the convention refers to collective bargaining agreements. Does this mean that collective agreements and trade union rights will have to be recognised on every ship that comes into this country's ports? Will that be the case when this legislation has been passed? The regulations contained in the Bill allow for a system of compliance, including surveys, certification, inspections, reporting and monitoring. The Minister has mentioned that a maximum fine of €5,000 will be imposed, on summary conviction, on shipping companies which do not comply with the regulations. He has also said the fine will be increased to €100,000 on indictment. When one considers the value of the trade that can be involved in such cases, these fines seem very low.

Serious questions need to be asked about how this system will be implemented and effectively monitored and regulated. Foreign-flagged ships are monitored through port state control inspections which are carried out under the auspices of the Paris memorandum of understanding on port state control and under various EU directives. There are just 27 members of the Paris memorandum of understanding covering the European coastal states and the coastal states of the North Atlantic basin from North America to Europe. The states in question include Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Cyprus, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Latvia and Lithuania. Are we doing any more than talking about these states? Anybody who examines the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 which is a fine document will be happy that at long last some basic labour rights are to be upheld on ships. However, they will ask what is to be done in respect of other countries such as St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Mongolia and Gambia which are tiny in economic terms but which have huge fleets. Will the standards established in the Bill under the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 apply to states other than those which have signed up to the convention and are members of the Paris memorandum of understanding on port state control?

The Paris memorandum states:

In applying a relevant instrument for the purposes of port State control, the principle of "no more favourable treatment" is applied to ships which fly the flag of a State which is not a Party to that convention. In such a case ships shall be subject to a detailed inspection and the PSCO will follow the same guidelines as those provided for ships to which the relevant instruments are applicable.

Does this mean that a large part of the legislation before us is unworkable and if flags of convenience come into Cork or Waterford ports we have no more control over them than we would over one of the 27 countries?

Article 5, subsection 4, of the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 states that a ship to which the convention applies may, in accordance with international law, be inspected by a member other than the flag state when the ship is in one of its ports to determine whether the ship is in compliance with the requirements of the convention. Article 5, subsection 7, states that each member shall implement its responsibilities under this convention in such a way as to ensure that the ships that fly the flag of any state that has not ratified this convention do not receive more favourable treatment than the ships that fly the flag of any state that has ratified it. Is this subsection implicitly driving a coach and four through the legislation, to quote the great Daniel O'Connell? In other words, the implementation of the Maritime Labour Convention by only 27 countries means that it cannot be implemented. The provisions at that point, which are carried over into the Bill, seem contradictory.

One of the key criticisms of the port state control mechanism by Ken Fleming and the International Transport Federation and SIPTU is that all matters relating to the fiscal entitlements including non-payment of wages of maritime workers are not within its remit. Will the Minister confirm that is the case and will this change under this legislation? Will the introduction of the Maritime Labour Convention mean that inspectors will investigate allegations of non-payment of wages to mariners on non-Irish registered ships in Irish ports who are not party to the Paris Memorandum or the Maritime Labour Convention?

Will port state control now have a mandate to look after crews in terms of exploitation and non-payment of wages? Will the rotten system that we saw on the MV Defender and a host of other ships coming here, disgracefully bringing in and out our vital trade with what was effectively semi-slave labour be brought to an end? As a maritime people, an island nation, we must take a lead role in this matter. The other serious problem here is that there are just 22 inspectors operating and monitoring vessels in Irish waters and ports.

I join my colleague in Fine Gael in commending the Bills Office and the Department of Transport for their help with this Bill. One of the points that jumps out when one sees the size of our trade is that virtually everything we import comes by sea. Only a small portion comes by air. Why are there so few inspectors? Just 22 inspectors is not a robust enough team to deal with the pernicious and profound problem of exploitation of workers in the maritime sector. Is the Minister planning to increase the number of inspectors, given the introduction of this new legislation? He has new resources in the Maritime Development Office. The Opposition would welcome a discussion of what happens in that office. It is an interesting new agency which has operated for five or six years and I would welcome a report from the Minister on what it has been doing, particularly in respect of expanding the Irish flag for the ships flagged with the tricolour. The Minister or one of his colleagues was at a function with a north Italian company which reflagged its fleet to Ireland, specifically to Cork port. What are implications of this in respect of jobs and value to the economy in Cork city and region? What did we get from that?

One theme running through the whole maritime sector is the problem of the use of flags of convenience. In 2005 I introduced my own Private Member's Bill, the Mercantile Marine (Avoidance of Flags of Convenience) Bill 2005 to address the growing problem of flags of convenience and to give legislative effect to the requirement that there must exist a genuine link between an Irish registered ship and any state where it is proposed to re-register that ship. This arose from the fall-out from the Irish Ferries debacle but at the time some of the Minister's colleagues considered this was a reasonable requirement in legislation to protect Irish maritime workers, and I would like the Department to revisit that Bill.

The Labour Party Bill set out the circumstances where this Act applies. Section 21 of the Mercantile Marine Act 1955 states that the Minister with responsibility for the Marine may, in his absolute discretion, on the application of a qualified person to register a ship under the law of another country, consent to such registry by that person. I understand the Minister or his predecessor did that in respect of Irish Ferries. The Labour Party Bill proposed to add new criteria in circumstances where a person applies to register an Irish ship under the law of another country, the ship concerned being one that regularly proceeds to sea from a port in the State to any other port in the State or to a port in any other member state of the European Union, including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The Minister may consent to such registry by that person if, but only if the applicant is a national of a member state or a body corporate. We tried to change the rotten system of flags of convenience but the Government and its Fianna Fáil leadership were not prepared to back us in that attempt. The situation is horrendous and we must address it, or in 30 or 40 years' time people will come in to this House asking why we allowed our trade to be carried out under these disgraceful conditions for so long. I again urge the Minister to change this.

I welcome the introduction of the Merchant Shipping Bill to the Houses of the Oireachtas but I believe certain amendments are necessary to strengthen the monitoring and enforcement regime and to address the horrific exploitation of seafarers. I intend to bring forward a number of amendments on Committee Stage on behalf of the Labour Party. It would be ideal if the document that underlies the treatment of maritime workers, the Maritime Labour Convention 2006, which is a comprehensive and fine document in respect of the conditions it lays down for maritime workers, were the law of the land. We would strongly support whatever the Minister could do to make it so. I urge the Minister to deal with the parts of the convention that we believe are not being implemented through the Bill.

See this speech in context