Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See this speech in context