Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 33 seeks that the construction rules for chemical tankers would apply to all ships in Irish waters. The Minister is saying every country should do its own thing. The problem with the flag states is that countries such as Mongolia will never see the ships under its flag. I do not understand the logic of the Minister. If we stop a ship, are we not effectively applying the rules to another flag? Why not provide that all ships in Irish waters must have these safeguards?

We had considerable debates on the double hull issue at different times with the Department responsible for marine affairs. We sought that there would be no more single-hulled tankers because of the kind of devastation now evident in the Gulf of Mexico, albeit for a different reason. Our proposal was to ensure disasters such as that pertaining to the Exxon Valdez could not happen again. The Minister is stating he will include a reference to double hulls in the rules. Why not just include in the regulation a stipulation that ships must have double hulls and that if they enter our vast waters without such a construction they will immediately be in danger under our legislation? This should be a sine qua non of running maritime affairs properly.

With regard to amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 33, I wanted a reference to "the flag" in respect of construction rules for all the types of vessels in question. I recall the effort of the great Tony Ayton in the last two parts of the debate to try to have spuriously flagged vessels, or vessels with flags of convenience, made amenable to the legislation of great maritime countries such as Ireland. I do not see why what I propose should not be included.

My amendments to amendment No. 39 relate to the offence pertaining to chemical carriage rules. The Minister should opt for an open-ended fine or 10% of annual turnover rather than €100,000. To be consistent, I propose that this be included throughout the Bill.

See this speech in context