Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 12, after line 33, to insert the following:"(3) The Register, including details of the owners and mortgagees of all ships but excluding such Parts as the Minister may specify in regulations, shall be open to public inspection.".

I could argue about the extent to which amendments Nos. 1 and 23 are related. Many promises were made by Fine Gael and the Labour Party in advance of the last election. Some of those promises have not been realised because of ideological differences. I suppose that is reflective of the democratic mandate that was received by each party. Some of the promises have not been realised because of a lack of funds. There simply has not been enough money available to realise them. Other promises have not been realised because of sheer incompetence. One of the key promises made by both parties was to change how government is done in this country. We said we would increase openness and transparency in the operation of our government and legal systems so that people could see how laws are made in this Parliament. There was a great deal of talk about how governance structures would be changed. For example, it was suggested that backbenchers would be empowered to introduce legislation and make amendments, etc. It is in that context that I am proposing this amendment.

One of the key provisions of this Bill, the purpose of which is to consolidate our merchant shipping legislation, is the introduction of a register of ships. I support the purpose of the Bill and the introduction of the register.

However, it seems strange that the Minister is proposing the introduction of such a register – there is a public interest, given the fact that these ships carry an Irish flag no matter where they are in the world, claim Ireland as their base and submit to Irish law, including Irish employment law, the national minimum wage, etc. – without making it open to public access. The Minister’s amendment proposes that a person "shall have access to the Register in accordance with regulations made by the Minister", but he is free to make whatever regulations he wishes. For example, he could introduce restricted access to the register. Even if he introduced a statutory instrument allowing broad public access to the register, it would be left open to his successors to change that with the stroke of a pen.

There has been a worrying legislative trend in this and previous Dáileanna to limit the power of the Dáil and to hand more power to statutory instruments or secondary legislation, which is legislation by civil servants. One imagines that, in many instances, it is a case of asking a Minister whether he or she would like a biscuit with a coffee and, by the way, here is a statutory instrument for signing. In reality, this is the level of scrutiny that the State has of statutory instruments. During the Seanad referendum, there was a great deal of discussion about how the Seanad would analyse and possibly even debate statutory instruments in great detail, but none of that has come to pass.

If we are to establish a register of ships, a proposal that I support, we should be like practically every other country in the world and make it open to public inspection. What is the point in having a register if its purpose is not to be publicly accessible? That it is open to public inspection should be stated in the law establishing it.

The purpose of this Bill is to set up the register and consolidate Irish merchant shipping law. In 1995, the British Government introduced similar legislation, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Its section 8(7) does not state that a Minister, if he or she is benevolent, may make regulations to do this or, if malevolent, may not. Rather, it unambiguously reads: "The register shall be available for public inspection." I believe the Minister supports this concept. I have raised it on Second Stage and, although I am not a member of the transport committee, on Committee Stage. From what I understand, the Minister is in favour of some degree of public access to and inspection of the register. If that is the case, is there any reason not to insert that provision in the legislation? The Minister referred to data protection sensibilities and commercial sensitivities but this provision is good enough for the UK, which has a shipping industry that is vastly larger than ours and is one of the largest in the world. It does not seem to have the same concerns about commercial sensitivities or data protection sensibilities even though it is subject to the same EU data protection laws that we are. If the UK can leave its register open to public inspection, why can we not?

I mentioned that there was an important public aspect to this matter. If people have an accident with a boat, they will want to know who owns it and who is the mortgagee. If people are seeking employment, they may wish to find out who their employer will be. It is not the case that this provision will only apply to a select group of people. Most Deputies would find daft the prospect of setting up a land registry that the public could not inspect. If one visited King's Inns or the Land Registry, one would find members of the public there checking out who owned what, as is their entitlement.

There is a further important aspect. While there is a convention on maritimeliens, neither Ireland nor the UK is a party to it. If mortgages registered in Ireland in accordance with the proposed register - the Bill refers explicitly to registering mortgages - are to be given effect in convention countries, whoever wishes to do so must be able to demonstrate that the register is public. I would be more concerned about the Bill's manifestations for employees and so on than I would for ships' mortgage holders, as the latter are usually under the remit of international commerce. However, it is a concern for those who own mortgages over ships registered in Ireland.

The Minister should move away from empowering legislation. He can introduce regulations. He already has that power under the Bill, and I do not propose to remove it, but he should state unambiguously that the register is open to the public in our model of open and transparent government.

See this speech in context