Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

The Bill before us, based on United Nation principles, is clearly a necessity.

Members may remember the suicide bombing by al-Qaeda in 2002 in the Gulf of Aden of the French supertanker Limburg which was bound for Asia with 400,000 barrels of Saudi crude oil. That, together with the earlier attack on the US destroyer Cole, were some of the events that spurred countries to give effect to the 1988 United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the 1988 Protocol to the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. Members may recall the attack on a cruise liner on the Nile by Gama'at Al-Islamuyah. It is often said that tankers and bulkers are sitting ducks for terrorist action. The International Maritime Bureau is urging countries to become a contracting state to the convention and protocol which can follow only on the enactment of the legislation before us.

The Minister stated that the international ship and port facility, ISPS, code will come into force on 1 July 2004. I understand this applies to 20,000 ports worldwide and 60,000 ships and brings forward a range of matters under SOLAS and other conventions to enhance maritime security. Some of the stevedores from Dublin Port made representations to me about their concerns that all elements of the ISPS code may not be in place by July 2004. Will the Minister address this issue in his response? The designation of the ship's master as the ship's security officer and the publication of the IMO-ILO code of practice and security in ports form part of the current work of the International Maritime Bureau.

The United States is the epicentre of international maritime trade, with 40% of the world's cargo travelling to or from that country. The US ports, for example Boston and New York, have introduced major new security arrangements. The Labour Party believes there is a gap in the legislation in that it does not seem to apply to a ship that has been withdrawn from navigation or laid up. We will seek to address that by tabling an amendment on Committee Stage.

I note from international legislation that New Zealand seems to have a comprehensive law on piracy and maritime violence and that a number of countries have proposed a model national law on acts of piracy and maritime violence. I understand the Minister has borne this in mind in the Bill. It is important to remember that maritime violence also refers to attacks on the maritime environment and damage to the environment.

Before I address the Bill, I will comment briefly on terrorism. Any act of terrorism is an outrage and a violation of human society. Given our history, we have a particular understanding of the damage done by terrorism. The savage terrorist attack on the United States on 11 September 2001 has led to the astonishing situation in Iraq, which is destabilising the world. The attack was perpetrated mainly by Saudi Arabians, organised by a Saudi religious fanatic, Osama bin Laden, yet no action has so far been taken against the medieval dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. Most people would agree there was no justification for the manner of the attack on Iraq without United Nations sanction. The savage regime of Saddam Hussein needed to be removed given the genocide of the Kurdish nation, but not through unilateral action and without any programmes for the development of the new democratic Iraq. Failure in this respect is having an adverse impact on us.

The war party organised around President George Bush led by Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has been determined from the date of the so-called election to maintain a huge military presence in the Middle East to maintain control of the bulk of the world's oil supplies. The Labour Party will not welcome President Bush to Ireland in a few weeks' time and our slogan for the event is "Count Us Out" as we do not want to be associated with the savage events of recent weeks. I commend the US media, in particular, the CBS television corporation, on its recent disclosures of the violence and savage treatment of Iraqi prisoners and also for showing the faces and lives of the 700 US men and women who died in Iraq. Perhaps the identities of the 20,000 Iraqis who died will also be made public.

A major issue is that the United States seems to have a fundamental problem with international law. I remember the Radical Party in Italy contacted me regularly when I was first elected to the House regarding the establishment of the International Criminal Court. I was delighted to sign up to that. I am delighted that in the past ten years, the International Criminal Court has become a reality. However, the greatest power on earth, the United States, has not signed up as it is not prepared to allow its citizens to be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

I also understand that the United States is not a signatory to the convention or protocol to which we will become a contracting state. The United States Senate and House of Representatives has not passed or has no intention of passing legislation similar to that before this House. That is an astonishing state of affairs. Will the Minister and his diligent officials confirm that is the case? None of the 12 protocols on terrorism to which the Minister referred has been accepted by the American Government.

For a country that is leading the so-called war on terrorism, it is incredible that it is not prepared to accept international jurisdiction. That is something on which our brothers, sisters and cousins in the United States, the citizens of America, should reflect over the next five or six months until the presidential election. They should change the Government there to one which is prepared to work with others. The US Government has criticised the Democratic candidate because he speaks French. That is a major criticism by some of the yahoos and clowns currently in charge of the United States Government and who do not, as far as I can see, have a democratic mandate.

My friend and colleague, Deputy Kehoe, and Deputy McGinley and Senator Finucane referred to a Fine Gael document called, Beyond Neutrality, in their contributions and to creating a new air of realism about the defence of the European Union. There has been much talk recently about a caring coalition or democratic alliance coming forward after the next general election. I say to my Fine Gael friends that the Labour Party will not abandon neutrality under any circumstances. The Labour Party is not looking beyond neutrality; it is seeking to create a situation where there is mutual security among all states not only in Europe, but throughout the world. That will not be done by creating a European Union military superpower. If that is the way some people want to go, they can count us out. We will not go down that road.

There are only 12 years to the centenary of 1916. Yesterday, I was delighted to see my party leader and colleague mark the 88th anniversary of the execution of James Connolly, the commander of the GPO in 1916 and the founder of my party. It brought home to me the situation during that era. Between 1914 and 1918 — I recently looked at one of the books on the dead — 8,000 young Dubliners went off to join the British forces who did not come home and whose families were devastated. That must be the focus over the next decade, namely, that we will not go back down that road. It is even more important given that the European Union, as we saw yesterday, is now reaching out to Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Ukraine and to Russia. Rightly, it will not have anything to do with the dictatorship in Belarus. In the short history of our State, 80 years or so, we have so far managed to develop and keep our independence. We have done so without abandoning our neutrality. I felt I should say that to our Fine Gael colleagues.

Before going back to the Bill, I should state that much of the terrorism we have witnessed during our lifetime, for example, aeroplane and boat hijackings and so on, has come about as a result of the torture, murder and desperate treatment of the Palestinian people since the foundation of the state of Israel. I salute the last great Labour Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Perez, who, during President Clinton's time, came forward with a generous plan for a land that is only the size of Leinster and Munster in which the two nations, Israel and Palestine, could live peacefully together. Of course, Yitzhak Rabin was disgracefully murdered. The past four or five years have been a total nightmare for the Palestinian people. We have witnessed the insane building of a wall around cities and towns and the serious allegations of terrorism and mass murder against the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Sharon. There will not be a world free from terrorism until the Palestinian issue is dealt with. I commend all parties in this House. The former Senator, Mick Lanigan, and others have stood up for the rights of the Palestinian people. It is an issue which must be addressed and which further inflames the situation in Iraq. There will not be an end to terrorism until these issues are addressed.

I am proud that I recently raised the issue of the people of Kurdistan and the need to allow them to follow their own destiny, as we did. There are 30 million Kurds. Most of them are in Turkey but there is also a Kurdish population in Iraq where they were savagely murdered by the terrorist dictator Saddam Hussein. Whatever happens in regard to Turkey's entry into the European Union, we must ensure Kurdish issues are addressed. On the same night, I also raised the issue of Chechnya and the Chechen people. I condemn unreservedly the savage attacks on ordinary, innocent Muscovites and other Russians but clearly the rights of the Chechen nation, which is approximately the size of Leinster and Munster, with a population of 1 million must be addressed before such terrorism can be dealt with.

The final point I wish to make about terrorism relates to the Arab nation. Many of us will remember the dream of the former President of Egypt, Gamal Abdul-Nasser, for a free, democratic and united Arab nation in control of its own destiny, oil and other resources. It was a wonderful dream which I hope will become a reality one day. Certain powerful, dark forces in America, England and in Europe have done their best to throw road blocks in front of that ambition. It is in the interests of the European Union to support that dream and to encourage our Arab and Islamic friends to move along the road we took hundreds of years ago.

I will table some amendments on Committee Stage. I wish to delete the reference to warships and auxiliary naval boats because, while the convention does not apply to war or navy ships, there is nothing stopping us going further than the convention in our legislation. It does not make sense to state that terrorists who seize civilian ships are to be punished but not those who seize other ships used for police or military purposes. The Minister said in the Seanad that this would contravene the convention but that overlooks the point that we could go beyond the convention in domestic law if we so wished.

I also wish to insert in the Bill that reference to a non-Irish ship or a fixed platform shall be taken to include reference to such a ship or fixed platform wherever it is situated. We believe there is a contradiction between sections 1 and 3 in regard to jurisdiction. Section 1 states that "fixed platform" means a platform in the State's continental shelf, so, by definition, it does not include a fixed platform outside the State. Section 1 states that a "ship" in respect of a non-Irish ship means a ship in the State. The inference is that "ship" and "fixed platform" mean such things in the State. However, if one reads sections 3 and 7, it is clear that it is intended that the Bill applies to acts outside the State subject to the requirement that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is necessary and can only be given if extradition is refused. There is a manifest contradiction between the definitions in section 1 and the trial provisions in sections 3 and 7. We will try to resolve this by tabling an amendment. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, there will be ambiguity in this regard. I also welcome the safeguards in regard to the High Court, double jeopardy and so on in sections 4, 5, 6 and 9.

I noted a few days ago on the Department's website that, surprise, surprise, the coast guard and the maritime safety agency will be based in Drogheda, County Louth. I welcome that for the people of Drogheda. It will be a valuable addition to the area when officials from the coast guard and the maritime safety agency are based in the County Louth town.

Perhaps the Minister of State might refer to the marine radio affairs unit when summing up. I have asked several times that the marine rescue co-ordination centre remain in Dublin or that it should at least be based on the east coast, whether in the Minister of State's constituency or in County Louth. Given that there could up to 80,000 mariners, including crew and passengers, on the Irish Sea — Deputy Crowe spoke eloquently about Sellafield and the possible dangers — it does seem bizarre. I fought in this House for Malin Head because I thought it would lose a radio station. We want all three maritime radio stations, at Malin Head, Valentia and Dublin, to be retained. If Dublin's cannot be kept, then Drogheda would suffice, but there should be one on the east coast. Despite the advent of modern communications, we should be careful to retain such radio facilities.

Since last October, I have raised on several occasions in the House the issue of the Irish shipping register. I note that the size of the register has almost doubled since last October. At that time, 11 vessels entered the register while two left. In December, 13 vessels entered while two left. In February 2004, 16 vessels entered the registered while one left. These developments are a credit to the Minister of State but will the expansion of the register bring additional responsibilities? Over the years, 30 to 32 ships flew the tricolour, but our flag is now flying on almost 60 vessels and the numbers could rise to several hundred. That is fair enough because Ireland is a maritime nation. Some mariners were upset because they did not see the companies that owned these ships coming here. SIPTU and the International Transport Federation are determined that the our beautiful tricolour will not be turned into a flag of convenience. That should never happen and it is the Minister of State's responsibility to ensure it does not. What will be the implications of the dramatic expansion of the Irish shipping register? We must ensure that these additional vessels on the register, which could be anywhere from here to the Straits of Malacca, are not flying the tricolour as a flag of convenience.

I am disappointed that the coastal zone management Bill has been abandoned. From his first days in the House, Deputy Sargent has been calling for such a Bill to be published. I agree profoundly with him, yet the Government appears to have abandoned the legislation, while reverting to a narrowly based foreshore Bill.

In the past year, there has been tremendous interest in coastal protection, including in the Bantry Bay charter and similar initiatives for Clew Bay, Lough Swilly and Dublin Bay. A group of academics in UCC are organising speakers to talk about coastal protection. Recently, a successful conference was held in Howth in my constituency. The Minister of State and his senior colleague, the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, have done much work on particularly sensitive maritime areas in conjunction with six other countries. We seem to be on the verge of designating much of the Irish Sea and the Atlantic a sensitive maritime area. I urge the Minister of State to hasten the completion of that work. We have already dealt with the relevant legal aspects but perhaps within the next 12 months it can be completed.

A few days ago, we had an interesting discussion at the Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources concerning on European Parliament directive COM/2000/76 concerning port security. The directive outlined some interesting ideas, including the assessment of enhanced port security, having detailed security plans for ports such as Rosslare, Dublin and Cork, and having a port security authority and a designated security officer. Some of the International Maritime Organisation's work is also being translated by the EU into this Bill, but will we have to legislate for such enhanced port security measures? Will the Minister of State be introducing such legislation?

I realise that the Acting Chairman, Deputy Glennon, has an interest in enhanced port security but I was surprised to see Skerries and Balbriggan being treated in a cavalier manner by Dublin Port. The Minister informed one of my colleagues in Fingal county that it was none of his business, that he did not care what happened and that we should discuss the matter with Dublin Port. However, we must take responsibility for security in the country's smaller ports. Whatever can be done to enhance security at the ports of Skerries and Balbriggan should be done.

Many of my constituents are upset that there is no harbour master for Howth. The previous one retired at the start of the Minister of State's period in office, but a replacement has yet to be appointed. Up to 1807, Howth was the main port on the east coast. There has been increased maritime activity there in recent times. What is the problem with appointing a harbour master? The same could also be said for one of the five great fishing ports at Dunmore East. If he is serious about maritime security, the Minister of State should address those matters.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome the Bill and intend to table a few amendments on Committee Stage. Marine terrorism is a matter of concern that we must address, but we should address the causes of terrorism to deal with the matter in a more profound manner. I ask the Minister of State to examine the other issues I raised.

See this speech in context