Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)

An Bille um Shlándáil Mhuirí 2004, the Maritime Security Bill 2004, deals with many areas of maritime security including ships and fixed platforms on the continental shelf. It has a wider relevance because it reminds us once again of the major oversight on the part of the Government, many State agencies and the public mind, regarding the importance of maritime security and the potential of the sea. Ireland has not paid sufficient attention to that potential.

This Bill has been referred to in passing by a number of people. Maritime security has been compared quite starkly to the type of security used on land and which many Members complain about when referring to Garda numbers and the lack of Garda resources in many rural and urban areas. In my area of north County Dublin the level of Garda manpower is less than it was in 1988, despite the significant increase in population. That is bad enough but the level of maritime security has been compared to having two Garda patrol cars for the whole country. That analogy makes people take notice. Ireland is an island and has paid the sea considerable lip-service. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources did not wish to be called the Department of the Marine when it was first constituted by this Government, but nevertheless it has responsibility for marine matters. It has not provided the level of security required at ports and in Irish waters which should be regarded as a basic requirement for the safety of those who make their living from the sea and those who enjoy maritime leisure activities. Sufficient maritime security is also required to combat crime.

I am a regular visitor to the ports. I live in Balbriggan which has its own harbour. The constituency of Dublin North has a number of ports including Balbriggan, Skerries, Loughshinny, Rush, Rogerstown, Portrane and Malahide. I have no doubt that in each of those ports, boats arrive from abroad without the knowledge of the Garda and bring in cargoes of contraband goods, such as drugs, arms, explosives or other materials of the kind that have been talked about in this House as requiring control.

I question whether the passing of this Bill will make any difference to the enforcement of the law regarding illegal imports and exports. This Bill also deals with the issues of maritime safety. It seems the Government has accepted it has no choice but to pass this legislation given that it relates to an agreement made in Rome on 10 March 1988, a protocol for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of fixed platforms and so forth. Will the Minister reassure the House that this legislation is not merely window dressing?

In my area, harbours such as Balbriggan and Skerries which had been under the guardianship of Dublin Port, are now up for sale. The Minister is aware that the Harbours Act 1996 provides for those harbours to be taken over by the local authority. He is aware there is no provision in that Act for the sale of harbours on the open market yet is happy to allow Dublin Port to do what it likes. I am puzzled by this Government's absolute acceptance that the law does not matter and that the Harbours Act 1996 is not worth the paper it is written on in respect of those provisions. Excuses are offered such as the local authority having a problem with the level of maintenance required or that Dublin Port is not receiving co-operation with the handover. The Government has not brought the bodies involved together and has not suggested a package or a transfer or handover arrangement. It is adopting a laissez-faire approach by standing back. It seems determined to allow the law to be flouted. I am not confident this legislation will mean anything other than a signature to say that Ireland has signed the international protocol.

Has the Minister any intention of accepting the implications of this legislation? I refer to two exemptions in the legislation which I find strange. Ships laid up in harbour are exempted and do not seem to be regarded as a threat. I know of situations where ships are causing immense security problems such as encouraging anti-social behaviour or are in the way of a navigation channel. It is strange that they are exempted entirely from the Bill. Has the Minister overlooked this issue? If so, is he mindful of the need to introduce amendments to address it?

It is also interesting that Article 1 of Schedule 1 states that nothing in the convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes. Notwithstanding the immunity of warships as regards discharging munitions, either during a state of war or without malicious intent while taking part in target practice, which commercial ships are not permitted to do, is the Minister aware of the many alleged incidences and reports of submarines snagging nets on trawlers, for which first-hand accounts are available in some cases? Should the legislation not address this matter? If not, how will it be addressed? It is a major issue of maritime security if warships or submarines are plying the same area of the sea as commercial vessels. Providing immunity for such vessels offers no sanction and does not act as an disincentive to irresponsible activity which we know has taken place in the past, in some cases with tragic results.

The text of the Bill appears to be laudable and worthwhile but it seems the Government has decided that it will be no more than a formality. When one considers maritime security in practice, one finds that the Naval Service is stretched and cannot cope with the fisheries protection role required of it and fisheries are being depleted as a result. Trawlers are also using nets and engines much larger than what they were designed to use and many single rigged vessels converted to twin rigged vessels continue to fish much too close to the shore, thus jeopardising and depleting stocks much more sustainably fished by smaller boats. Evidence suggests the Government has decided to look the other way on these matters. For example, due to a loophole in the regulations, razor fish are being caught in an unlicensed manner which will effectively eliminate the potential of the sector.

The decision to introduce a Maritime Security Bill lacks credibility. If the Department and the Government are to have credibility on this matter, they must take the marine environment much more seriously. It always seems strange to me that the impression of Ireland is of a green island shaped like a teddy bear. In reality, it is a much larger entity because its maritime territory is much larger than its land territory. The Government has a responsibility to ensure not only that maritime security is taken seriously and properly resourced but also that the public representation of Ireland includes its maritime environment. From the point of view of political will, it argues that maritime security is required, while the people who need to support and be convinced of the merits of its argument regard Ireland as a green island surrounded by a small strip of water. They will not be convinced of the need to increase the size of the Naval Service or properly resource our ports and harbours if they do not believe we have a significant interest in the sea. The failure to be mindful of and provide security in the marine environment is not just irresponsible from the point of view of the national interest, it is also dangerous from the point of view of those who make their living from the sea.

The decision of the Department to take seriously the wearing of life jackets, particularly on leisure craft, while appreciated, is a basic step. Much has been made of the measure and I hope it will save lives but when I see trawlers taking smaller and smaller fish from the sea using smaller nets and trying every possible way to continue to make a living, even though the writing as regards falling fish numbers is on the wall, or perhaps on the water, I question the Government's seriousness about the marine environment.

I ask the Minister to indicate a change in the Government's view of the maritime environment and ensure smaller vessels can continue to fish by introducing and enforcing a regulation requiring larger vessels to stay away from inshore areas. It also needs to restore some credibility following the scandalous circumstances in which the Atlantic Dawn was allowed to pass itself off as an Irish ship and even drew perverse adoration in some quarters for somehow being a marvellous emblem of Irish entrepreneurship when in reality it pillages and over-fishes areas of the sea. As the Committee of Public Accounts has indicated, the episode begs the question as to what return taxpayers received from the considerable amount of their money allocated to that enterprise. This question has still not been answered.

I hope the Government will start to consider the national interest and treat the maritime environment as a national resource and responsibility. It must take maritime security seriously and ensure this Bill does not become a piece of officialdom which is signed into law only to lose credibility because the Government fails to give the marine environment the recognition and protection it needs.

See this speech in context