Liam Twomey (Wexford, Independent)

I wish to share time with Deputy Connolly. The Bill appears to be routine legislation which implements international law to provide for the safety of maritime navigation between the countries which have signed the convention. The origin of the legislation is a UN convention which was signed in Rome in 1988. How the world has changed in the 16 years since then. There are important reasons for implementing this legislation.

Unfortunately, we are only paying lip-service to the essence of the legislation as laid out in Schedule 1. It is important to recall resolution 40/61 which refers to international terrorism and how it can affect the countries that are signatories to the convention. We lack maritime protection in our territorial waters. The Naval Service is incapable of preventing illegal fishing or the flourishing illegal drugs trade. Access to this country is relatively easy where smuggling by sea is concerned. Other speakers have mentioned that this country does not have the coast guard service one would expect in an island nation that has so many ports. The Garda Síochána has poor access to navigational waters in this country. I am not even sure if there is a dedicated Garda boat squad or the like. If there is a need for gardaí to gain access to our ports or harbours, I understand they must rely on other boat owners, such as harbour pilot boats, to give them such access.

Not only should we consider how ships get in and out of our ports and waters, we should also consider some method of tracking the cargo, especially containers, that come into our ports. There are few methods of monitoring what is happening in the ports of this country. This is most important because of the events of 11 September 2001. The success of the terrorists in commandeering aeroplanes and turning them against the public in New York, and the ensuing publicity for the terrorist organisation involved, mean they are always watching out for a new means of carrying out an equally spectacular attack on western culture. Until now, most of their efforts have been directed at the United States of America, but there is no reason for not attempting to attack London or even Dublin, given that our lack of security might make such an effort easier.

The United States Government has acknowledged that ports are the areas most vulnerable to the next attack. It has increased security around the major US ports, especially those with a great deal of container traffic. I understand officials from the US Government are seeking access to major ports in Europe and Asia where there is busy container traffic between those ports and those in the United States. The Americans realise that a ship is a perfect means of getting to the centre of a large populated area. The ship could be carrying chemicals or explosives and there is always the threat of what is known as a "dirty bomb" being detonated. With such a bomb, explosives are used to scatter radioactive material throughout a city centre. The ports and docks of New York city are close to the major populated areas and, if such a bomb were detonated, it would cause devastation in that city.

The Americans are watching the ships that come into their ports. They are especially wary of ships that come from certain Middle Eastern countries. However, there is nothing to prevent such a ship being organised in the port of another country, especially a country which the United States considers to be friendly and that has few or poor security measures. That is the case in this country. There is little monitoring of what happens in our ports and we are not conscious of the consequences. In much the same way, nobody realised a civilian aircraft could be turned against the public. We should be aware of the importance of this legislation's objective, namely, to prevent international terrorism and to maintain navigational security throughout the world. We should have a role in that regard and face our responsibilities in providing for navigational safety in our jurisdiction.

Let us take the example of Ringaskiddy. There is a significant level of traffic through that port and, in many cases, the goods being transported are chemicals which are highly flammable and explosive. What level of security is there at that port? Ireland exported €35 billion worth of pharmaceutical products last year. Much of that trade is concentrated around the Cork port area. This is something of which we should be aware and there should be a plan to prevent any form of seaborne attack. Such attacks could happen and the Americans are aware of that, regardless of how well equipped are its navy, coast guard and local police forces. The other issue is co-operation at international level between the different police forces and port authorities. If there is suspicious traffic going through a port or a ship gives rise to suspicion, the port authorities should have a schedule for informing the members of the security forces about it.

When the convention was drafted 16 years ago, there were no threats to international law such as now exist. Nobody took seriously the threat of a chemical explosion or the detonation of a dirty bomb. That has all changed. Now people in certain parts of the world, such as Chechnya, have access to the necessary chemicals. While they might never be able to produce an atomic bomb, they can certainly produce a highly radioactive dirty bomb which can be transported across the world on board a ship.

This is a small country but it should have a proper enforcement policy as well as the legislation to deal with this problem.

See this speech in context