Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)

I am happy to speak on this important Bill. As an island nation, we are vulnerable to whatever threats the sea might bring to us. Those who live by the coast in my area have always been sustained by the sea. In hard times gone by, people survived on it. In the ravages of the Famine, those who lived by the sea had greater chances of survival than those living inland. It is important that we be aware of the sea and what it can do for us and also the threats it poses.

With modern technology such as the global positioning system, GPS, satellite, the major threat is from drug smuggling. Boats and trawlers can come from any other country and deposit a container in the middle of the ocean, which can be picked up by another person who knows the co-ordinates. We should be aware of how vulnerable we are in one sense. EU membership opened up a whole new vista in terms of exploitation of the sea. Our resources were exploited by others when we did not have the means to make full use of the sea. These are important matters of which we should be mindful.

Deputy Connolly spoke about the Air Corps, with which I have travelled to the islands on many occasions as a general practitioner, though I rarely get the chance to practice currently. While it is important, the Air Corps service is not a dedicated one. As it takes on average 12.5 hours for an Air Corps helicopter to get a patient to a hospital, the service is not one on which we can depend into the future. We are not providing the kind of service which is required to save people's lives when speed is of the essence as is the case with children with meningococcal meningitis or accident victims. It is no fault of the Air Corps that its service is not a dedicated one. The equipment its helicopters carry reflects its multi-purpose role and it is not always available when needed. It spends more time bringing Ministers from place to place than on mercy missions.

We need a dedicated emergency helicopter service like the services available in every other European country. An all-island feasibility study has been carried out. I met the health Ministers in both jurisdictions, Deputy Martin and Bairbre de Brun, who referred me to the North-South emergency care committee. The committee, established under the Good Friday Agreement, recommended that the feasibility study be carried out. I have always believed a service should be provided North and South since the North shares the dubious distinction of being one of the only two areas in Europe which do not provide an essential emergency helicopter service. While both Ministers supported the study, it was overdue on its publication over a week ago, two years after it was commissioned. It was published just before May Day when the Government knew everybody's attention would be on the accession of the ten new states and the media would have no room to note it. It states there is a strong case to be made for a dedicated emergency helicopter service which could be provided at a capital cost of €12 million with running costs of €4 million per year. An inter-hospital transfer service would save lives. I cannot understand the reason we do not have such a service.

Deputy Connolly spoke about the visit of President Bush. Guarding the President will require the use of six helicopters which will also be used for military missions. The money would be much better spent if it was used to secure one helicopter for inter-hospital transfers. The Air Corps has provided a valuable service but has lost its search and rescue function. The air ambulance service it provides is not the service we require. We require a dedicated emergency hospital service which would operate on an inter-hospital basis in the first instance. It could be provided for €12 million capital outlay which is a pittance compared to the amount of money wasted in other areas. I will not go into the details.

The Bill is important. It supports the 1988 UN Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf. We are all aware of the terrible circumstances which can arise. On 11 September 2001 people thought that what they were seeing was a movie re-enactment on television. It was unreal. I read recently in the press that the most successful disaster film ever made is "The Poseidon Adventure". We have seen how single-hulled tankers can split and how commerce has been put before safety or environmental concerns. Tankers have done untold damage. If it was provided that all oil transporting ships should have double hulls, it would render unlikely, in the event of an accident, environmental damage of the type we have seen where seabirds along the French coast and beyond were covered in oil. It was completely unnecessary. Somebody should have taken the decision to put the environment before commercial gain. It was said the events of 11 September 2001 could not happen but they did. That is the reason the Bill is so important. We must ensure situations like this do not arise.

The Bill provides for prosecutions and penalties, including life imprisonment on conviction. It describes what to do when things go wrong, which is very important. We are all aware of what the European Union has done for us. If it was left to us, as an island nation, we would not have the resources to do what needs to be done nowadays. The European Union has had a positive impact in terms of the introduction of essential legislation in areas such as equality, although it is argued that while the legislation has been put in place, there is an absence of real equality or fair play. The Bill is further imported legislation which is considered essential in the modern world. We have responsibilities beyond our borders. When one considers Structural Funds, our real problem has not been the European Union but the dispersal of moneys.

When we joined the European Union, it was said the small farmer would not survive and that agricultural policies would ensure only large ranchers would thrive. That has been the case. There was a perception that we would be taken over. I remember the prophets of doom speaking about how super-trawlers would take all of our resources. While that has happened to an extent, everybody agrees that, on balance, the European Union has been very good for us. The debate was rerun during the campaigns on the Nice treaty referenda and in discussions about the accession countries. While people have realised that Ireland has done very well, there is a perception that many of our resources have been given away.

Safety at sea is an important issue about which we must be concerned. There are large tankers off our shores and accidents may happen. Our whole coastline could be destroyed. It is essential that we have the protection provided by the Bill. A terrorist attack took place on an oil rig near Israel which demonstrates what can happen. We have oil rigs off our coast and the potential for disaster is constant. It is important, therefore, to enact laws which provide our citizens with the protection they need to ensure their safety and that of anybody who uses our waters. There is a great responsibility in this regard.

This debate extends beyond the issue of safety to the environment and those on the land who have depended during the years on the fishing industry. They deserve to survive too. In my area, which is considered to be the most socio-economically deprived part of Ireland, it is predicted that by the end of this century there will be nobody left west of a line drawn from Killala to Newport. Every district electoral division has shown a decline except for a blip in St. Brendan's village in Mulranny which has resulted in a population increase.

There seems to be movement against development in our area in favour of centralisation. For example, the Hollywood and Hanly reports recommended centralisation of radiotherapy services when positive discrimination in favour of rural Ireland was needed. The area I represent will not survive if these moves continue.

Knock Airport is a wonderful catalyst for change and a wonderful symbol for what is possible in this regard. However, the Government has not delivered in developing it. Instead, the usual excuse is given — the clampdown on incentive schemes due to EU regulations. It is Government, not EU, rules which are preventing the airport's development. It is in the interests of the Government to achieve balanced regional development. Preservation applies not only to fish species but also to Homo sapiens. If there are no salmon left in our rivers by the end of the century, there will be a public outcry. However, the continued existence of Homo sapiens in Mulranny and along the west coast is threatened.

On the mid-Atlantic seaboard those most affected by the regulations are drift net fishermen working on larger vessels at sea and draft net fishermen, small operators in the channels and estuaries, usually with large families, who are doing their best to survive. They do not have supertrawlers to hoover up fish from the seabed. Instead, they must count what they have to survive from week to week. The majority would prefer to work rather than sit at home doing nothing. However, during the years their quotas have been gradually reduced — this year even further — based on scientific advice to ensure the survival of fish stocks. However, the survival of Homo sapiens must also be taken into account.

A set-aside scheme to conserve stocks was proposed under which fishermen would be compensated for fishing less. The Government stated it would only introduce the proposal if some means to measure the scheme was available. The criteria for measuring the scheme and the means of counting fish stocks in rivers were filled. The scheme was promoted by the Government with private owners of fisheries putting money into it. It was promised to fishermen in 2002, yet it has never been implemented. Will the Minister of State examine it once more?

Every year fishing quotas have been reduced with no recompense for fishermen who now find themselves in a no-win economic situation. The Government must play ball with them. Already in Mulranny 50 livelihoods have been wiped out. Some salmon quotas have been reduced to as low as 20 per year. How can a fisherman survive on catching 20 salmon per year? Draft net fishing has continued in Mulranny for hundreds of years but is now lost.

I welcome the recent legislation requiring the compulsory wearing of lifejackets at sea. However, who will implement the law? Sea angling is an important economic and social activity in coastal areas with many local clubs in existence. However, this year there was no angling in Mulranny because safety regulations had changed so much that many boats were simply not available. Sea angling competitions were successful in involving whole families and the community, yet we have seen their demise in Mulranny, Belmullet and other coastal towns.

I am in favour of maritime safety, particularly given last year's tragic incident off the south-east coast. However, cognisance must be taken of the reality on the ground. I am in favour of safety at sea. In this context, the law on lifejackets should have been introduced many years before. However, it would have been better if the regulations had been phased in rather than using the overkill method in the recent Bill. Sea angling, on which many are dependent, provides a spin-off for the tourism industry. Now, however, many of them cannot afford to provide all of the required safety gear or upgrade to larger vessels.

Though I welcome the Bill for the public good, a balance is required to be struck. The survival of those living along the west coast must be ensured.

See this speech in context