John Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill is a necessary technical measure to give effect to the 1988 United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and also to the 1988 Protocol to that Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf. The texts of the convention and protocol are in Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill .

The convention and protocol have been in force since 1 March 1992. The contracting states thereto now number 78 and 71, respectively, including almost all of the EU member states and seven of the states which joined the Union on 1 May 2004. Ireland can only become a contracting state to the convention and protocol following enactment of this Bill and the formal approval of the terms of the convention and protocol by Dáil Éireann, pursuant to Article 29.5.2° of Bunreacht na hÉireann because of the likelihood of expenditure arising in regard thereto. Section 13 of the Bill also refers. The necessary motion is already on the Order Paper for approval.

Ireland's accession to the convention and protocol cannot have effect until 90 days after the instrument of accession is deposited with the Secretary General of the International Maritime Organisation, which is a specialist UN body headquartered in London, as specifically provided for in Article 18.2 of the convention and Article 6.2 of the protocol.

It did not appear necessary to successive Governments that legislation to give effect to the 1988 maritime convention and protocol should have priority over other legislation in their respective programmes. While there were a number of terrorist-type incidents involving cruise liners and other ships since 1988, there was little, if any, international pressure for all UN member states to give effect to the convention and protocol. However, the situation changed radically with the terrible terrorist attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001. The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1373 on 28 September 2001 to urge all UN member states which had not yet done so to become party to the 1988 convention and protocol and ten other international instruments in order to strengthen international co-operation against terrorism.

Six of those 12 international instruments, which relate to aviation security and transport of nuclear material, have already been implemented by Ireland. The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill 2002, being sponsored by the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform and now before Dáil Éireann, gives effect to another four international instruments, the most important of which relates to the suppression of the financing of terrorism. Other legislative priorities delayed until this year the drafting and initiation in Seanad Éireann of a separate Maritime Security Bill 2004 to give effect to the remaining two instruments, namely, the 1988 convention and protocol.

The need to proceed with the Bill to early enactment has been reinforced by the terrorist atrocities in Madrid and elsewhere. We extend our sympathy to the bereaved and injured and commit ourselves to greater vigilance and further international co-operation against terrorism. All member states of the United Nations must have the necessary laws in place to deal with very mobile and serious offenders so as to ensure that they will not escape jurisdiction. More importantly, the law must be dissuasive, with sufficiently strong penalties and search and enforcement provisions. This Bill, therefore, addresses a particular gap in Irish law which should be filled as quickly as possible. The Government is committed to ensuring that other legislative measures, which may be agreed at EU level or at the wider UN level, to enhance maritime security will be made part of Irish law without delay. In that connection, I will continue to work closely with my colleagues, the Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Defence, and with the Garda and Defence Forces.

In the context of the current EU Presidency, it is the Government's wish that both Bills should now be dealt with by both Houses of the Oireachtas and enacted at an early date. That would signal clearly our resolve to press for greater co-operation between states in working against international terrorism in all of its many manifestations.

A key aspect of the European Council declaration of 25 March 2004 on combating terrorism is a commitment by all EU member states to improve implementation of commitments already undertaken following the terrorist attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001. The European Council declaration of 25 March 2004 also confirmed the appointment of a EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Mr. Gijs de Vries, and called on EU member states to develop co-operation between their intelligence, enforcement and judicial authorities and to develop a longer-term counter-terrorism strategy with the wider international community. Significant progress in that regard will be expected of EU member states, including Ireland, before the June 2004 European Council and the EU-USA summit.

I will now refer to the considerable practical work undertaken in the International Maritime Organisation and the EU over the past two years, which has resulted in the IMO-EU maritime security measures for ports and ships which will come into force on 1 July 2004 throughout the EU and beyond. As my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has already advised this House during Question Time on 1 April 2004, the necessary preparations in the State are well advanced and are being co-ordinated by the maritime safety directorate in our Department to ensure the deadline is met. We expect all Irish ports and ships concerned to meet the new security requirements, so as to be able to continue to trade normally after 1 July 2004.

The new IMO-EU security measures in place from 1 July apply to the following: passenger ships; cargo ships of 500 gross tonnes and upwards; mobile offshore units; and port facilities for international voyages. Each Irish port and port facility with an approved port facility security plan, PFSP, in place in compliance with the EU regulations and the international ship and port facility code, ISPS, will receive a certificate of compliance from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, and can continue to trade normally from 1 July 2004. Similarly, each Irish ship which is in compliance with the EU regulations and the ISPS code will receive an international ship security certificate from the appropriate recognised security organisation under the code and can continue to trade normally from that date. However, non-compliant ports, port facilities and ships will not.

The EU regulations extend the scope of the IMO measures to class A domestic passenger ships by 1 July 2005 and all other domestic traffic by 1 July 2007.

Maritime security is getting increasing attention in the IMO, the EU and other international fora in the general international moves to counteract terrorism. Particular attention is being given to putting in place greater controls on materials, equipment and technologies such as firearms, explosives and bomb making equipment which contribute to the proliferation of terrorist attacks. That work is ongoing.

In addition to the IMO-EU maritime security measures for ports and ships which will come into force on 1 July 2004, consideration is now under way of an EU Commission proposal for a directive prescribing additional security measures for the entirety of ports and surrounding areas and of proposals to amend the 1988 maritime convention and protocol, to which the Maritime Security Bill 2004 gives effect, which will create additional offences relating to the illegal carriage or use of weapons and explosives and, controversially, will provide extensive powers for states to stop, board and search ships on the high seas suspected to be carrying such articles or materials. These proposals are under consideration by the legal committee of the International Maritime Organisation and may emerge in 2005 for states to decide thereon.

While much of the Maritime Security Bill is, of necessity, modelled on provisions of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill 2002, a separate Bill was decided upon to deal with maritime security matters, which are of a somewhat specialised nature, by analogy with the separate legislative provisions made in the Air Navigation and Transport Acts to safeguard air navigation and transport against certain unlawful acts.

As specifically required by the convention and protocol, section 2 of the Maritime Security Bill 2004 creates certain offences against the safety of Irish ships and other ships which are in Irish territorial waters, and against any fixed platforms on Ireland's continental shelf, while section 3 is a standard-type extension of Ireland's jurisdiction to allow prosecution in the State for breaches of the convention or protocol committed outside the State. In either case, the penalty is life imprisonment on conviction on indictment. The specific offences listed in section 2 of the Bill mirror those set out in Article 3 of the convention and Article 2 of the protocol.

Sections 4 to 8 of the Bill supplement those principal provisions by providing powers for search on a ship or fixed platform on which an offence was believed to have been committed or an alleged offender is on board, and for the apprehension, detention and prosecution of alleged offenders or handing them over for prosecution to the appropriate authorities of another state which is party to the convention and protocol.

Sections 9 to 12, while ensuring the avoidance of double jeopardy in any case arising under the Bill, also ensure that, because of the gravity of the offences referred to, the most stringent requirements of the Bail Act 1997 and other relevant Acts will apply thereto. Thus, an application for bail in the case of a person charged with murder or attempted murder could only be made to the High Court, and bail may be refused in any event to a person charged with a serious offence under the Bill when enacted if the court considers it necessary to refuse bail in order to prevent the commission of a further serious offence. Moreover, offences under the Bill cannot be regarded as political offences so as to prevent the extradition of the alleged offender from the State to the requested state.

I have already dealt with section 13 of the Bill, which is a standard provision to cover expenditure in the administration of the Bill when enacted. The remainder of the Bill, sections 1, interpretation, and 14, Short Title, is also on standard lines.

A detailed explanatory and financial memorandum was published with the Bill and I will be glad to provide any further information required by Deputies to facilitate their consideration of it. Early enactment of the Bill is pressing. Not only will it help to reassure our important commercial shipping and port enterprises and offshore energy producers, but it will also confirm the resolve of the Government to deal effectively with the terrorism dossier in its EU Presidency. I therefore look forward to the assistance of Deputies with the passage of the Bill.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share my time with Deputy McGinley.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I also welcome this Bill which gives effect to the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (1988) and the protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf (1988), signed in Rome on 10 March 1988.

The need for this legislation goes back to 1988. The Minister of State said that it is now being speeded up because of the events of 11 September 2001 and the Madrid bombings. I cannot understand why such important legislation has taken so long to come before the Dáil. The Minister of State said it is now urgent to address a particular gap in Irish law which should be filled as soon as possible. I wholeheartedly agree.

The terrorist attacks in New York and Madrid have made us aware of the major security issues facing us and given us cause to fear a similar attack. At present we hold the EU Presidency and security, therefore, should be at the top of our agenda. We all understand the importance of security. The attacks in New York and Madrid brought us together and caused us to focus more on security issues. A recent measure taken at EU level was the appointment of a top official to spearhead the communications and intelligence area in order to strengthen the fight against international terrorism.

I come from Wexford where there is a major port in Rosslare and where I was last week with our party leader, Deputy Kenny. One can see that the Rosslare authorities concentrate on what is coming through the port, for example, drugs, etc. The issue of terrorist attacks through ports was discussed at a committee meeting which was attended by Deputy Bruton a couple of weeks ago and I raised the issue of the port of Rosslare at that meeting. We do not know what will happen, though hopefully no attack will be made through any Irish port.

It was proposed that security should be heightened in ports such as Rosslare. I am glad the Minister stated that a port security plan is to be put in place because it is important to do so.

In the course of our EU Presidency we will be welcoming President Bush to Ireland. It will be necessary to heighten security for that visit, given recent international events. It is to be hoped that we will not face attack when President Bush is in Ireland and that we will have top level security.

It would be remiss of me not to refer to our coastline given that I live on the coast. I visited Sellafield some months ago. The possibility of an attack on the facility has been referred to in the House on numerous occasions. Such an attack would have major consequences for people living along our coastline from the north-east to the south-east The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, which is an independent institution, has not been allowed into Sellafield to carry out an independent verification of what is taking place there. That is of concern because it makes one wonder what there is to hide. Given the amount of radioactive waste generated at Sellafield and that iodine tablets were distributed to households some years ago, the plant must pose a serious hazard for us. This issue should be at the top of our agenda because, in the context of terrorist attacks, Sellafield is very dangerous and any attack on it would have serious consequences for Ireland. I am aware that the Minister and the Minister of State, who are both from coastal areas, have campaigned on behalf of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to be allowed to inspect Sellafield.

The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988 and the Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf 1988. The convention and protocol are among a suite of international instruments against terrorism which member states of the United Nations are enjoined by Security Council Resolution 1373 of 28 September 2001 to implement as soon as possible. The terms of the convention and protocol are required to be approved by the Dáil pursuant to Article 29.5.2° of the Constitution and the Bill is required to be enacted before Ireland can be a party to them.

The legislation creates specific offences against the safety of Irish ships and other ships in Irish territorial waters and against fixed platforms on the continental shelf, subject to imprisonment for life on conviction on indictment. It consequently provides, on standard lines, for extra-territorial jurisdiction to cover offences committed outside the State in breach of the convention or protocol, the apprehension, detention and handing over to appropriate authorities of alleged offenders, extradition, bail, avoidance and double jeopardy and such other necessary matters on the model of provisions of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill 2002 which is before the Dáil and makes necessary provision in relation to four other international conventions against terrorism.

Fine Gael fully supports this Bill and believes these measures are long overdue. It is likely that its passage through the Oireachtas has been speeded up in the aftermath of the Madrid atrocities on 11 March and the renewed international focus on the need to crack down on terrorism. It is important that this Bill is being brought forward as Ireland holds the Presidency of the European Union and cannot be seen to be lagging behind its neighbours when it is supposed to be leading them.

The Bill offers Fine Gael the opportunity to spell out its vision of new Irish defence arrangements. In the document, Beyond Neutrality, published by Deputy Gay Mitchell in 2003, it is stated that Fine Gael advocates an EU defence entity in whose development Ireland takes a full and active role and that is based upon five key principles: adherence to the fundamental principles of the UN, a commitment to the vigorous pursuit of the goal of universal nuclear and biological disarmament and a solemn undertaking by the EU defence entity not to use either type of weapon, a commitment to mutual defence and support but with specific opt-in provisions for individual states, a commitment to the provision of peacekeeping and peace-making operations and to the Petersberg Tasks, such as humanitarian aid, search and rescue etc., and respect for the right of other member states to be involved in other military alliances. If Ireland does not contribute to the debate on a common EU security and defence policy, we cannot complain when a policy is unveiled that addresses the concerns and aspirations of other states but not our own.

On the war in Iraq, the Government has spoken out of both sides of its mouth. The Taoiseach does not say he agrees with the war in Iraq, then says he disagrees and then complains about what has happened. Fine Gael opposed the attacks on Iraq. Its proposals were realistic, workable, honest and in stark to contrast to the Government's vague, unclear policy.

Fine Gael welcomes the Bill and hopes it will be implemented before the end of Ireland's EU Presidency. This and other legislation going through the Dáil, together with changes at European level, prove that action is being taken at last to ensure that Europe and the wider world remain a safe place that can be rid of the terrorist threat. I hope there will never be a terrorist threat against this State and that the Bill will help to defend against such a threat in the future.

Dinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank my colleague, Deputy Kehoe, for giving me some of his time. I support the stand he and our party are taking on the Bill and hope it will be implemented as soon as possible. We have all come to realise in recent times that the world is a much more dangerous place than heretofore acknowledged. The tragedy of 11 September 2001, what happened nearer at hand in Madrid a number of weeks ago and what is happening in other parts of the world mean that nowhere is safe. Given that we are an island nation on the periphery of Europe, this Bill on maritime security is relevant to our needs and important for the safety of our citizens. For that reason I and my party welcome it.

We are exposed because we are seen, whether we like it or not, as part of the western alliance, no part of which is safe. We are aware of the efforts made last week when the EU Heads of State were here. I do not know how high Ireland is on the list of targets, but it is probably on it. The Government has a responsibility to provide all the possible levels of security. I am afraid that the security we can provide at present is not up to scratch and not sufficiently comprehensive. Ireland is not as secure as it should be or as its citizens expect it to be.

I asked the Taoiseach yesterday if we would have the capacity to defend our airspace and the waters around this country if we faced an attack similar to that in New York on 11 September 2001. He admitted that there are shortcomings. We all have to bear responsibility in that regard, but the Government and its predecessor have to bear a large proportion of it. If we were under attack from the air, for example from an unidentified aircraft approaching this country, we would not have the wherewithal to divert it or to force it to land. We would have to go cap in hand to our neighbours, probably the UK or our European partners, to seek the necessary assistance. I hope that other measures will be introduced to improve the situation in respect of air cover.

As an island nation, Ireland has to protect a huge coastline. I pay tribute to those who work for the Naval Service, just as I compliment those employed by the Air Corps. Some of our services leave much to be desired, however. I understand that all our naval vessels cannot be sent to sea at the same time because the Naval Service is understrength at present. We do not have enough staff to crew the vessels. This matter needs to be examined.

The Air Corps has provided search and rescue facilities around our coast for many years. I cannot understand why the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has decided to remove this responsibility from the Air Corps, which has undertaken it successfully for 30 or 40 years. I come from a coastal area, just like the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, and my colleague, Deputy Kehoe. The Labour Party spokesman, Deputy Broughan, is from a fine coastal area in north County Dublin. I was there this morning for few hours.

All Deputies who are familiar with the contribution that has been made by the Air Corps over the years have learned that responsibility for search and rescue services and certain security details has been taken from the Air Corps. The reason for the Government's decision to hand the contract to a private Canadian company is quite flimsy. It has dealt a blow to the morale of the brave men and women of the Air Corps, who provided search and rescue services and undertook many flights of mercy to islands, including Tory, Arranmore and others in my constituency. The Air Corps workers were always willing to risk their lives in the service of island and coastal communities when medical emergencies took place or when the islanders were cut off for a period of time due to inclement weather and high seas. I regret that the Government has removed such functions from the Air Corps. The decision has not helped the morale of the brave men and women who have provided such services for many years.

The Maritime Security Bill 2004 is designed to give effect to the 1998 UN Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the 1998 Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. The convention and the protocol are among a number of instruments that the UN is calling on all member states to implement as soon as possible. The instruments are designed to counter the threat and practice of terrorism. The legislation is to be welcomed, as I have already said, because it creates specific offences against the safety of Irish ships and other ships in Irish waters. We are responsible for Irish ships and other ships that may use Irish waters.

It has taken six years for the instruments to be brought to the House. I am concerned by the delay in devising and bringing to the House the legislative response to the UN conventions and protocols. It is clear that matters relating to the prevention of terrorism must be prioritised and that all legislative options open to us must be acted upon. The new realities of global security in the 21st century mean that we cannot stand aside. I condemn the Government's failure to prioritise legislation that relates to the fight against terrorism.

The delay in bringing forward legislation relates not only to UN conventions and protocols, but also to domestic Bills that languish on the shelf after publication. The Taoiseach's call in the wake of the recent terrorist atrocity in Madrid for united EU action to stop terror rang hollow, given that the Government's Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill has not yet been acted on. The Bill was welcomed by Fine Gael when it was published in December 2002. It seeks to implement an EU framework decision on combating terrorism, an international convention on the taking of hostages, a convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes, an international convention on the suppression of terrorist bombings and an international convention on the suppression and financing of terrorism. Such issues need to be addressed urgently, but the Bill will not be considered on Committee Stage until later this month. I do not know when it will be passed or when it will be implemented. Why has the Taoiseach called for EU support for action on terrorism when he will not implement his own legislation on it?

The Government refuses to have an open and mature debate on EU security and common defence arrangements despite Ireland's lack of capacity to resist any serious terrorist threat. As Deputy Kehoe said earlier, Fine Gael has been the only party to face up to Ireland's inability in this regard. We have grasped the nettle of Ireland's so-called neutrality. The first duty of a Government should be to provide for the security of the people, but the Government has neglected its responsibility in that area. In a European Union that is closer than ever, Fine Gael believes that Ireland should play an active role in the Union's emerging common defence and security arrangements. This is the best way to secure the safety of our people at home and abroad and to fulfil our responsibilities to our EU neighbours and friends.

Not only should Ireland be part of the EU security and defence architecture, but it should be one of the architects of the systems to meet our needs and our view of Europe's needs. Deputy Kehoe referred to a Fine Gael document, Beyond Neutrality, which recognises the need for Ireland to be involved in a common security and defence system that is guided by five key principles. There should first be a commitment to adhere to the fundamental principles of the UN; second, a commitment to the pursuit to universal nuclear and biological disarmament and a promise never to use either type of weapon; third, a commitment to mutual defence with our EU neighbours, with specific provisions that allow Ireland decide whether to get involved in any conflict on a case-by-case basis; fourth, a commitment to providing peacekeeping and peacemaking operations; and fifth, a commitment to respect the right of other EU member states to enter other military alliances. We know that it currently seems to be a priority with our European colleagues that they are slowly evolving and building a common security and defence policy. As was admitted in the House yesterday, if we are in difficulties we can call on their help. If they are in difficulties, it is only fair that it should be a quid pro quo whereby we would be available to help them. The stance of "I will help you if you will help me" seems reasonable. I cannot understand why we have any difficulty with such a policy. I am sure the Minister will respond.

Whether we like it or not, European defence co-operation is up for discussion and there is a clear momentum towards a common arrangement. We should get involved in the discussion now. Doing nothing is the best way of ensuring that the end of Irish neutrality comes about on the least favourable terms for Ireland and based on rules written by others. I do not know if we can participate in this discussion at European level. When the policy is being put together, if we make our contribution we will at least have a say in the final document. If we sit on the sidelines and do not participate, we will eventually be presented with a fait accompli that we will probably have to accept whether we participate or not.

The Maritime Security Bill 2004 is important legislation, but further action will be needed for the protection of Irish and European waters. Given the present geopolitical climate and the possible threat of terrorist attacks, the EU, in recognising the vulnerability of maritime targets, should establish an EU coast guard to provide a co-ordinated rapid response, should such a maritime attack ever occur. At European level, Fine Gael has led the call for the establishment of an EU coast guard. In addition to combating potential terrorist attacks, such a coast guard could also vigorously police the revised Common Fisheries Policy to ensure that the deal, which will involve a significant loss of tonnage for Irish fishermen, is administered fairly.

While we are not primarily concerned with, or are discussing, the Common Fisheries Policy and its implications for our coastal community, I know that the Minister of State is very familiar with what we have lost over the years, and with what we continue to lose. In my own constituency, the fishing industry was very vibrant in the past, and provided so many jobs that the Donegal economy was always closely tied to that industry. It is now depressed. When the Common Fisheries Policy is fully negotiated, its implementation must be fairly carried out. We must have the equipment to ensure that we get our fair share of what is going.

Most importantly however, an EU coast guard could also have a vital role in combating the actions of organised criminals who exploit EU waters in the trafficking of arms, drugs and human beings. We know this is happening. There have been a number of tragedies where human beings were trafficked or transported. Additionally, EU member states acting alone are underresourced and ill-prepared to face the threat of maritime disaster. The traffic in EU shipping lanes is increasingly heavy and the number of collisions that have occurred in EU waters point to the need for more effective co-ordination if we are to avoid potential maritime disasters. We have had our share of those. There was one a number of years ago in the constituency of my colleague, Deputy Kehoe, when a tanker went aground. Similar incidents have occurred off the coasts of France and Spain.

Security is needed in that area, but the root of the problem is that shipping companies are acting like pirates and allowing unseaworthy craft to go to sea. There must be more scrutiny and tighter controls on such vessels before they are allowed to carry dangerous cargoes which can cause so much damage to the ecology of our coastal areas. That is another area which needs to be tightened up if we are to avoid these disasters.

Fine Gael MEPs were instrumental in having the proposal for the establishment of an EU coast guard accepted recently by the European Parliament Committee on Maritime Safety, and will continue to call vigorously for the establishment of such a service. We welcome this Bill as a small step towards improving our maritime security, but we must have a comprehensive policy which will cover our coastal areas and air territory. We are living in a dangerous world. We must act together, co-operate and be good neighbours to our neighbours. Unless we stand together we will fall separately on this issue.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On behalf of the Labour Party I welcome the Maritime Security Bill 2004, which gives effect to the Rome Convention of March 1988, the UN Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, and the associated Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. It is incumbent on us to pass this Bill as quickly as we can and deposit it with the Secretary General of the International Maritime Organisation under Article 18.2 of the convention and Article 6.2 of the protocol.

As the Minister of State said, the legislation before us was spurred on by Resolution 1373 of the UN Security Council of 28 September 2001 which called on all EU states to become members, as soon as possible, of the convention and the protocol, and indeed of all the 12 anti-terrorist conventions to which the Minister referred. I understand that the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill 2002 gave effect to four of the remaining six of these conventions to which we have not yet signed up. The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, is taking us through the last two conventions and protocols.

Why has it taken so long to get this legislation? While I accept that there has been a lot of business to deal with, and the legislation before us is not very substantial, it is nevertheless very important for us as a marine nation. The reform of procedures in this House is critical in order that we can quickly process legislation of this type. Had we brought it forward two and a half years ago, after 9/11, and after Resolution 1373, it would have been appropriate.

It is important that the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources address the huge range of vitally important legislation. I notice that we still have the Electricity (Amendment) Bill on the A list. On the B list we have the Energy Bill, the Fisheries Bill, the Mercantile Marine Bill and the Registration Bill. On the C list I counted perhaps 14 or 15 Bills yesterday afternoon, including very important marine Bills, such as the Marine Services Bill, the Maritime Safety Bill, the Bord Gáis Bill and the Broadcasting Authority Bill, about which we have all had intense representations in recent weeks.

I know that the Minister of State's Department and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, have a huge backlog of legislation, vitally important to the country and we should address that legislation as soon as we can.

The marine environment is especially vulnerable to terrorism and terrorist groups. In recent decades we have had a history of maritime attacks and hijacking. Areas which stand out in this regard are located around the world's sea lanes, in particular the Malacca Straits in south Asia which is 500 nautical miles long and 29 miles wide. A total of 80% of Japanese trade, much of American trade and two-thirds of the world's liquefied natural gas passes through and it was along that area that the ship the Chaumat was seized for a short time in 1999 and driven at full speed without anyone at the helm for a period of 70 minutes. This incident had the potential for a major catastrophe. In recent times, the Tamil Tigers, the Sri Lankan liberation force have specialised in maritime terrorism against the Sri Lankan navy as well as other passing ships. In this vitally important developing area of world trade, there is a clear need for the implementation of the legislation.

John Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is educating the Members at the back.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before Deputy Morgan speaks.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I seek leave to share time with Deputies Finian McGrath and Eamon Ryan.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The main terrorism that I have experienced in my life was at the hands of people in British Army uniforms, who were directed from Whitehall. It is unfortunate that, in the absence of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, we do not have legislation here to banish those people from our country.

I have a number of concerns about this Bill. I appreciate that there needs to be proper protection of vessels and marine installations, but I am not satisfied that there is some major new problem that needs to be addressed by a raft of new security legislation. Other speakers have referred to the new dangers that have arisen since the awful events in New York and Madrid, but I am concerned that those events are being used to serve as the pretext for legislation that would not have prevented either of those atrocities. I am reminded of something that was said last year by Ms Irene Khan of Amnesty International when she referred to the fact that the so-called war on terror was being used to curtail human rights, undermine international law and increase the level of fear and suspicion between different peoples.

If we needed proof of that, we need only look at the awful facts that are beginning to emerge from the Iraqi prisons. While states need to protect themselves against threats, they do not have the right to undermine human rights in the process. One of the possible dangers in this legislation is contained in section 7(4)(b) which refers to the provisions of the European arrest warrant. That facility, which was approved by the House a number of months ago, brings an end to the previous situation whereby this State had formal extradition arrangements with other states and puts in place a new situation where warrants can be issued by member state courts and exercised without having to satisfy previous safeguards in another jurisdiction. As we ought to have learned from our experience of the extradition of people between this jurisdiction and those under the control of the British Government, such cases can be fraught with difficulty, especially when dealing with offences that are connected with political problems and conflicts.

I cannot foresee why people might choose to seize a ship of another state in Irish waters. We ought not to prejudge such an event by decreeing in advance that anyone who would do so would automatically be extradited or punished here. What would we do, for example, if people being brought by ship from one country to another to be placed in a concentration camp, were to mutiny in Irish territorial waters and seize the ship in which they were being transported? Would we arrest and extradite them or would we lock them up in prison here? These may seem like unlikely scenarios, at least in an EU context, but in a world of mass human rights abuses, they surely merit some consideration before we pass blanket legislation such as this Bill.

I am also concerned by section 2(1)(a) which refers to the offence of "seizing or exercising control over a ship or fixed platform by force or threat of force or any other form of intimidation". People could find themselves subject to the rigorous sanctions recommended in this Bill by their participation in legitimate acts of protest. If workers went on strike on an offshore exploration platform and the dispute developed, as industrial conflicts sometimes do, into an occupation, would such persons then be considered to be in contravention of this section and depicted as terrorists? Would it allow companies like Shell or Marathon to invoke this legislation in the event of an industrial dispute offshore?

A similar situation might arise in industrial action on a ship. Last year, non-national employees of a shipping company found themselves in possession of the ship on which they were employed because of a refusal to pay them. If this Bill is passed, will such employers be able to resort to legislation to have the workers arrested and charged with such serious offences?

In a similar fashion, would people engaged in protest or direct actions against ships carrying war materials or nuclear materials come under the terms of the legislation? I have taken part in protests against Sellafield and Greenpeace has attempted to physically obstruct vessels carrying noxious materials from Sellafield through the Irish Sea. If such an action was successful to the extent of the protesters boarding such a vessel and preventing it carrying its deadly cargo further, would that be considered an act of terror?

Almost everyone has referred to Sellafield. I fail to see how this Bill would prevent the possibility of a terrorist attack on that installation. God forbid that anything like that would ever take place. Surely, however, this misses the point that the danger that Sellafield presents, and the harm that Sellafield does, is that it is there at all. We might not be able to prevent some lunatic deciding to crash an aeroplane into it but we can and should be doing something about the danger it currently poses. We should be pressuring the British Government to close the place down. I happen to hold the view that there are no greater terrorists on the planet than those who operate Sellafield. The sooner we introduce legislation to outlaw its operation and the resultant effects on Irish people, the happier we will all be.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is important legislation for an island nation and should be carefully considered and debated in detail. I welcome the role of the United Nations in providing security on our seas. This is particularly relevant with the use of the sea and boats to import drugs. We cannot turn a blind eye because these drugs are destroying communities and young people.

We must face up to the reality that the smoking ban makes it easier for drug pushers to peddle their wares. Groups of young people having a cigarette outside pubs are now easy pickings for pushers. They do not have to worry about staff or door men, they get their orders via mobile phone and then deliver them to the crowds outside the pubs and clubs. This is a new phenomenon that must be tackled. We must accept the downside of the smoking ban is that it makes it easier for drug pushers to sell drugs to young people.

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1998 and the Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. The convention and protocol are among a set of international instruments against terrorism which member states of the United Nations are enjoined by Security Council Resolution 1373 of 28 December 2001 to implement as soon as possible. The terms of the convention and the protocol require approval by Dáil Éireann pursuant to Article 29.5.2° of Bunreacht na hÉireann and the Bill must be enacted before Ireland can be a party to them.

It is essential that when we talk about public safety and international terrorism we do not exclude state terrorism. It is being ignored in current debates and written out of history. In recent days I have been meeting the families of the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings who were massacred in 1974 and there are strong indications that the British state was involved in this atrocity. We must open our eyes to the fact that it is not just the small guys who plant the bombs who are terrorists. Everyone has a responsibility, states have been and are involved in terrorism. The activities of the United States and Israel in the last few days demonstrate this point.

The Bill creates specific offences related to the safety of Irish ships, other ships which are in Irish territorial waters and the fixed platforms on the continental shelf. Consequently, on standard lines for extra-territorial jurisdiction, it covers offences committed outside the State in breach of the convention or protocol. There is provision for the apprehension and detention of alleged offenders and the handing over of them to the appropriate authorities along the lines of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill 2002 which is currently before the Dáil. That Bill makes the necessary provisions on four other conventions against terrorism.

Section 1(2) makes it clear that any Defence Forces involvement under the Bill is only to be in aid of the civil power at the request of a member of the Garda Síochána of at least inspector rank. That is an important contribution to our security and policing services.

When we are discussing this Bill we should focus on the importance of the bays around Ireland, particularly Dublin Bay. Many of us have been campaigning for the preservation of Dublin Bay for years. We have worked with community groups in the Clontarf area in particular to protect Dublin Bay from the proposed in-fill.

In October 1999, Dublin Port Company Limited applied to fill in 52 acres. This application was rejected in March 2000 after independent consultants found the environmental impact statement was inadequate. On 7 March 2002, Dublin Port Company Limited reapplied to fill in the same 52 acres. The independent consultants reported on the EIS in September 2002 and the application is still current.

Since 1972, Dublin Port Company Limited has tried for other in-fills and we must remain on our guard. I compliment my predecessor, the former Deputy Seán Dublin Bay Loftus, for his work. In 1972 Dublin Port Company Limited published its long-term plan for the bay and filled in 2,870 acres. In 1980, it published notices applying to fill in 94 acres of the bay and 1988, 1999 and again in 2002 it applied to fill in 52 acres. I raise these questions because the signs coming from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources are not encouraging. If the Minister gives the go ahead to the company there will be massive opposition from local people.

I commend and thank the people involved in the campaign to preserve Dublin Bay, particularly Dublin Baywatch, which is active in Clontarf. So far it has made presentations on the issue to the Government task force on the use of port land and estates and other presentations on transport and logistics.

It is important that we do not overdevelop some ports while ignoring others. If we want to stop the bottlenecks and traffic jams, we should be more radical, looking around the coast and developing other ports. I want to highlight those issues regarding development. I am not only saying that we should not fill in Dublin bay; I am also putting forward constructive proposals to deal with the situation. The explanatory memorandum reads as follows.

Subsection (7) obliges the court to pay due regard to whether the rights of the person in question can be given effect to in the state requesting the extradition of that person, namely, the right to

(a) communicate without delay with the nearest appropriate representative of the state of which that person is a national or which is otherwise entitled to establish such communication or, if that person is a stateless person, the state in the territory of which that person has his or her habitual residence, and

(b) be visited by a representative of that state.

It continues:

Subsection (9) is a necessary exemption from any liability for any master of a ship or person in charge of a fixed platform who acts in a reasonable way under this Bill when enacted.

Those are extremely important issues to raise under the legislation. Let us consider the section of the Bill dealing with its financial implications. The Exchequer expenditure could arise from mutual assistance, extradition of alleged offenders, and other requirements of the 1988 convention and protocol. While such expenditure is unlikely to be significant, the Dáil approval of the terms of the 1988 convention and protocol is specifically required by Article 29.5.2° of Bunreacht na hÉireann, as well as the entitlement of this Bill. In other words, if we are to be serious about the legislation, we will have to bring in the necessary resources, particularly to improve the safety of our citizens. We have been slack on the safety and public protection of citizens of this State over several years. Earlier I mentioned the example of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Our citizens were totally neglected by successive Governments, and it is important that this issue be constantly highlighted.

Regarding the development of the seas and the fishing industry, I commend those on this island involved in it. I would also defend the interests of the fishermen and others who go out risking their lives daily, making a massive contribution to this economy and the State. I will defend them to the end when it comes to the sometimes negative comments from people about the revenue they earn and their salaries. They deserve every single cent they get, since they work extremely hard at a very difficult job. They also play an extremely important part in the economic development of the nation. We must target this resource and use it more often.

I welcome the overall debate on maritime security, and I hope the amendments tabled at a late stage will be taken into account.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was trying to think, sitting here, of what risks to this State might apply regarding some of the events for which we are preparing. Deputy Broughan mentioned how we had fortuitously had a committee meeting last week on port security in this State. I am raising this because I am wondering what circumstances we should be concerned about. One concern to come out of that meeting was the discussion we had with officials regarding safety at Galway city, given the port facility with very large quantities of flammable gas right in the heart of the city. I am not a chemical engineer and cannot state the specific substance, but anyone who knows Galway city centre and the docks area there will know that one regularly sees the loading and unloading of vessels carrying highly combustible explosive materials. It is effectively right in the city centre. If we are to be publicly concerned — personally I do not see much chance of a terrorist attack on Galway — that was one risk highlighted to me at a recent committee, and perhaps the Government might want to address it. The officials raised my concerns at our meeting.

It is interesting that the convention to which we are signing up also addresses the safety of platforms when it comes to possible terrorist attacks. The one other great risk I see here, if someone were sufficiently demented to try to take on such terrorist activities, is in the proposed development of the gas pipeline from the Corrib gas field, which hits the Irish mainland near Pollatomish, County Mayo, before travelling overland for some 9 km. to the proposed processing station. I am told by experts in the field that there is no international precedent for such a lengthy pipeline from the shore to the processing point. The very existence of that pipeline in itself poses quite a risk for the area given possible blockages or other damages that can be caused to it. However, in Iraq at the moment, some of the targets most difficult to protect against terrorist activity are those very pipelines.

Yet in this country, for reasons about which I am not very clear, we cannot put a processing plant at a landfall elsewhere or provide offshore processing facilities. I am genuinely concerned that, if someone were sufficiently demented and wished to target this country's offshore facilities, that person would not have to go offshore. He or she could look at those 9 km. of pipeline, which would be almost impossible to guard, and decide that a small device there would do incredible damage to this country. I would be interested in hearing the Minister reply whether, if there are risks in this country, he can guarantee future safety, given whatever circumstances lie ahead. It was interesting to hear Deputy Finian McGrath speak of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. What effect would a similar bomb along that pipeline have? Can the Minister give assurances that the pipeline is safe from such terrorist attacks?

The third obvious risk to this State, which my colleagues have mentioned already, is a possible attack on the nuclear facilities at Sellafield. I know it does not have a maritime risk; the danger is more from air attack. Out of interest, I can report back to the House that I recently had some discussions with the British members of the nuclear safety authority who were over here showing the very good work they do in trying to keep those facilities safe. I failed to get an answer as to how they could prevent a terrorist attack by a plane going into those facilities or how they might protect against it. The British authorities said they were unable to give details for security reasons. The Irish expert to whom I was talking was interesting. He was hypothesising — having merely thought about it and having some experience in the area — that we would be down to devices which would release smoke close to the reactors to try to hide them if a plane were approaching or the issuing of balloon barrages which would rise up around the reactors. When I heard of those possible precautions, it filled me with nothing but further concern at the possibilities.

However, I have digressed from the Maritime Security Bill 2004, which is before us. My central point is very general and does not necessarily relate to the provisions. We are all concerned about the fight against terrorism world-wide, having seen the atrocities carried out in Madrid, and in New York in 2001. We cannot ignore or fail to address the threat. However, I strongly believe the current manner of our addressing that terrorist threat is completely wrong. It is interesting to read the Schedule. The 1988 convention was remarkably prescient in recognising some of the threats before us. However, in Schedule 1 to the convention, I am particularly drawn to the fact that it records Resolution 40/61 of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 9 December 1985. That is an extremely important resolution for us to return to in our fight against terrorism.

It makes us recognise that the causes of international terrorism must be tackled. Special attention must be paid to causes such as colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as those involving alien occupation. This House has legislated on several occasions for Bills similar to this to introduce protective measures, where we are trying to put in place tough penalties and stiff sentencing against people who are carrying out terrorist activities. However, we are not addressing the real causes of that terrorism. That is particularly relevant to the present situation in Iraq where, under Resolution 4061 of the United Nations, there is an alien occupation. One has to ask how that is helping the fight against terrorism. Is it contributing to the development of terrorism on a long-term basis? I believe it is.

It is remarkable to see, as referred to by Deputy McGrath, section 3 of Article 7 of the convention provides that if a terrorist is found on a ship we are committed to giving him or her basic protections in our jurisdiction, or indeed any jurisdiction. That is a demand any signatory to the convention would have to follow: such a person would be entitled to a visit from a representative of his or her state, under Article 7, or indeed under Article 10 of the convention such a person would be entitled to have his or her case handled and brought to court without delay and dealt with under the rules of the arresting nation state.

The broad question must be asked about the current activities of the American Government in holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay where the accused terrorists are being refused the right to have a case brought to court. It seems this is in flagrant breach of the spirit as set out in this United Nations convention. I question whether that breach of the UN convention is not adding to global terrorism rather than detracting from it.

Most noticeable at present is the systematic abuse by British and American armed forces and the military police under their jurisdiction in Iraq. Is that flagrant breach of human rights not also a far greater cause of the rise of global terrorism and should the Government not seek to diminish this threat by making our views known to the states in breach of such abuses which are denying people access to a fair trial? Rather than this House passing one Bill after another trying to patch up laws to provide protection against possible terrorist attacks, would it not be wiser to use our independent voice, which is highly regarded on the international stage, to say, in effect: "We in this country have learned over 30 years how to fight terrorism, and the way is not necessarily by punitive restrictive legislation, it is by promoting the democratic ideals upon which our State and the American and British states were founded."

That is the best course in terms of tackling international terrorism. It is to return to the values that established and form the cornerstone of western liberal democratic tradition. What I fear terribly is that in the struggle to fight terrorism or in the so-called war against terrorism, we are engaging in a war against our own democratic rights and values. We are introducing legal punitive measures which, while individually justifiable or prudent, are collectively leading to an infringement on the very freedoms and rights we cherish.

I hope my attack is not seen as anti-American per se. I lived in America for a period in the mid-1980s when, like many people of my generation, I could not find work here. I found the freedom there a remarkable asset. The welcome extended to me as an "illegal" working in America was enormously rewarding. It was an exhilarating state to live in. Friends who have been living in America since that time have remarked on the loss of freedom there in the past 20 years. In a sense the terrorists have been allowed to win. The restrictions being put in place to restrict terrorism are restricting our quality of life and inhibiting our sense of democracy and freedom.

While I welcome the passing of this Bill in the sense that it may possibly provide us with legal measures to take on terrorism linked to ships in international waters and while it is difficult to argue against the legal provisions and the safeguards the convention contains, I have serious questions and doubts about the process we are following, about our apparent eagerness to sign as many measures as possible so that we are seen as "good boys" on the international stage, in the war on terrorism.

In reality Ireland would be better appreciated as a State if we said honestly that it is the current abuse of human rights by a number of Governments that is the real contributor to rising global terrorism. The treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo is the recruitment agency for international terrorism. We know, in this country, what inflames people and encourages them to take up the bomb and the bullet. Having seen it operate in our own country we know how this works so we should know how to stop it.

The Government in its unique role as holder of the Presidency of the European Council of Ministers is failing to deliver that most valuable lesson that we should have learned in this State over the past 30 years, and I very much regret that.

Cecilia Keaveney (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted, as a person who lives in a house where one can throw a stone into the sea, to address a Bill on maritime security. I am also delighted to see a number of Deputies from Dublin involved in the debate. It is important we use the opportunity to discuss all aspects of marine issues. That is the central core of what I want to say because while this is the Maritime Security Bill 2004 — I could probably be challenged on the minutiae of the legislation — there are a number of issues I want to present to the Minister for clarification.

In general I agree with the previous speakers. Unfortunately, international terrorism needs to be addressed at every level where it represents a potential threat. I know this has been portrayed as merely a technical Bill and that, as the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Browne, said, it is necessary to give effect to the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1998 and the Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf.

I acknowledge, too, what the Minister said when he alluded to the fact that this legislation was not a priority with Governments over the years, since 1998. Presumably, this was because the number of terrorist-type incidents involved in cruise liners and other ships might not have been high and therefore international pressure might not have been placed on the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources or the Government to have Ireland incorporated as a contracting State to the protocol or the convention. I do not agree, however, that we need international pressure to deal with any of the issues that have to do with the sea, whether they have to do with fishing, marine tourism, safety or security, or any other aspect.

The Ministers form a sizeable marine community as they come from areas in which much marine-related activities take place. They include the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, and the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh. That short list represents at least one third of the Cabinet. Many Ministers of State have similar connections, for example, the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources Deputy Browne, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, whose constituency includes the navy base, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Fahey, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gallagher, and the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy McDaid. This is not an exhaustive list of people linked to coastal communities or to electorates. There are many Ministers, Ministers of State and backbenchers who should know about the marine as they come from such locations.

It saddens me on an occasion such as this to see a lack of interest in a Second Stage debate on yet another maritime or marine Bill. I do not believe it is because this is Thursday afternoon. There is a presumption that this issue does not concern individual Deputies. This may be a sweeping and perhaps erroneous statement. This is an island and most constituencies have a coastline but that is not reflected in the interest shown in this Bill, albeit that it is of a technical nature. When any other Department tables a Bill, Deputies use the occasion to explore its substance and highlight issues connected with the general topic. The fact that this is a technical marine Bill should not prevent people coming in to make general points about marine issues. I implore Deputies to show a more active interest in this by insisting on getting time to put on record their feelings about the importance of the marine and coastal communities to their areas. These communities are not confined to fishermen although in my area they predominate. The marine covers many aspects of life.

One may find that a Bill covers issues with serious implications for our areas that have not been discovered until after it comes into force, unless we explore them on Second Stage. I have encountered several issues of concern to me. The simple statement that this is an island has a serious import. Some areas such as Dublin, Cork, Galway and the Shannon region have successfully attracted employment and the areas around Dundalk and Monaghan have also begun to grow. In the less successful areas water offers the way forward. This Bill is designed to ensure it is always accessible and that it will not be exploited by international terrorists whose actions might undermine this nation or any other nation that has signed up to the convention. The fact that Ireland is an island presents us with potential opportunities and challenges. The Bill concentrates on the latter especially in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001 and the recent bomb attack on the Madrid metro. I offer my sympathies to all those affected by these attacks. My sister-in-law is from Madrid which makes one grateful that a close friend or family member was not involved. We have experienced enough tragedies on this island to know what the people of New York and Madrid are suffering.

The Bill covers the security of vessels around our coast and the safe passage of cruise liners. In the context of international terrorism it may sound parochial to reduce this discussion to the level of an individual Deputy or constituency but the relevance of this to even a few people has a bearing on the big picture. Surely anyone in a coastal community should have something to say about even the number of cruise liners visiting the constituency, and the level of threat from international terrorism this may entail. They might also aspire to have more international vessels visiting their areas on a social or commercial basis.

Many Deputies whose constituencies would have much to offer cruise liner operators but are not receiving visits from them could use this opportunity to underline the fact that this Bill was not prioritised because it is not as relevant to Ireland as it perhaps should be. Dublin Port is one of a number of large and busy ports but there are many other locations which might present a risk. This may be a strange argument but we do not feel threatened because we do not have as much international trade as we would like. Let us look at how we can maximise our risk in one sense but deal with that risk under this Bill. We should have more maritime traffic and invest in marine infrastructure to ensure that all parts of the island are accessible to the types of vessel central to this Bill.

Marine tourism is a buzzword but the sting is that no one seems to take responsibility for it. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources says it is a matter for the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism and vice versa. We need to inject this equation with some reality or we could perhaps have left this Bill sitting on a shelf for some time given the lack of development or the advent of factors such as cruise line tourism. We need to extend the definition of tourism to include marinas, water ski-ing, jet ski-ing, yachting, angling and so on. The words "funding", "investment", "regulating" and "co-ordinating" are absent from this discussion.

The RNLI recently requested funding for dredging in Lough Swilly. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources responded that as it was not a fishery harbour it could not fund the dredging. That had serious implications for marine safety, which is not under discussion today. However, had there been a disaster or threat in that region and the RNLI was not able to deal with it who would take responsibility for those deaths? Had there been a security incident further out and boats needed to be deployed in a similar way, would we be happy to accept the response that they had no money to dredge and were therefore grounded? It does not make sense. When will we realise we are an island and have the resources to do something as basic as dredging that enables us to use our waters and not have a virtual border? Thankfully the situation in Lough Swilly was resolved and I thank the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, and their officials. At this point I will put in a plug for dredging at Greencastle and Portmore piers.

This Bill should not merely be a measure to protect boats that we wave at as they pass around the Irish coast on the way to other destinations. Our location should gain greater significance so that more boats have a reason to land at our ports giving our coastal communities a necessary commercial or tourism boost. I speak as Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Arts, Sports, Tourism, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs which has several associations with this issue. The budget for the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is reducing annually.

My county has done extremely well through investment by this Government and its predecessor. I saw the complete change in my town as dilapidated structures ceased to be eyesores and became active fishing landing points and active harbours. Many have more aspirations and dreams for future development. Such areas are now experiencing significant increases in turnover and fish catches because of the convenient location of ports. That may sound critical, but investment has been made by the Government and the previous Administration and I want that to continue. I also want to bring maritime events and international ships into Lough Foyle and Lough Swilly. We need to maintain the level of financial support in this area to halt the recent decline that is evident.

In this regard, I encourage the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern and the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, to keep fighting their corner, not only with the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources but, more importantly, with the Department of Finance. A strong financial case can be made for a good potential return on any investment in this area. The argument is not based on sentiment, it is one based on economics and the Department of Finance should not ignore it.

The Bill gives rise to the question of who will pick up the tab for the additional security measures that may be required in certain ports. Other speakers alluded to the fact that money is only required for the extradition of people found on boats who are up to no good, and that the sum required would be small. I do not agree with that analysis. There will be a need for additional security measures and, accordingly, there will be a financial implication. What will happen to a port post-July 2004 that does not get the necessary investment to comply with the regulations, even though it is currently an active port that otherwise would have had a port facility security plan in place and an international ship and port facility code? Will ports that do not currently deal with international cruise liners or international freight traffic but that have plans to do so, be excluded from such a designation following the enactment of the Bill?

What jurisdiction will the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources have regarding ports and port facilities on Lough Foyle? Will a similar approach be taken to the Londonderry port and harbour authority, Greencastle fishery harbour and Carrickarory Pier, Moville? Will they be subject to the same terms as Lough Swilly or Dublin Port?

I trust the Bill will not have a negative impact on, for example, the Foyle ferry. This ferry runs from Magilligan in County Derry to Greencastle in County Donegal and carried 500,000 passengers in its first 15 months of operation. It is one of the strongest legacies of the peace process and links two communities that for years merely looked at each other across Lough Foyle. I trust no nonsense about international ports will be thrown into the equation as, post the Good Friday Agreement, the joint nature of the approach to Lough Foyle is established. Frequently, legislation dealing with international issues inadvertently throw up serious anomalies for Border localities that do not come to light until after the legislation has come into effect. I hope this matter can be addressed in conjunction with the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and other relevant Departments, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if necessary.

I congratulate the Garda on the significant chemicals find which, if it had not been discovered at this point, would have led to serious suffering for many individuals and families had it been converted into tablets and sold on the streets. The scale of the international movement of this cargo shows what is happening at sea and underlines the need for vigilance and a co-ordinated response.

Many coastal areas offer a potential for illegal activity under the cover of isolation. This raises the issue of whether there is a need to re-man lighthouses so as to have a more pro-active approach to activities taking place at more local level than comes under the remit of the Bill. It is possible for people to transfer from larger ships to smaller craft so as to access more isolated areas. I hope the potential for this taking place is addressed in the Bill.

I am interested in the International Maritime Organisation to which the Minister referred. Does this organisation have a role to play in activity other than international terrorism and does its remit include infrastructural development?

Does the Bill have any special significance for Lough Foyle? Has the special status of cross-Border activities currently in operation been taken into account, where there is no security threat? Who will pay for the increased security that may be needed to upgrade ports, given the constraints on the Department's budget? If a facility is not currently designated as compliant, will it be possible to gain compliance in future? Has a national survey been carried out, or will one be commissioned, to assess the financial implications of upgrading all port facilities to offer international docking? Given the need for increased security consciousness, will all maritime centres have equal access to international maritime traffic, in the interests of developing access to all regions?

The naval base is located in Cobh. Given the increased security risk and the distance from one end of the country to the other, has thought been given to the establishment of a temporary base in somewhere like Lough Swilly? It would allow a pitstop on the northern coast from which the service could operate should the need arise. Deputy Eamon Ryan referred to the threat that could be posed to Galway because of the gas pipelines from the Corrib field. When tragedies have occurred in my vicinity it has often taken boats a long time to get to the scene. They have to return to Cobh for refuelling and then return to carry on searches. If a full naval base cannot be installed on the northern coast, I urge that some form of half-way house be developed in an area such as Lough Swilly.

I am interested in the safety of Irish ships in Irish territorial waters and the issue of fixed platforms. I assume this relates to oil and gas facilities. Wind farms have been mooted in Lough Foyle as an off-shore energy source. Many people are not happy to have this project go ahead. The wishes of the people in the area and the needs of fishermen must be taken into account. I look forward to the long-awaited Foyle fishery Bill, another legislative measure relating to the marine area on which we have waited for up to eight years. I trust what I have said will be taken in the spirit in which it was intended. I consider it constructive criticism and would be most interested in receiving answers to the questions I posed. The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, is most helpful in the Department. I wish him well in his portfolio.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Neville.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate Deputy Keaveney on a thoughtful and thought-provoking speech, which is appropriate from a Deputy who comes from a maritime county and is deeply conscious of the security needs, fishery needs and the general marine and maritime needs of her area and the country.

We on this side of the House welcome the Bill. It is long past the time when it should have been introduced. We draw attention to the need for a proper, comprehensive, integrated defence and security plan, onshore and offshore, in respect of this country with particular reference to our involvement in EU defence and security discussions, debates and measures that are likely to be put into operation in the future.

The points raised by Deputy Keaveney clearly illustrate the need for vigilance in terms of marine and maritime security. The Achille Lauro was famously hijacked a long time ago. I think it was a Captain Delgado who achieved immortality by seizing a cruise liner on the high seas. Many people have put those events to the back of their minds and presume that such an event could never occur here, that we are universally loved and that nobody would ever attempt to do anything of that nature here, but that is as far from the truth as one can go. We have had experience of various kinds of agitation and terrorism over the years.

I draw a distinction between warfare and terrorism. Warfare is when war takes place and there is a formal declaration, although whether it be formal or informal is immaterial. Terrorism is what takes place when innocent people are used as victims to promote a cause such as a holy war. One can think of the various acts that have taken place over recent years and we do not have to think back so far. We can talk about terrorism in terms of the Omagh bombing. Nobody could ever suggest that bombing was a sacrifice of innocent victims to promote some particular cause, which was not very clear then and is not very clear now.

We can think of the atrocities of 11 September when 2,500 to 3,000 people were sacrificed to promote a cause, but I am not certain what that cause was. I am not certain that the perpetrators of those atrocities were sure about what the cause was other than some peculiar way of using it as a means of revenge for some perceived or real grievances they had. The central issue is that innocent people were sacrificed. Where innocent people are sacrificed, it is up to the democratic community to recognise that such atrocities are not a threat to one country or one administration but a threat to every country and administration and a direct threat to democracy. We in Fine Gael have long since promoted the notion that we need to become involved in a more realistic way not only with European defence and security thinking but in the preparation and enactment of policy.

In regard to maritime security, this island has an extensive coastline which, in European terms, is huge. The problem that exists is that we have not yet given proper recognition to the fact that we live in a peculiar time in a hostile world where democracy is sacrificed on a regular basis and where those who seek to promote a particular cause will seek out the weakest area to target and will carry out the most publicity-seeking exercise by way of an atrocity.

The recent Madrid bombings were supposed to have been a punishment for the association of the Spanish authorities with the war in Iraq. The perpetrators had a peculiar way of dealing with that problem. They sacrificed a large number of innocent people going to work and about their business. There was no declaration of war, no formal warning; in fact, there was no warning. Those bombings were simply a means of ensuring that terror prevailed, hence the description — terrorism.

I have no doubt there will be instances in the future whereby others will seek out the most vulnerable locations throughout Europe to promote their cause and they will do so in a most spectacular way. I am not being critical, but I question whether the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is the correct Department to promote this legislation. It would have been more firmly and appropriately based in the Department of Defence because it relates to defence and security.

We have promoted the notion in this House many times that because we are a neutral country, nobody will attack us, that we are safe and secure and can defend ourselves or, if not, others will come to our defence in the event of an emergency, but I am not so certain about that anymore. Given that this country is an economic entity in its own right, it is sophisticated and we can no longer expect to depend on others to come to our defence and others do not expect us to depend on them. We have come to a juncture where we have to be seen to do something for ourselves and to become involved in what is promoted around us as a means of defending not only ourselves but our European colleagues. That may well be anathema to many people but it is a reality. It is something we need to think and talk about if we are to move forward.

This is relevant in the context of the expanding membership of the European Union, which now stands at 25 countries. The Union is a large entity that is growing on a daily basis and will expand further. A responsibility falls on us as a nation and as a Parliament to think to what extent we are prepared to take seriously our responsibilities in terms of European defence and security. My colleagues, Deputies Gay Mitchell and McGinley, have spelt this out on numerous occasions in this House and I reiterate what they have said. It is imperative that we engage in a realistic fashion and with all possible haste with our European colleagues in an effort to identify how best we can contribute to the abolition of terrorism and to the provision of defence and security mechanisms that will ensure our security and defence as well as the defence and security of our European colleagues.

It is long past the day that we can afford to say that nobody is likely to target us and we can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that nobody will focus their attention on us. The attention has always been focused on what is seen to be the weakest or most vulnerable point. It is not a question of how friendly we are in the world arena or what nice guys or girls we are when it comes to international discussions, debates or negotiations. It comes down to one point, namely, a decision by those involved in terrorism as to whom they will seek out as the next target and how they will do that.

We need to examine how that could happen here and what we need to consider. There is always a danger in the maritime area of a vessel being hijacked on the high seas. That could be done in a number of ways. A cruise liner or an oil tanker could be hijacked. We need only think of the likely consequences of an oil tanker being hijacked and it running ashore on one of our ports. Given our extensive coastline, such an incident would place major responsibilities on us.

Let us examine the mechanisms we have in place to thwart such an attack. Are there sufficient personnel in place or do we have adequate air and sea surveillance to deter an attack of that nature? I do not believe so. We must give serious consideration to how we would react to such an eventuality. Are there sufficient resources in place to deal with an attack on a gas or oil platform? I have serious doubts in that regard.

John Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is giving away our neutrality.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not. Sitting on the sacred cow of neutrality would be a dangerous approach for the Government to take. What concerns me most is that, at some future point, that sacred cow will be violated by people who have no regard for neutrality and, as a result, we may all pay a price.

We need adequate security of our own in the air and on sea and land to respond with speed to a threat from these three locations. When we put such security in place, in line with the concerns of our European partners, we will have done a good day's work.

Dan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important Bill. I wish to discuss with the Minister of State the broader role of our ports as part of the development of the Irish economy. I draw his attention to Foynes and the Shannon Estuary in west Limerick and the opportunities that exist for the development of port-related facilities. There exists a marvellous opportunity to develop the Shannon Estuary as one of the main ports servicing north European shipping and transhipping industries.

I was a member of the Foynes harbour trustees, a body that was the forerunner of the Shannon Estuary and Foynes authority. We examined in great detail plans for the development of a transhipment port in the Shannon Estuary. The depth of water in the estuary would facilitate this. In the port of Foynes, ships with capacities in excess of 30,000 tonnes can be facilitated. Vessels with capacities of up to 40,000 tonnes have moored in the port on several occasions. Further down the estuary the water is deeper and it has been determined that, within two to three miles of Foynes, ships with capacities of 80,000 to 90,000 or larger can be accommodated.

We need a planned approach to the development of our sea ports in the context of the development of the economy. However, we must also take into account the development of the European economy and take the opportunity to develop our ports in that context. Not only must we do so in a European context, we must also develop them in a global context. As a result of our maritime tradition and our involvement in commercial shipping, we must offer services to shipping from across the globe. I put it to the Minister of State that the greatest opportunity to develop in both a European and global context lies in the Shannon Estuary. My assertion is borne out by the many reports advanced during a 20-year period, all of which highlight the advantages that would be gained from the development of a transhipment facility in the estuary.

It is stating the obvious to say that Foynes on the Shannon Estuary is the closest European port to the east coast of the USA. It is considerably closer to that country than Scottish and British ports. From an international point of view, that fact may not be recognised. The proximity of the Shannon Estuary and Foynes to the US is a good marketing point which should be promoted.

The research conducted by the former trustees and the Shannon Foynes Port Company indicates that there is a potential market for 70,000 TEU to and from non-EU markets available in the Shannon region alone. In 2002, 40%, or 20 million tonnes, of our total import-export trade was with non-EU markets in the USA and the rest of the world. This is a growth market and we should plan and put in place a facility to take advantage of the opportunities that exist. During my involvement with Foynes port, Rotterdam and other European ports were seen as the main centres for shipments to Europe. We should take the opportunity to proceed with the development to which I refer.

On a selfish note, proceeding with the development of such a facility would create great employment opportunities in west and east Limerick, north Cork, north Kerry and Clare. There has been a great tradition of people working in marine and marine-related industries at Foynes for almost 110 years. An opportunity exists to create several thousand jobs in the hinterland of Foynes and the Shannon Estuary. The same opportunities for job creation do not exist in this area as can be found in other centres such as Limerick or Shannon. There has been a dearth of job creation in areas west of the Limerick hub such as Askeaton and parts of north Kerry. However, this could change with the development of a transhipment port in the area.

From my understanding of marine matters, transhipment is the future of international shipping and has been the subject of debate for some time. The new generation of deep water transmission services will be developed in the next ten to 20 years. I put it to the Minister of State that we should plan well in advance to ensure that we can seize the opportunities that will arise. We must be ahead of our competitors in the UK and the north-western coast of Europe who are also considering what will happen in this area in the future. This is an opportunity, which cannot be missed, to develop the Shannon Estuary. That opportunity has been the subject of promotion and discussion for many years as the main one of its kind in terms of commercial marine development.

It is disappointing that no such development has taken place in recent times despite the great opportunity for maritime development industries at Foynes. One of the drawbacks is the inadequate services to the area, especially the road. While it is not the Minister of State's responsibility, I would like to point out that an inhibiting factor in the development of Foynes port is the condition of the N69. Limerick County Council has made many requests to have the road upgraded. I urge the Minister of State to convey to his colleague in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the necessity to upgrade the road to provide an employment opportunity.