Dáil debates

Tuesday, 18 May 2004

Maritime Security Bill 2004 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

 

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

5:00 pm

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Neville was in possession and had concluded.

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo of Tom HayesTom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on the Bill. I am surprised that this legislation which the Government describes as technical has taken so long to reach the House.

This Bill gives effect to the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988 and the protocol to that Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf 1988. Sixteen years has elapsed between the signing of those conventions and the taking of this legislation. That is an unusually long time. I am worried that it takes so long for supposedly unimportant Bills to come before the House. That is not progressive and this issue needs to be addressed.

The overwhelming impression is that the Government is, yet again, responding to events in New York in September 2001 and in Madrid in March 2004 rather than providing a coherent defence strategy based on intelligence, fact and the needs of the people. The people are vulnerable and they feel the need to enjoy security. We have come a long way in recent years but it is difficult to explain the fear experienced by people as they go about their lives on a daily basis when they do not enjoy security.

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 must be approved by the Dáil pursuant to Article 29.5.2° of the Constitution and the Bill must be enacted before Ireland can be a party to them.

Fine Gael supports this legislation. I agree with Deputy Kehoe who last week stated:

Fine Gael fully supports this Bill and believes these measures are long overdue. 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.

Fine Gael abhors the way in which the issue of Ireland's security has been dealt with up to now. Fine Gael advocates an EU defence entity based on five key principles in which Ireland takes a full and active role in terms of its development. The first is adherence to the fundamental principles of the UN. That is important because history will teach us that Ireland should support the UN. The second principle is a commitment to the vigorous pursuit of the goal of universal nuclear and biological disarmament and to a solemn undertaking by the EU defence entity not to use either weapon. People living along the east coast live in fear on a daily basis because of the threat posed by Sellafield. What a pity something more genuine has not been done on their behalf.

The third principle is a commitment to mutual defence and support with specific opt-in provisions for individual states. The fourth is a commitment to the provision of peacekeeping and peacemaking operations and to the Petersberg Tasks, such as humanitarian aid, search and rescue etc. A significant number of people around the world are starving. Ireland has expanded rapidly and its wealth has increased. We regularly read media reports about people starving throughout the world. However, Ireland has not addressed the issue of humanitarian aid properly. We are descendants of people who gave a great deal to the Third World. Members of religious orders from previous generations travelled all over the world and made their mark. Our generation leaves a great deal to be desired when it comes to humanitarian aid.

The fifth principle is respect for the right of member states to be involved in other military alliances. Our policies are based on the belief that 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, not ours. This is used as a political football by the Government, which wraps itself in the green flag of neutrality at every opportunity, yet caves in on the international stage every time.

I refer to the Iraqi conflict. My party leader, Deputy Kenny, last year condemned in the House the war in Iraq because of its lack of international legitimacy and pointed out that without such legitimacy a lasting peace might never be found. How right he was. Iraq has slid into chaos and the images from Baghdad and elsewhere become even more shocking, yet the Government has said nothing. There has not been a word from the Taoiseach or a Minister in condemnation of the atrocities that the Government parties did so much to support.

All of us have seen the deplorable pictures from Iraq which have been published in newspapers in recent weeks. The country is in a sad state. The Government had better learn that to pass security legislation is one thing but to act in the interest of Irish and international security is another. The Bill is important but it is overdue. It makes a joke of our national Parliament that the legislators have been completely bypassed on the issue of the war on terror.

Fine Gael has repeatedly called for the creation of a European coast guard and this issue is pertinent to the debate. Today serious crimes such as drug trafficking and people smuggling are well organised, with the perpetrators using high levels of technology and frequently relying on the disjointedness of national police forces and coast guard services to slip through the net. The amount of drugs entering the country is one of the greatest problems it faces. We read about major drug hauls on a weekly basis in national newspapers.

Last night I met people in a little village in my constituency, which has a population of a few hundred. The village Garda station used to be staffed by two officers but now it has only one garda on a part-time basis. He travels to the station one or two days a week. No gardaí are present in the village at weekends to monitor the trouble caused by young people as they leave local hostelries late at night. Elderly people in that community live in fear and they do not know where the drugs the young people take are coming from.

Like the Minister of State, I represent a rural constituency. The drugs issue is a source of great fear in rural Ireland. No issue is being neglected as much as this. Something desperate needs to be done to tackle this problem, which is causing mayhem in our towns and villages. The Government and the Parliament should be ashamed that nothing is being done about this issue. Families are being hurt throughout the State. I call on the Government, particularly the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to tackle this problem, which is affecting the hearts and minds of people in rural Ireland.

Photo of Martin FerrisMartin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will return to a matter of concern regarding the Bill highlighted in the House last week by my colleague, Deputy Morgan. It concerns the possibility that sections of the Bill could be used against those engaged in industrial action or other forms of legitimate protest. This needs to be examined and, if need be, addressed through the form of amendments to the relevant sections. I hope to do this at a later stage.

The preamble to the convention, to which effect is being given by the Bill, notes that "acts of the crew which are subject to normal shipboard discipline are outside the purview of this Convention". I assume from this that those who drew up the convention did not intend that it would be used other than against what we describe as specifically terrorist offences. This should be specifically included in the Bill to ensure it is not used against those who might be engaged in strike action or even an occupation connected with industrial action on board a ship or an offshore oil rig or exploration rig. I would be grateful to the Minister if he provided clarification on this matter before we proceed to the next Stage.

The scope for the legislation to be used in the manner to which I refer is to be found in section 2(1)(a) which states anyone "seizing or exercising control over a ship or fixed platform by force or threat of force or any other form of intimidation" is guilty of an offence. This is further strengthened in section 2(1)(j) where it is extended to include anyone who would attempt to seize or exercise such control. It is clear that this could be interpreted to include persons engaged in industrial action. There was a recent case in Cork in which a ship's crew found itself in possession of a vessel because it had not been paid. I would be concerned that the ship owner in that case could resort to legislation such as this Bill and claim the men were not involved in a legitimate action but carrying out an act of terrorism. If the Minister cannot assure us that this is impossible under the Bill, as it stands, we need to amend it accordingly.

The same applies to those who might be engaged in protest against a ship or marine installation. The Sellafield plant is the obvious case that springs to mind in this context. There have been many protests against the installation and I am sure people would not like to think members of Greenpeace or any of the other groups which have engaged in sea-borne protests against the plant, including legitimate attempts to prevent the transportation of noxious materials, could be arrested and charged with terrorist offences under this legislation.

Section 4 gives powers to the Garda to arrest without warrant anyone engaged in an offence as defined in section 2. If this is to be interpreted in the manner I suggest it might be, one may again see the spectacle of the Garda being used to end legitimate actions. Many of us will remember previous occasions when this took place during occupations at the Ranks bakery in Dublin and other parts of the country.

Whatever the legal position, we must always try to avoid circumstances in which employers are able to resort to the organs of the State to force workers to end a strike or occupation. This would take place if this legislation was framed in a manner such that a ship owner or an offshore exploration company could cite it to invoke the power of the State to intervene against its employees.

I worked offshore in the late 1970s and early 1980s. While working on the oil rigs in the Porcupine Basin, workers decided to stop working as a mark of respect for each hunger striker who died in that period. We were threatened as a result. Many might not know there are arsenals on board offshore exploration rigs to be used to prevent any type of mutiny. Management and other selected persons are in a position to use these arsenals. This must be borne in mind in this instance.

Section 4 contains further dangers. In subsection (3) it provides for the master or other person in charge of a ship or fixed platform to arrest or detain a person whom he or she believes to be committing an offence under section 2. In fact, the person would not even have to have committed the offence but merely have been deemed to have been attempting to do so. This interpretation would have serious implications if it was employed in the course of an industrial dispute where a ship's captain or owner or a foreman on an exploration platform could arrest and confine someone engaged in industrial action or threatening to do so. Clarification is required on this danger and amendments should be made to the Bill, if necessary.

Circumstances would be made even worse if the ship in question was registered in a state where there were human rights abuses. This would include several of the states that have ratified this convention, including states where even membership of a trade union is illegal and others in which trade unions are legal but where members are the subject of state repression. In many countries to be active in a trade union movement is effectively to have a death sentence hanging over one's head. What would happen, for example, if the crew of a ship from such a state happened to be involved in a dispute in Irish waters and the ship's owners managed to arrest those involved? Section 5 allows a master of a ship to detain such persons and hand them over to the appropriate authorities of a convention state. Would this state be happy if such a dispute occurred in Irish waters and the persons detained were then transported from Irish waters to be placed in the custody of another convention state in which they might be subjected to human rights abuses, or even worse?

The same situation might arise where prisoners are being transported to such a state from another jurisdiction through Irish waters and where they mutiny in order to prevent themselves being taken back. That might sound far-fetched but we live in a world — in a Europe, for that matter — where atrocities have been and are being perpetrated by states against their own citizens. We need to be very careful before we allow for even the slightest possibility that such states might be able to justify their actions in this regard under international law.

States and people are rightly concerned about terrorism but we should also be careful not to neglect the need to provide safeguards to ensure the so-called war on terror is not used as an excuse to carry out state terror. No one could justify the awful events that took place in New York on 11 September 2001, or those in Madrid, nor should anyone attempt to justify the awful events taking place at this very moment in Iraq. In recent weeks we have all seen images of prisoners being subjected to terrible treatment. Civilians are being murdered on the streets and human bombs are exploding on a daily basis but these occurrences are altogether separate from the killing of many thousands during the initial phase of the war. This is all being done as part of the so-called war on terror, a war that has absolutely nothing to do with the causes or the perpetrators of the atrocities of 11 September 2001 or what took place in Madrid recently. Therefore, I urge caution in rushing to frame any legislation that is seen to be part of the so-called war on terror without first examining carefully its implications for the protection of rights of both the citizens of this State and those of other jurisdictions who happen to find themselves here, in whatever circumstances.

I am aware that this legislation predates the current US and British offensive but it has clearly been given a renewed impetus by it. Most of the speakers from other parties have clearly placed the Bill in that context. In that light, we should be even more careful to take our time and closely examine all of its implications before we rush to embody in legislation provisions that might have the effects to which I referred.

I seek clarification on the matters I have raised. If the Minister of State can answer my queries satisfactorily, that is good. If not and there is a possibility that the legislation might be used, for example, against those engaged in industrial action, I propose to address this on Committee Stage with appropriate amendments.

Photo of Liam TwomeyLiam Twomey (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6:00 pm

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the Bill. I hope its implementation will take place with the requisite speed. Since the events of 11 September 2001, the international political scene has utterly changed, with heightened diplomatic tension throughout the world. Just as people can vividly recall where they were when John F. Kennedy was assassinated, others will recall where they were when the aeroplanes struck the twin towers. I remember the assassination of John F. Kennedy because my father was about the same age and I clearly recall thinking it was a young age to die.

I was on a bus when the attack took place on 11 September 2001. I got a call from my son who told me that the aircraft had hit the Twin Towers and that there was mayhem in the city. We felt trapped without a radio on the bus and with no way of communicating. We did not know what was happening outside and felt that everybody was vulnerable. Planes were flying with hours of fuel left. There was enough fuel to fly home and watch television to catch up with what was happening. It brought a new sense of depravity to international terrorism. People now had a new weapon that had never been used before and it made people have second thoughts about flying. It did not matter that the aircraft were full of innocent people and even seemed preferable from the terrorists' point of view. The softer and more innocent the target, the more valuable it was to them. The hijackers did not mind sacrificing their lives. In some cases they were duped into getting on the aircraft and did not realise they would also crash into the towers along with their victims.

This was a defining moment in the terrorism timetable and anti-terrorism co-operation has been a worldwide feature ever since. This is appropriate and we need to tighten our procedures in this regard. The shipping industry is wide open to this type of abuse. There are particular procedures when boarding an aircraft. However, people can simply walk or drive on to a ship. With so much volume transported by ships, that industry is in no way immune from this activity and maritime security has assumed an importance commensurate with maritime safety and environmental protection.

There is no evidence that shipping played any role in the atrocities of 11 September 2001. The bombs may have arrived in ships and the people involved might have arrived as stowaways. Nobody knows how they arrived there. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that shipping could have a central role in a determined terrorist attack. People go on ships in a carefree way. Many people use them to go on holiday etc. in preference to flying and they represent an easy target. Shipping could also be used to transport lethal weapons of war or to act as a weapon itself.

We recall the Cuban missile crisis of 1963, which brought the world to the brink of the Third World War, and the part played by the fledgling satellite technology in detecting the transport of such missiles by sea.

The world's maritime transport system comprises more than 46,000 vessels and about 4,000 ports. The system is open and flexible, which makes it vulnerable to terrorist attacks or misuse. The system can be used to conceal weapons or provide logistical support for terrorist organisations. As ship ownership is quite easy to conceal, the system could also serve as a source of funding for terrorists. If a ship's owner were sympathetic to a terrorist organisation, such a ship could become a dangerous weapon. It can be quite difficult to establish ship ownership as they use flags of convenience.

The spectre of ship hijackings, so often the subject of blockbuster movies, is not quite so fanciful. The International Maritime Organisation, which is the body that co-ordinates maritime activity, has placed maritime security at the head of its agenda, and not before time. Many countries, including Ireland, already have the protection of a dedicated coast guard service for patrolling and protecting their territorial waters. The idea of an EU coast guard on the lines of the international police organisation, Interpol, would play a vital role in combating the twin threats of terrorism and organised crime.

The recent example of the Madrid bombings vividly reminds us of the canker of global terrorism that continues to corrode the body politic. Willingness of terrorists to sacrifice their lives to achieve their evil aims creates a new dimension for those involved in the prevention of terrorism. Documentary programmes have shown children in schools being brainwashed into believing that if they act as suicide bombers and give their lives for the cause, they will be rewarded in their afterlife. This is grossly wrong and represents an abuse of youth which will need to be addressed.

Rightly or wrongly, Ireland is perceived as part of the western group of states. Last year President George Bush briefly claimed us as part of the coalition in the war on Iraq. I vividly recall that, when I heard that, I thought about the troubles it could bring. This places us in an extremely vulnerable position vis-À-vis the world terrorism threat, and our Government's co-operation with US troop and armament transportation through Shannon Airport undoubtedly copperfastens our place on that hit list. We represent a soft target, which leaves us open to attack.

The Government played both sides of the road in the war on Iraq by denying it was aiding the US and then saying it was against the war all along. We all remember the 100,000 people who marched against the war on Iraq. I vigorously opposed the US misadventure at the time and, in this House, I indicated to the Government that its dalliance with George Bush and his band of "neo-cons" would rebound against this country's better interests

The level of security that will surround the US President for his brief stopover in Clare next month should demonstrate in sharp relief the puny security that exists here. Our country is hugely vulnerable to attacks, whether from sea or from the air. We have a limited number of naval vessels which do not have the capacity to cover our lengthy coastline. The removal of the search and rescue function from the Air Corps is inexplicable, given the dedicated and unstinting service of Air Corps personnel over the past 40 years. Morale is bound to suffer by the privatisation of this function of the Air Corps, and it shows scant regard for its contribution down the years.

The 1988 UN Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the protocol to that convention have been in force since 1992. Specific offences against the safety of Irish ships, other shipping in Irish territorial waters and against fixed platforms on the continental shelf are specified in the Bill. It also provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction covering offences committed outside the State and the extradition of alleged offenders

Twelve years have elapsed without effective legislation being drawn up and enacted in this jurisdiction and, in the context of the increased threat from global terrorism, this legislation is ten years late. However, it is better late than never. I hope the Bill will be implemented before the end of Ireland's EU Presidency. It represents a belated attempt to ensure that our maritime system is free from the threat of terrorism.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank Deputies for their support of the Bill and look forward to their assistance in ensuring its early passage. Its enactment and Dáil approval of the necessary motions under Article 29.5.2o of the Constitution to approve the terms of the 1988 convention and its protocol are the essential first steps to enable Ireland to formally accede to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and its protocol. Ireland's accession cannot take effect until 90 days after the instrument of accession is deposited with the Secretary General of the UN International Maritime Organisation in London. However, early passage of the Bill will reassure our important commercial shipping and port enterprises and offshore energy producers. It also confirms the Government's resolve to deal effectively with the terrorism dossier during our EU Presidency. Deputies will have an opportunity to raise issues during the Estimates debate tomorrow and with the Minister on Committee Stage.

Deputies Morgan and Ferris asked if the Bill could be used in cases involving industrial action or a protest against states or businesses. Advice has been sought from the Office of the Attorney General on these points, to which we will return on Committee Stage.

The Bill provides for the protection of shipping and offshore platforms against damage or destruction and injury to persons on board. It targets unlawful, that is, disproportionate and unjustifiable, actions against human life and property such as ships and offshore platforms. The 1988 convention and protocol are being reviewed at the IMO with a view to improvement. Therefore, some changes may come about.

A number of general points were raised. Maritime security is an ongoing issue, as is maritime safety and protection of the marine environment. We must address these issues as best we can. Legislation is an element of the required response and security and safety awareness needs to be uppermost in the minds of all users of the sea, whether businesses or individuals. The Bill ensures offenders can be prosecuted and punished in the State wherever they commit the offences.

Sea fishery issues were raised by a number of Deputies. Deputy Sargent commented on the unacceptable practices that were depleting stocks of razor clams and fish near the shore. I have noted his comments and my Department can consider what is to be done.

Deputy Neville asked about the Shannon Foynes Port Company and trans-shipment. Given the small size of the country, the question of developing port facilities at Shannon Foynes Port and others must be carefully considered in the national context. This calls for a realistic assessment to be made of business needs and opportunities to avoid wasteful investments. I look forward to the active development by port companies of links with customers and potential customers in order to maximise profitable business in the longer term for publicly owned assets.

Deputy Broughan requested information on whether the USA was one of the 78 countries that were party to the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation. The USA has been a party to the convention since 6 March 1995 and is also one of the 71 countries that are party to the 1988 protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. I will send further information on all states involved in the convention to the Deputy within the next few days.

The Deputy also raised the question of the Maritime Safety Directorate of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the port facility plans in respect of eight facilities at Dublin Port. Any concerns of stevedores or other port users should be addressed to the Dublin Port Company without delay. The Department is not aware of concerns raised by stevedores as outlined by the Deputy but if he gives us the details, we will investigate the matter. These plans will be thoroughly examined on receipt and all of the facilities in question will be visited by representatives of the Department.

The Deputy also raised the issue of the absence of harbour masters at some ports. A recruitment competition to fill the vacant posts at Howth, Dunmore East and Castletownbere will take place in the near future. The filling of these posts had been delayed pending the settlement of terms and conditions by the Department of Finance. Interviews will take place shortly.

Deputy Keaveney asked whether the Bill had any adverse implications for the Lough Foyle Ferry Company which operates a ferry service between Greencastle, County Donegal, and Magilligan, County Derry. The answer is no. On the contrary, it ensures a terrorist attack on the service would be a criminal offence subject to prosecution and severe punishment.

In a nutshell, the Bill is aimed at safeguarding human life and protecting shipping and offshore platforms. I thank Deputies on all sides of the House for their support for it. I hope it will pass through its final Stages in the next few weeks. I thank Mr. Tobin for preparing it and working beyond the call of duty in ensuring it will be passed through the House as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.