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

This is to conclude no later than 10 p.m. Amendment No. 52 is consequential to amendment No. 1 in the name of the Minister, and they will be discussed together. Recommittal is required of these amendments, as they do not arise from committee proceedings. Is that agreed?

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

The final shape of this Bill is very unsatisfactory, in that we are debating things here with approximately 65 minutes until a guillotine, something that we saw for the first time only a few days ago. This Bill started off as a Maritime Safety Bill with several key elements that we discussed on Second Stage, and then on Committee Stage we were presented with a series of amendments. I know the Minister informed us regarding the emergency licensing requirement he proposed to include. Now we have a new Part 6 and legislation to do with the extension of the foreshore, and the Bill has grown like topsy within a relatively short period. Legislation that Deputy Perry and I addressed on Second Stage, essentially as a Maritime Safety Bill, now has added dimensions.

On several occasions in my experience of invigilating this Department on behalf of the Labour Party we have had add-ons. I register a complaint, as I did with the Ceann Comhairle earlier this evening regarding the handling of this Bill. It is bad enough that we have all this material submitted to us very late and in a fairly confusing manner. I appreciate the fact that civil servants have sent us e-mail explanations and so on, but it seems a bad way to do business, given that we have needed this legislation for at least the past two or three decades, and certainly since the Marine Casualty Investigation Board was established. Now we are in the dog days heading for the summer recess trying to clear the board, and this legislation is being put before us as a series of addenda. In my book, that is not the way to do business, and I say that to the Department.

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

This has already been decided by vote.

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

It was decided, but I was not allowed to raise my original complaint. I want to register that, since it informs what I have to say. Clearly, we have nearly 60 amendments, and we will only get a short way. I am not castigating this Minister of State or these civil servants, but the overall way the Government treats important legislation is disgraceful.

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

What is before the House is a motion to recommit.

John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have just one comment, which follows from those of Deputy Broughan. I fully appreciate the Minister of State's work on this Bill, but it appears that we are now talking about territorial waters, licensing and aquaculture. The Minister has recently taken over as Minister of State with responsibility for the marine, and since his appointment he has performed very well. However, the difficulty is that this Bill stretches back so far. The civil servants inherited a great many add-ons that may somewhat dilute the intentions behind the Bill. For the layman looking at it, the additions dilute the main focus, which is maritime safety. This has been discussed, and the Minister of State has now tabled additional amendments. I know the importance of having this dealt with, so let us proceed.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 9, after "1946," to insert the following:

"SECTION 222B OF THE FISHERIES (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1959,".

This amendment inserts a reference to section 222B of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959, which is amended by a new section 53 being inserted as part of the Bill. It is linked with amendment No. 52.

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

Is there a time limit on the substantive amendment to the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959? We seem to be under a grave time limit regarding 30 June.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. I fully appreciate the points made by Deputies Broughan and Perry. I will make only three quick points, and it is important that I do so.

In this Bill, we set out to deal with certain high-powered watercraft. I was extremely anxious, and with the co-operation of the Opposition I had hoped to have this enacted by the summer to allow local authorities to proceed with the various regulations. Then I found, having dealt with the Bill in the Seanad, if I were not to introduce amendments regarding the renewal of licences to allow vessels to continue fishing, that by 30 June all vessels under 24 metres would have to have the necessary works completed and surveyed by our own marine surveyors or by a panel, which would be impossible logistically. Vessels over 24 metres are not within my power, since a European regulation deals with them.

First, one might say that we are compromising on safety, but that is not at issue. Every skipper knows precisely what has to be done, and no one should go to sea unless happy that the boat is in a fit state.

In addition, Deputies will be aware of another issue because of the last-minute briefing they received regarding foreshore licences. Legal advice has overturned the general understanding of what the foreshore is, and we must address the situation as a matter of priority. I propose to do so by using the Maritime Safety Bill 2004 as a vehicle to confirm in legislation what has been the general understanding of the term. The opinion heretofore was that the foreshore ran to the limits of the territorial sea. Our current understanding of that is 12 miles.

The legislation seeks to confirm this understanding that the jurisdiction is not to the low water mark but to the 12-mile limit. The enactment of this Bill will provide for the validation of action taken up to now on the basis of what was then a quite clear understanding. We have been engaging with the Office of the Attorney General for some weeks and the advice stating that the foreshore is only to the low water mark came formally on 16 June. I was anxious to deal with this matter as soon as possible. If I came back to the House in October with a Bill to provide validation on this point, I would be rightly criticised. I appreciate the points made by both Deputies but I ask them to accept the urgency of this matter and to consider the implications of not acting.

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

A recommital is required for amendment No. 2. This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 53 and amendment No. 10a is related. These amendments may be discussed together.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, line 10, after "1968," to insert the following:

"SECTION 4 OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT (GROUND RENTS)(NO. 2) ACT 1978,".

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

What is the impact of this in regard to the operation of harbour companies and the lands owned by them? Is this related to the emergency legislation passed some weeks ago in respect of IDA and other bodies? A disgraceful event took place some weeks ago which related to a company in Clonshaugh industrial estate, Diamond Innovation. It is alleged that this company, which is in my constituency, was able, through a series of subleases, to dispose of publicly owned lands. This is the substantive issue in regard to companies that are occupying leases on State land.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The substantive amendment is necessary to safeguard leases granted by harbour companies to which the Harbours Act 1996 and the Harbours (Amendment) Act 2000 apply against negation by subleasing arrangements by lessees. Deputy Broughan referred to similar safeguarding provisions in the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act 2005 in respect of SFADCo, IDA and Údarás na Gaeltachta. In practical terms, a harbour company may lease to another party and the latter may subsequently sublease the property. In such circumstances, the sublessee could benefit by overruling the basic lease. We must ensure the State is protected against such activities. This is the purpose of the substantive amendment No. 53.

John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The provision for safeguarding leases in amendment No. 53 is important. It is a pity this cannot be done retrospectively because a number of such leases have been granted in the past. Is any law required to give the Minister of State powers to revoke leases that have been in place for 100 years? Properties have been leased at low rents and the lessees have subleased them for a profit. This amendment stipulates that people will in future be somewhat curtailed from re-leasing properties once the lease agreement has been signed. This is an important issue.

The Minister is well aware that significant opportunities exist in coastal communities in respect of ports which have in the past been very much neglected. The lack of development that has taken place means development companies are now proposing tax incentive deals in respect of such development. It is important that a rent review mechanism should operate in all such instances after five or ten years to ensure a clear return.

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

I welcome these amendments. However, I wonder why harbour and port companies were not included in the tranche of public bodies to which the emergency legislation introduced some weeks ago applies. I reiterate that I have heard serious complaints from the communities around Clonshaugh in regard to what is alleged to have happened at Diamond Innovation. The lands in question belong to the Irish people but, apparently through subterfuge, this company was able to sell them into private hands, as has been alleged previously in the House.

I realise such matters are not part of the Minister of State's portfolio. These matters arose during the Tánaiste's seven-year tenure at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, involving an entire tranche of public lands in Shannon Development and in industrial estates in Dublin and other areas. Questions must be asked as to how we got into this situation in the first place.

A colleague, Councillor Declan Bree, who shares Deputy Perry's constituency, strongly supports the idea that the Sligo Harbour Commission should be allowed to become a port company. This would prevent it being taken over, as some fear, by the local authority which could have a negative impact down the line on publicly owned lands. I welcome and support this amendment if its effect is to tighten the provisions in this regard and preserve the lands for which citizens have paid through taxation.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased the Deputies are in a position to support these amendments. Deputy Broughan asked why the harbour companies were not included when the emergency legislation was introduced by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in regard to IDA, SFADCo and Údarás na Gaeltachta. At that time, not many people were aware of this issue. The contact we have had from Dublin Port highlighted the implications of the failure to include harbour and port companies under the provisions of that legislation.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure there will be no dilution of public or State ownership without the agreement of the State. If this Bill is enacted, I am confident that cannot happen again. We are not in the business of ensuring others will benefit at the expense of the State. Deputy Perry asked about retrospection, a question I anticipated. The advice is that we cannot rescind this.

John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State has done good work in regard to this amendment. Harbours and ports represent important State asserts. As an island nation, they represent a huge resource that was built in previous decades. It is important to have legislation which ensures there is total transparency in regard to the sale of these State assets and that no quangos will be in control. Will decisions regarding the sale of State assets have to be cleared by Cabinet or will the Minister of the day have total discretion?

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Such decisions will be made subject to the supervision of the Minister.

John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

And his recommendation.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

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

We will now move on to amendment No. 3. If Deputies are agreeable, the amendments will be recommitted in the name of the Minister to save time. Amendment No. 3 is consequential on amendments Nos. 49 to 51, inclusive. These amendments may be taken together by agreement.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, line 12, to delete "ACT 1992" and substitute "ACTS 1894 TO 2000".

This amendment is needed to repeal the enactments of the 1934 to 1937 Acts as well as provisions of the 1894, 1947, 1981, 1992 and 2000 Acts.

John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Did the Minister of State consider index-linking the fines which are set out in the Bill? Earlier fines were minimal. Will increases in the fines defined in amendments Nos. 49 and 50 be index-linked?

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am taking this opportunity to increase fines to realistic levels throughout the Bill. I anticipate the introduction of a fines Bill by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform which will overcome the difficulties experienced in the past. Fines will then be index-linked.

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

They will be index-linked by regulation if that Bill is passed.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is correct.

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

Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 55 are consequential on amendment No. 56. These amendments may be taken together by agreement.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 5, line 13, after "1996" to insert the following:

", TO PROVIDE FOR MATTERS RELATING TO THE FORESHORE AND TO AQUACULTURE".

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

Amendment No. 5 is consequential on amendments Nos. 10 and 57. Amendments Nos. 10 and 57 form a composite proposal. Amendments Nos. 5, 10 and 57 may be taken together by agreement.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 5, line 13, after "1996" to insert ", TO REPEAL CERTAIN ENACTMENTS".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, line 21, to delete "Part 5" and substitute "Parts 5 and 6".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

"(5) The Harbours Acts 1996 and 2000 and section 47 may be cited together as the Harbours Acts 1996 to 2005.".

This is a technical amendment which is being inserted for completeness. It provides a new collective citation for the Harbours Acts 1996 to 2000 which apply to the ten harbour companies managing the State's principal ports.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 6, line 3, after "Act" to insert "(other than sections 48 and 49 and Part 6)".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

"(2) In this Act a reference to a member of the Garda Síochána or an officer of the Permanent Defence Forces holding commissioned naval rank is a reference to that member or officer while in uniform.".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 6, to delete lines 31 and 32 and substitute the following:

3.—Each enactment specified in column (2) of the Schedule to this Act is repealed to the extent specified in column (3) of the Schedule.".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 10a:

In page 7, to delete lines 34 and 35 and substitute the following:

"'harbour company' means a company within the meaning of section 2 of the Harbours Act 1996;".

John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What type of company is defined in this amendment? Is it one which will be limited by guarantee or shareholding? Is a stipulation made as to the involvement of representatives of the State? Provision may be made already for this in the Bill.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All these companies are owned by the State and were established and defined under the 1996 Act.

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

On a point of order, I received amendment No. 10a on white rather than green paper. Is the amendment valid?

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

It is a valid amendment. It is on white paper because it was introduced after the green paper was printed.

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

May it be introduced in this form?

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

There is no problem with its introduction.

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

My earlier comments are reinforced by this matter.

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

Amendments Nos. 11 to 19, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement.

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

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 8, line 30, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".

A happy situation obtains in that a number of local authorities, including Fingal County Council, have introduced by-laws regulating the use of small pleasure craft, jet skis and other vehicles. This legislation is pressing due to current uncertainty over the legality of such by-laws. The Minister of State is to be commended for bringing this Bill forward.

A lot of complaints were received from coastal and inland local authorities. Small vehicles and boats have caused problems on the important lakes and rivers that exist within most local authorities. For this reason I propose to change the word "may" to "shall" so that by-laws on this matter will be introduced.

With regard to amendment No. 12, I fear that the words "regulating and controlling the operation of craft" may be interpreted so as to limit the matters which may be addressed by the by-laws. A grammatical problem arises in the existing lines 30 and 31, which contain an ambiguous reference to the operation of craft by a local authority. While the Minister said in the Seanad that the clause was necessary to define the scope of the powers, I ask him to re-investigate the issue.

Amendment No. 13 is a key amendment. An interesting discussion was held during Second Stage of this Bill on all aspects of this matter. The Minister has a good record in encouraging people to enjoy the water and to conduct recreational activities there. Tribute was paid to our late colleague, Seán Doherty, who also encouraged people to enjoy the Shannon and its tributaries. However, other jurisdictions, such as New South Wales, require a personal watercraft driver's licence to operate a jet ski. Drivers or masters of such vessels must pass a qualifying test to be issued with such a licence. The title of master may be too grandiose. Such a requirement means that a minimum level of safety rules would have to be understood and, I hope, practised by the jet ski driver. The introduction of a system of registration of such vehicles is also important, particularly so as to permit authorised officers, including gardaí, to adequately carry out their functions. We felt this step would be taken at some stage so it might as well be now to make this a more comprehensive Maritime Safety Bill. We should have a full licensing and registration system.

Amendment No. 14 is an additional amendment consequent to our discussions on Committee Stage. We discussed two events, one in Youghal and another off the south-east coast where a number of young people lost their lives when they were using fast leisure vehicles such as water skis and jet skis. The marine casualty investigation board, which has done a great job over the past number of years in holding important investigations into water safety, felt that in a number of cases wearing helmets and other protective clothing would have played an important role in saving lives. The Minister of State added many amendments on this Stage and he might also consider this one.

Amendment No. 15 is consequent on amendment No. 12 in trying to extend the scope of the amendments. That is the last of my amendments, which seek to provide a registration and licensing system and to increase the pleasurable use of the seas and our waterways.

John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I compliment Deputy Broughan on these important amendments. This Bill covers a large amount but its backbone is registration, licensing and wearing protective clothing. The inclusion of registration and the use of protective equipment would lead by example and would show respect for the operation and dangers involved. Given the level of risk and the number of accidents that occur in coastal areas by-laws to identify the owner of each jet ski through registration would send a clear message. It would create a core objective of maritime safety. Incorporating Deputy Broughan's amendments would add substantially to the backbone of the Bill which should be maritime safety.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I promised Deputy Broughan, I gave serious consideration since Committee Stage to the inclusion of "shall" rather than "may" but having considered it I still hold the view it would be a waste of effort and resources to require every authority to make by-laws when some might not need to do so.

We are all aware that our colleagues on local authorities in coastal areas or with lakes or rivers in their operational area are anxious to have this legislation enacted so they can proceed to make by-laws. It is a matter for each local authority to decide whether there is a need to make the by-laws under section 6 of the Bill. Deputies are aware that making by-laws can be a lengthy process, involving public consultation of at least one month plus seven days. It should only be undertaken if there is a clear need to do so, and who better to decide that than local authority members? When we consider local authorities have many important tasks it could be a waste of effort and resources to require them to needlessly make by-laws. I am quite satisfied that any local authority needing to make such by-laws has full power to do so under this Act and retaining "may" without substituting "shall" is a clear advance on the current position. In the case of city and county councils, making by-laws under section 6 is a reserved function and as such is a matter for the elected representatives who would proceed to make such by-laws if there is a need to do so.

Agreeing to the deletion in amendment No. 12 would mean a lack of focus in this section, which solely deals with the regulation and control of craft of a specified class and has no other purpose. According to Bunreacht na hÉireann the power to make by-laws under section 6 must be within specific parameters laid down by the Oireachtas. I am advised there can be no open-ended power to make such by-laws.

The questioning of licensing and registering users of jet skis or other personal watercraft is a matter for national provision rather than piecemeal arrangements varying from one local authority to another which would duly interfere with the use of craft across authority boundaries. I support the idea of establishing a register and I confirm to the House as I did on Committee Stage that the question of establishing a small vessel register, to include jet skis and other personal watercraft, is under consideration by my Department following public consultation. Registration is necessary and I assure Deputies I will work towards it. It is not a question of procrastination.

Amendment No. 14 deals with general operating conditions for craft including the wearing of personal protective equipment, which is a matter for national provision rather than the piecemeal arrangement I referred to varying from one authority to another. I wish to draw Deputies' attention to the merchant shipping, pleasure craft and life jackets and operation safety regulations of 2004 for which there is a statutory instrument. These are for national operation.

Amendment No. 15 would not accord with the constitutional provisions for secondary legislation, namely for the Oireachtas as primary legislators to set the limits in policies and principles within which secondary legislation may be made. There can be no question of open-ended powers for any of the relevant local authorities to make by-laws at will.

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

I appreciate the point made by the Minister of State on the two key amendments, Nos. 13 and 14, but this is an opportunity to set a standard at national level for local authorities. Local authorities themselves have different requirements for land vehicles. I welcome the Minister of State's words on registration but I cannot see how this will be advanced if this legislation or the wording of the Labour Party's amendment No. 13 is not in place. To have a basic standard of licensing would be a huge step forward.

With regard to the subject matter of amendment No. 14, good work has been done by the marine safety directorate and the coast guard in recent years. It is sanguine to remember it was only in 2003 that the Minister of State's predecessors, Deputy John Browne and Deputy Dermot Ahern, required people on small craft to wear life jackets.

It took us a long time and a number of terrible tragedies, which the Marine Casualty Investigation Board rightly highlighted, to do that. It also highlighted the outrageous folly of people putting out to sea on overloaded pleasure craft, often in dangerous conditions and under very poor direction. I respect the fact that many elements of the Bill address the concerns in all the reports in my office from the MCIB. Nonetheless, it would be a brave move on the part of the Minister of State to accept these amendments, particularly amendments Nos. 13 and 14. That would set a standard and indicate that we are as serious about the marine environment as we are about the land environment. The Irish Water Safety Association investigates approximately 84 deaths per annum, which is 84 too many. We could set a high standard in the late hours of this Dáil session if the Minister accepted amendments Nos. 13 and 14.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to make it clear that I said it was not a question of procrastination in terms of the small vessels register. It will not require primary legislation. The Minister of the day will have power under section 20 of the 1992 Act and section 45 of this Bill to introduce ministerial regulations to establish such a register. I will do that as soon as it is practical to do so, bearing in mind the public consultation and the various views that have been expressed to me regarding amendments Nos. 13 and 14. I see where Deputy Broughan is coming from but I emphasise that this is a matter for national provision rather than crossing the various local authority boundaries.

Speaking of the various local authorities, we could find ourselves in a situation where local authorities have different views on by-laws. We hope that they will work closely with the officials in our Department who will, if necessary, provide a template for the various local authorities to ensure consistency throughout the country.

John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am happy to hear the Minister support the idea of a template and a code of operation for local authorities, particularly those in communities along the coastline. The Minister indicated that he would do the marketing of the Bill, so to speak. It is important that once the Bill is enacted it is actively promoted in local authorities and that there will be a level of responsibility on their part to engage in this area.

The Minister indicated also that a register of owners can be established by regulation. That is very important from the point of view of knowing the number of people involved. It will also encourage people to sign up to their rights and responsibilities in this area. Deputy Broughan's amendments are very well researched in that they deal with the kernel of the problem, namely, where local authorities do not take ownership of the problem. That is the direction that is being given. The Minister must realise that in many cases local authorities have stood by in terms of port companies being in dereliction of their duty. They may not have had ownership but they did not take an initiative to develop this area with communities. In seaside resorts where they had authority to introduce by-laws, they were very slow to do so.

The Minister indicated that he will put local authorities on notice to engage actively with this legislation. A ministerial direction should be given to every county manager who will be expected to seriously take on board the provisions in the Bill. It is important also that there is a review mechanism in the Department because we could spend a great deal of time enacting legislation which may not become operational until a tragedy occurs.

With the limited scope in certain sections of the Bill it is important that the Minister proactively encourages local authorities to get back to him within a certain timeframe and indicate their views about the Bill, what they can do with it and how that will benefit the interests of safety in rivers, lakes and major coastal areas.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There have been no major changes in the aspects of the Bill the local authorities are dealing with, but we had a seminar with local authority officials last year. We keep the county managers and, consequently, the members of the local authorities fully briefed and we will continue to do that. We will work closely with them and I give a personal assurance to the House that the relevant officials in the Department and I will monitor developments closely. A bottom-up approach is being taken. Many members of local authorities throughout the country were anxious that the Bill be enacted to allow them to proceed as quickly as possible with the preparation of the by-laws, bearing in mind that it will take a month plus seven days after the public consultation process before they can become effective.

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

In the run-in from September to Christmas to the budget of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, will the Minister be prepared to support local authorities, such as the one in my constituency, Fingal County Council, that request funding to implement the by-laws in respect of certain craft? Will the Minister and the Department support them in administering that because we are talking about somebody in a car on the bank of a river or lake trying to invigilate an operator misbehaving and causing damage to other users of the facility by driving the craft at speed? Will we be able to support good local authorities who bring forward by-laws in response to this Bill?

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

The Chair is in a dilemma, Minister, because you were supposed to come in only twice and you got in three times. Perhaps you will give a brief reply. When we are on Report Stage I prefer that we comply with the Standing Order and we will get more business done.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that but we are talking about life and death. Beach guards are already in place and I do not anticipate any major additional costs. It will be a matter for local authorities to provide the funding but as requested by the Deputy I will speak to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in due course.

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

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 8, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:

"(i) the licensing and registration of users of jet skis or other personal watercraft,".

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

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 9, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

"(iii) conditions to be observed in respect of the operation of craft including the wearing of personal protective equipment,".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 9, line 14, to delete "waters prohibited by" and substitute "contravention of".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 9, line 23, to delete "waters in which it is prohibited by bye-laws" and substitute "contravention of a bye-law".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 9, line 26, after "prohibits" to insert "or restricts".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 9, line 28, after "prohibition" to insert "or restriction".

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

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 10, line 11, to delete "7" and substitute "28".

This amendment refers to section 7 and the procedure whereby the authority has made draft by-laws that have been put out for public consultation and the time limit for submissions, which is currently seven days. Given my experience as a public representative — I am sure the Ceann Comhairle has similar experience — a very brief period of consultation when one is trying to make a submission in the planning process, such as applies at present, impacts negatively on the public and democracy.

Seven days is a brief period. It would take some days to find a notice, perhaps on a website, leaving only a few days to make the submission. Even in the current planning system, the period is five weeks, or effectively 27 days with regard to An Bord Pleanála. Like other Deputies, I make such submissions regularly. It is necessary to provide more time. I suggest a period of four weeks rather than one.

John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A seven-day period is very restrictive. The Minister could consider an increase as a compromise.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not a question of seven days. Section 7 allows at least one month plus seven days. Deputy Broughan suggested one month and 28 days for the public to comment on draft by-laws proposed to be made under this section by any authority. One month and seven days is ample, particularly if the by-laws need to be made urgently. However, it is not a statutory matter that a local authority may only allow a period of one month and seven days. It is discretionary and it will be a matter for any authority to allow for a longer period. That is the compromise. It would be unreasonable if I was to insist on a period of one month and seven days. I place my faith in the members of the local authorities in respective areas. I hope Deputies will accept this is a compromise.

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

Amendments Nos. 21, 40 and 48 are related and may be discussed together.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 13, line 22, to delete "Act" and substitute "section".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 15, line 2, to delete "and" and substitute "or".

This is a drafting amendment.

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

Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are related and may be discussed together.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 16, line 23, to delete "Act" and substitute "Part".

Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 are drafting amendments.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 16, line 27, to delete "Act" and substitute "Part".

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

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 17, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

"20.—The Act of 1992 is amended in section 2(1) by the insertion, in the definition of 'vessel', after 'navigation' of 'and includes personal watercraft and recreational craft'.".

I submitted this amendment on Committee Stage due to concerns on first reading the Bill about the definition of "vessel". The definition at section 2(1) of the 1992 Act did not go far enough and section 2 of the Bill seems to rely on the definition of "vessel" in that Act. The amendment is designed to extend the definition to make it clear that jet skis and other small recreational craft are included. It intends that the definition of "vessel" would be wide-ranging enough to ensure all the improvements in the Bill would apply to such craft.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With respect to Deputy Broughan, the amendment is unnecessary. Section 2(1) of the 1992 Act is amended by the 2000 Act. Personal water craft are already included in the definition of "vessel".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 18, line 16, to delete "craft" and substitute "craft,".

This is a drafting amendment.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 21, line 26, to delete "section 20" and substitute "section 23".

This is a typographical amendment.

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

We move to amendment No. 28. Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 34 are cognate. The amendments may be discussed together.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 22, lines 4 and 5, to delete "person in command or in charge" and substitute "master".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 23, lines 13 and 14, to delete all words from and including "person" in line 13 down to and including "crew" in line 14 and substitute "master or another crew member".

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 23, line 16, to delete "person in command or in charge" and substitute "master".

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

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 23, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

"(2) Where a person has a concentration of alcohol in the breath which exceeds the maximum permissible concentration applicable to a person in charge of a motor vehicle, he or she shall be presumed to be under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of properly controlling or operating a vessel or carrying out a task or duty for the purposes of subsection (1).".

This is a key amendment. I am glad we have a chance to discuss the matter in the short time available. The point of the amendment relates to persons being in charge of water craft while under the influence of alcohol or alcohol products. I am amazed that Deputy Eamon Ryan, who is not present, sought to delete section 28 because the Minister has at least tried to introduce a connection between the wrongful use of alcohol and being in charge of a vessel or pleasure craft.

Section 28 states:

A person being in command or in charge or another member of the crew of a vessel in Irish waters anywhere shall not operate or control or attempt to operate or control the vessel or carry out any task or duty in relation to such operation or control while he or she or the other is under the influence of alcohol or a drug or any combination of drugs or drugs and alcohol . . .

When the Labour Party considered this matter before Second Stage, the key difficulty we identified related to definitions and what instructions the Bill gives the courts and authorised officers who will try to implement it.

We considered the work of the Marine Casualty Investigation Board — I commend it for its work since 2002 — and the series of reports it made into a number of disasters, for example, the collision between the yacht Debonair and the cargo ship Bluebird in 2001, which unfortunately and tragically resulted in the deaths of four people. In light of the board's investigation, there was a strong recommendation in its report concerning the question of setting a maximum blood alcohol level for seafarers in a bid to strongly combat the dangerous role alcohol could play in marine accidents. We might also recall the Marchioness disaster on the Thames some years earlier.

The Irish Water Safety Association in 2002 stated that alcohol consumption played a role in 37% of water fatalities. Moreover, the Marine Casualty Investigation Board recommended adopting the standard advocated by the International Maritime Organisation, similar to that for driving on land, of 0.08% blood alcohol level, or 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, as a minimum safety measure. The International Maritime Organisation in section B of the 1995 revised International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, STC 78/79, called for all members to adopt this and to prohibit the consumption of alcohol four hours prior to working aboard a vessel.

The Bill certainly deals with the criminal use of alcohol concerning the people in charge of a vessel, or those carrying out key functions on a vessel. This includes small pleasure craft, but the difficulty is that the Minister of State has not sought to lay down a standard, and that should have been done. The 84 deaths per annum that have occurred are 84 deaths too many and if alcohol played a role in any deaths on water it should be the job of this House to ensure that it does not happen again. We should take a strong line.

This is the first time we have legislation apart from regulations laid down for masters and mariners regarding important responsibilities on board vessels The maritime safety directorate has consistently pursued this in recent years. Concerning smaller pleasure craft such as jet skis, we should lay down a clear standard. Other jurisdictions have answered the International Maritime Organisation's request, and Ireland, as a maritime, seafaring nation that enjoys the water, should adopt such a standard. This would show that we do not believe that the consumption of alcohol is compatible with being in charge of a vessel. I urge the Minister to accept amendment No. 32.

John Perry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a very important amendment. This was discussed on Committee Stage with regard to zero tolerance of alcohol. We cannot send out a clear enough message about alcohol and drugs. That is crucial. Deputy Broughan and I tabled amendments on this matter and we used the standard set by the Garda Síochána for someone driving a vehicle. We should have similar measures on the maximum levels of alcohol. There is a risk of passengers falling overboard and this is what makes it completely different. We have a unique opportunity to send out a clear message. There is a prohibition on operating vessels but there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the way the section is worded. The drunkenness of passengers and crew is a matter on which we need to be clear. Drugs cause as much grief as alcohol and we should have no tolerance whatsoever for them. Anyone who would be tempted to take alcohol and steer a vessel in any capacity with minors on board poses a huge risk.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assume there is some misunderstanding here because I will not be soft on alcohol or drugs. In the case of someone operating, assisting or fulfilling the function of watch on a vessel, the clear message from this House is that persons must not be in charge of, or operate, vessels while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Although there is no permissible level, perhaps zero tolerance is the wrong term to use.

These measures cannot be compared with those in the Road Traffic Acts. Totally different environments and sets of circumstances are involved in being at sea or on inland waters and being on the road, and different legislative and enforcement arrangements must apply. Prima facie evidence of a person being under the influence of drugs or alcohol or a combination of the two would be clear from the condition and behaviour of the person concerned. This should quickly alert the crew and others to take prompt action to prevent the loss of life. I agree with Deputy Broughan that 84 deaths are 84 too many.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the marine casualty investigation board, which does excellent work. It presents me with recommendations and reports, which I read, and I am anxious to ensure that the recommendations are implemented. I hope there is some misunderstanding on the part of the Deputies in that there is no permissible level of drink or drugs. I understand the concerns of Deputy Broughan but I ask him to reconsider this. He should take into consideration my belief that the Bill, particularly section 28, is stronger than it would be if I accepted this amendment, which would dilute the legislation.

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

The nub of the matter will come down to a case where the authorised officer has arrested a person after a serious accident, perhaps one where people have lost their lives. What is the objective test? In the case of a road accident we can establish if a person is over the legal limit but the Minister of State is presiding over a situation where there are no limits. Considering the number of users, one could consider the marine environment to be relatively more dangerous than the road. Therefore it is incumbent on the authorities, using the new powers here, to ensure people do not misuse alcohol or drugs while engaged in the pleasurable use of craft and the enjoyment of our natural resources. The Minister should establish an objective test.

When the Government changes, another Minister may review water safety and this measure would be a development of what the present Minister of State has done. I commend him on including the provisions on this matter in the Bill. It is an area from which people often shy away and ignore. The Minister of State is from a seafaring area, similar to my constituency, and he realises that it is an important issue. He should have set a standard. There are some people who think that there should be no standard for driving and drinking — in other words, that it should be banned.

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

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 24, between lines 47 and 48, to insert the following:

"(2) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that any act consisting of lawful industrial action or lawful conduct in the course of trade union activity by a person on board a vessel shall not constitute an offence under this section or section 31.".

This relates to the prohibitions the Minister has made concerning anyone on board a vessel endangering a craft or taking reckless action under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In this amendment there is the provision for lawful and legal industrial action where workers and their trade union representatives are seeking to put their case strongly. Trade unions or leaders could enter a vessel and represent hard-pressed ferries. We have seen the recent example of Irish Ferries. I recall from the debate on Committee Stage the case of Cork-Swansea ferries. I did not want to endanger those rights and to avoid doubt I mentioned section 31.

As this is the last chance I will have I refer to the following amendment in the Minister of State's name. It seems to be directed against the scallop fishermen's protest and to try to create a situation where people in the fishing community could not legally protest.

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

As it is now 10 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed".

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

The Bill, which is considered by virtue of Article 20.2.2 of the Constitution as a Bill initiated in Dáil Éireann, will now be sent to the Seanad.