Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997

Vol. 475 No. 1

Private Members' Business - Merchant Shipping (Commissioners of Irish Lights) Bill, 1997: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for the Marine (Mr. Barrett)

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

The need to bring this Bill before the House arose from a Supreme Court judgment of July last, which upheld a High Court decision of October 1995, to the effect that the powers given to the Commissioners of Irish Lights under the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act could not be interpreted to include the provision of radio-based aids to marine navigation which were unknown when the Act was introduced.

The commissioners currently provide a range of radio aids to navigation. All modern aids to navigation are based on the transmission and reception of radio waves. The primary purpose of the Bill is, therefore, to give the necessary powers to the commissioners to enable them to continue to provide such modern technological aids in the interests of maritime safety. The Bill also makes further necessary provisions in relation to the functions of the commissioners. I propose to deal with the main provisions in the Bill later, but it would first be useful to place the Bill in context by outlining the statutory background and powers of the commissioners.

The legal basis for the operations of the Commissioners of Irish Lights dates an Act passed by the Irish Parliament in 1786. That Act created a "Corporation for preserving and improving the Port of Dublin" whose functions were, as its title suggests, the maintenance and development of Dublin port. In 1810, subsequent to the abolition of the Irish Parliament, the British Parliament passed the Lighthouses (Ireland) Act which gave the corporation all powers, duties and functions relating to the control of lighthouses around the coast of Ireland.

The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, established a "Port of Dublin Corporation" to superintend and manage the lighthouses in Ireland and the adjacent seas and islands and from then on the corporation, when exercising these powers, acted as separate and distinct from the "Corporation for preserving and improving the Port of Dublin". The Dublin Port Act, 1867, gave formal legal recognition to this state of affairs by severing the two bodies. The Port of Dublin Corporation was given the new name of the "Commissioners of Irish Lights" but retained its constitution as laid down in the original Irish Act of Parliament of 1786, while the other corporation became the "Dublin Port and Docks Board", with its own constitution.

The constitution of the commissioners, which is effectively still the same today as laid down in the 1786 Act, provides for the election of 17 members who are nominated by the body itself as vacancies arise. It also provides that the board of the commissioners shall comprise three representatives of Dublin Corporation, whose successors are nominated by the corporation, and the Lord Mayor of Dublin ex-officio. Under the Irish Lights Commissioners (Adaptation) Order, 1935, which legitimised the functions of the commissioners in the Irish State, the election of a new commissioner by the body itself can be disapproved by the Government. However, this power has never been exercised.

The current powers of the commissioners derive from the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Under this Act, the superintendence and management of all lighthouses, buoys and beacons in Britain and Ireland are vested in three bodies known as General Lighthouse Authorities. The Commissioners of Irish Lights is the General Lighthouse Authority responsible for providing and maintaining aids to navigation throughout the 32 counties of Ireland and its adjacent seas and islands. Likewise, Trinity House serves England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar, and the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses are responsible for Scotland and the Isle of Man.

The Act gives the Commissioners of Irish Lights powers to provide lighthouses, buoys and beacons and enables them to purchase any land which may be necessary for the exercise of their powers. The overall control of local lighthouses, buoys or beacons provided by individual harbour authorities is also vested in the commissioners. In addition, the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Wreck) Act, 1993, gives the commissioners powers in relation to the marking and removal of wrecks which are a danger to navigation, where no harbour authority or local authority has the power to do so. This Act repealed the relevant section in the 1894 Act which dealt with wreck and salvage matters.

The Commissioners of Irish Lights are somewhat unique in so far as their remit covers the entire island of Ireland. The services provided by the Commissioners of Irish Lights and the other two lighthouse authorities are financed from one source — the general lighthouse fund. This fund derives its income principally from light dues levied on commercial shipping at ports in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Light dues collected from shipping traffic at Irish ports are, however, insufficient to meet the cost of the elaborate system of lights required by Ireland's geographical position. Under an agreement reached between Ireland and Britain in 1985, the Irish Exchequer pays to the general lighthouse fund an annual supplement towards the cost of the service provided by the commissioners in the State.

It is important to recognise the onerous task with which the Commissioners of Irish Lights are charged. They are statutorily responsible for aiding the safe passage of mariners in and around the entire inhospitable coastline of Ireland which covers over 2,000 miles. More than 75 per cent of Irish imports and exports rely on our sea routes and the commissioners are responsible for the protection of this vital lifeline to and from the outside world. It should also be remembered that, in addition to inshore sea traffic trading to and from Irish ports, aids to navigation provided in Irish waters are used by a high percentage of vessels plying some of the world's busiest shipping lanes from North America to Britain and mainland Europe.

In this era of rapid technological change the role of coastal aids to navigation is changing. Traditional visual aids such as lighthouses and buoys are, however, still an essential part of marine safety as the location of hidden or underwater dangers must always be clearly identified. Lighthouses and buoys have been modernised in line with technological advances. The automation of all lights under the control of the commissioners will be complete when the Bailey Lighthouse is demanned in April and all buoys are now solar powered. As technology advances, the lighthouse will come to be thought of more as a hazard warning rather than a point-to-point aid to navigation around the coast. Radio navigation systems provide the enhanced position fixing accuracy required by modern shipping. The speed of vessels is increasing and there is a greater risk of marine pollution.

The varied nature and topography of the Irish coast requires a mix of traditional and modern aids to navigation to guide seafarers. The commissioners carefully select each aid to navigation to mark a particular local danger or hazard while ensuring that these aids link up with adjacent aids in order to form a comprehensive chain of navigational aids all around the coast.

The commissioners provide not only traditional visual aids such as lighthouses and beacons but also a variety of modern electronic aids which allow vessels to determine their position by interpreting radio signals from transmitters on shore. The four types of electronic aids provided by the commissioners are radio beacons; radar beacons — known as racons; radar target enhancers and the differential global positioning system — DGPS.

I would like to briefly outline the manner in which these radio systems operate. Radio beacons are radio transmitting stations which operate in the low and medium frequency bands and provide ground wave signals from which ships can obtain their bearings by means of direction finding receivers. Racons are radio navigation devices which allow ships' radar to identify the geographic location of the device. Radar target enhancers are devices which automatically transmit a signal in response to an interrogating signal received from ships' radar. The purpose of these devices is to improve the radar return signal from navigation marks and to improve radar detection of small craft so as to reduce the risk of collision. DGPS improves the accuracy of the satellite global positioning system-GPS which is a navigation service operated by the United States. The DGPS involves having, at precisely known locations, reference stations which provide real-time corrections to the signals of GPS. Differential corrections are transmitted by radio beacons to any user of the GPS who is near a reference station.

The commissioners have provided radio aids to navigation since 1931. They currently operate 25 such aids around the coast of the Republic of Ireland. However, as I indicated earlier, the courts have ruled that these systems are ultra vires the powers of the commissioners under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. In 1979 the UK amended that Act to provide for the inclusion of radio aids to navigation in the powers of General Lighthouse Authorities in their jurisdiction.

The role of the commissioners is clearly of the utmost importance, involving as it does accident prevention, pollution avoidance and, above all, safety of life at sea. It is vital, therefore, that the commissioners be given the necessary statutory powers to continue to provide modern aids to navigation in the interests of maritime safety. It is against this background that I now wish to outline the main provisions of the Bill before the House.

The Bill rectifies the legal deficiencies identified by the courts by giving the commissioners, in relation to maritime navigation, powers to construct, operate and maintain radio navigation systems. It also allows the commissioners to purchase land for this purpose. The Bill validates the provision of radio navigation systems in the past. The commissioners provided these systems in the interests of maritime safety.

The Bill also provides that the commissioners shall be responsible for superintending and management of all maritime radio navigation systems. As indicated earlier, the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, vested the superintending and management of all lighthouses, buoys and beacons, including those provided by harbour authorities, in the commissioners. It is, therefore, considered appropriate that this Bill should extend the commissioners' management function to cover radio aids to navigation in this jurisdiction in the same way that they are responsible for such aids in Northern Ireland.

The Bill provides that the commissioners may, with the consent of the Minister for the Marine, co-operate with other agencies, including a competent authority of another jurisdiction, in relation to the provision or operation of radio navigation systems and any services relating to maritime navigation, safety, distress, wreck location, pollution or related matters.

This provision recognises the fact that international co-operation is of vital importance in the provision of aids to navigation and in relation to maritime navigation in general. There is, in this regard, ongoing co-operation between the Commissioners of Irish Lights and the two General Lighthouse Authorities serving England, Scotland and Wales. The three General Lighthouse Authorities are at present developing closer planning and operational functions.

The Commissioners of Irish Lights are represented on the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities. This association promotes co-operation between lighthouse authorities and the co-ordination of worldwide standards in relation to aids to navigation matters.

It was considered prudent to also allow the commissioners to co-operate with other agencies in relation to the provision of services relating to wreck location, pollution or related matters. This could be of particular benefit in an emergency where the commissioners' light tender ship may be able to provide assistance to the Department of the Marine or other competent authorities. I should mention in this regard that the Irish Lights tender Granuaile played a prominent role in the search for the FV Carrickatine which was tragically lost off the Donegal coast in November 1995.

The Bill also contains a provision which gives the commissioners power to make financial contributions towards the funding of bodies concerned with maritime navigational assistance. This power may, however, only be exercised with the consent of both the Minister for the Marine and the Minister for Finance. The Commissioners of Irish Lights currently make financial contributions to the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities in respect of their membership of that body.

A further provision in the Bill allows the commissioners, for gain or otherwise, to enter into agreements, with the consent of the Minister, for the provision of maritime navigation systems on behalf of harbour authorities and for the performance of services relating to maritime navigation, safety, distress, wreck location, pollution and related matters.

The need to include this provision arose following legal advice received by the UK Department of Transport which indicated that the maintenance of a third party's buoys is ultra vires the powers of Trinity House, the general lighthouse authority throughout England and Wales. This advice also applies to the Commissioners of Irish Lights with regard to the provision of such services to third parties such as harbour authorities. The commissioners currently maintain in excess of 50 lights and buoys within harbour limits. The Bill validates services provided by the commissioners to harbour authorities to date.

Legislative action is also being taken in the United Kingdom in this regard. A Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill, currently before the British Houses of Parliament, contains a similar provision which will allow General Lighthouse Authorities to enter into agreements with third parties.

In order to cater for possible future developments in technology I have taken this opportunity to include in the Bill a provision enabling the Minister for the Marine to confer on the commissioners appropriate additional functions in relation to maritime navigational matters. The Bill stipulates that orders made in this regard shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and may be annulled by a resolution of either House.

This Bill is very necessary legislation. It will, if enacted, update the powers given to the commissioners under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and allow them to continue to provide modern technological aids to navigation to enable ships, fishing vessels and pleasure craft to sail our waters in safety.

Before I recommend this Bill to the House, I would like to refer to the Loran C long range radio navigation project. As Members will be aware, the Supreme Court ruling of 18 July last arose, in effect, out of a legal challenge to the commissioners' powers to proceed with the erection and operation of the Loran C long range radio navigation system. Ireland's participation in Loran C was provided for in an international agreement between this country, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and France which was duly approved by this House on 8 October 1992. The terms of this agreement, as approved by the Dáil, included an undertaking by Ireland that a Loran C radio mast would be erected in the south-west of Ireland as an essential link in a system of nine masts stretching from the north of Norway to the south of France.

Prior to the approval by the Dáil of this agreement, an extensive radio mast site selection study had been undertaken by the Commissioners of Irish Lights with the assistance of a firm of consulting engineers, the University of Wales and the head of the north-west European Loran C programme management office. System coverage predictions and a detailed set of guidelines informed and guided a detailed geographic and geophysical study of 40 possible sites. This study led the team to select the site currently envisaged for erection of this mast at Loop Head. The detailed guidelines required, inter alia, that the site be both extensive and flat with no adjacent mountains or hills; also, that it should be in an area of low population density and be removed from other major public infrastructures and power lines. The Loop Head site was regarded by the team as that which best met the detailed selection criteria developed in advanced of the study.

The Commissioners of Irish Lights, acting as agents of the Minister for the Marine and on foot of the above mentioned site selection study and the approval of the Dáil of the international agreement, subsequently applied for and obtained on 4 November 1994, on appeal to An Bord Pleanála, planning permission to proceed with the erection of the mast at Loop Head, County Clare.

Deputies will be aware that the commissioners have been unable to proceed with the project because of litigation connected with both relevant marine and planning legislation. The House will also be aware that, since the approval by the Dáil in 1992 of the Loran C agreement and the completion of the planning process in 1994, considerable disquiet has been expressed about visual and health aspects of the mast at the chosen site and, more fundamentally, whether we should be party to the agreement in the first place. Claims that the system was a threat to health, infringed our neutrality, constituted a damaging environmental intrusion and was already obsolete were levelled against the proposal. The intensity with which these claims were pursued contrasted with the lack of substantive public or political debate in 1992 when our national policy in relation to Loran C was being decided. Thus the current debate, being dissociated in time from the original decision, suffers from having no public channel or forum through which these issues, which are of real and legitimate concern to many people, can be aired and informed.

I regard this state of affairs as unsatisfactory, potentially damaging and inconsistent with the need to ensure the maximum practicable level of public information and consultation. I wish to inform the House, therefore, that I am not satisfied that the Commissioners of Irish Lights should proceed with the project without first allowing an informed and structured public debate on the issue. I am also conscious that, notwithstanding the legislation before the House, there remains the possibility of further litigation in relation to the validity of the commissioners' powers at the time to have applied for the relevant planning permission. Furthermore, I am conscious of the need to ensure that the retrospective legislation currently before the House does not interfere with the constitutional rights of any individuals or groups.

Having regard, therefore, to the need to allay public concerns about the project and in view of inevitable further legal uncertainties and the need to protect constitutional rights, I have decided on two important courses of action. First, a public forum, consisting of three individuals, including persons with knowledge and expertise in maritime matters generally, will be set up shortly to allow individuals and groups to articulate publicly concerns they might have about the appropriateness of our involvement in the Loran C project in general, about the impact or effect of a Loran C mast on public health and the environment and about the selection of an appropriate site for such a mast. Second, the Commissioners of Irish Lights will be directed, following the outcome of the current Supreme Court case and the public forum mentioned above, not to proceed with the erection of a Loran C mast at any location without undertaking a renewed and appropriate planning application procedure.

I intend that the public forum will consult extensively on the general merits and demerits of the project as articulated in the debate to date, on the impacts and effects of a Loran C mast, whether in County Clare or elsewhere, and on the site selection procedure used by the commissioners. The forum will draw on expert advice and will adopt an informed view on the legitimacy or otherwise of concerns and opinions on all these and any other issues put to it. The proceedings of the forum will be public, open and comprehensive and its report will be published following the completion of its work. I would envisage that its work will take three to four months from its commencement.

On this basis and having regard to my statements earlier that this legislation is essential to allow the Commissioners of Irish Lights to continue its current work of assisting all vessels on the high seas and close to our coasts to sail our waters in safety, I recommend this Bill to the House.

Mr. M. Smith

There was an argument on the Order of Business about the time afforded to debate this Bill. I had a discussion with the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Barrett, almost two weeks ago and he indicated that it was necessary for him to introduce urgent legislation to deal with a problem which had arisen for the Commissioners of Irish Lights following a High Court decision. I was happy to co-operate. Normally we expect notice of about two weeks before a Bill is debated in the House and I waived that. I was approached last week and it was requested that all Stages of the Bill would be taken this week and I agreed. It was not until this morning that I realised that the Government had decided to take all Stages of the Bill today. I drafted an amendment to ensure that the provisions of section 3 do not facilitate the development of installations not already constructed, including a Loran C mast.

It is unfortunate that we must deal with the legislation in different circumstances to those which I had understood from the Minister. If there were problems for the Commissioners of Irish Lights as a result of a High Court decision, which left them liable for decisions taken in the past and which were not properly covered by legislation, the House would be willing to facilitate but I have doubts whether this is the case because I am not aware of any public disquiet about existing installations.

We are prepared to facilitate the updating of the law with regard to navigational safety. Ireland exports significant amounts of goods by sea and has an important fisheries sector. The maintenance of safety standards for navigation by sea and air is very important. This Bill is draconian; it is a panic measure which does not conform to the planning laws and it loses sight of the many advances that have taken place, and will take place, in marine navigation. The Bill, as drafted, gives the lie to the solemn commitment given by Fine Gael at the last election not to proceed with Loran C. That commitment was given in the face of genuine concern and outright opposition by the local community at Loop Head.

Generally speaking, more enlightened legislation is brought before the House each year. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the planning laws. We have introduced tighter controls. We have ensured more transparency. We have allowed for greater public consultation and new environmental impact statements and assessments to continue to protect our environment.

The Bill does not refer to obligations under the planning Acts. The Minister may argue that provisions in other legislation amply cover this area but the harsh reality is that it should be spelled out here in such important legislation. The scope for conflict in this crucial area of marine navigational safety is enormous. In light of the experience in the Clare area, the Minister and the Government should have been careful to ensure that full and open compliance with all planning requirements was enshrined in any legislation coming before the House.

I regard this as a panic measure. There should be no rush, no need to speed up the introduction of legislation to rectify the problem which arose for the Commissioners of Irish Lights arising from the High Court decision. The presumption that the Commissioners of Irish Lights always had the right to provide navigational systems without planning permission was wrong. No one is pressing to remove any installation placed by the commissioners. There were no immediate problems on that front. It is difficult to realise why there should be so much panic and why it is necessary to proceed to deal with all sections of the Bill in a little over an hour and a half.

The history of Loran C has been well documented. It goes back to an international agreement signed by the Irish Government in Oslo in mid-1992. A navigational aid was to consist of a 720 feet mast, with guy wires, extending over a site of 140 acres in Fierd near Cross, County Clare. It was then being promoted by the Commissioners of Irish Lights. Except for a newspaper article in The Clare Champion the local community knew nothing whatsoever about the proposed project.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy was a member of the Government that approved it.

Mr. M. Smith

I did not interrupt the Minister. Please wait until I am finished.

Mr. Carey

Pontius Pilate.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister was heard without interruption, the same courtesy must be extended to the Deputy in possession. No interruptions please. A strict time limit is involved.

Mr. M. Smith

We have a little over an hour and a half to deal with all Stages of the Bill, including the amendments, and the least both Ministers could do is restrain themselves.

Mr. Carey

Be honest.

Mr. M. Smith

Please wait until I finish. I am not interested in the politics of this project, I merely want to relate some of the history to help the House understand the reason we should not make the decision we are about to make tonight. Anxious people wanted answers but they did not get them. Since that time a wider debate has taken place on the international front and even more questions are being asked by the scientific community in respect of Loran C.

Planning permission was sought and refused by Clare County Council and subsequently granted by An Bord Pleanála. Apart from planning, environmental and health grounds, there are concerns about the extent to which these projects can be affected by outside powers. The signal is controlled from a naval base at Brest in France and used by the French nuclear submarine fleet. It is acknowledged that Loran C is a preferred communication system for submarines since they do not have to surface to get a position fix.

To change from the Decca to the Loran C system, according to all the advice available to me, is unjustified and unacceptable to professional operators in the marine and fisheries sector whose needs from a navigational system are separate and distinct from those of others in the maritime community. All the Community fishing zones are situated inside regions covered by the Decca system which, as a result, is used by a large number of Community fishing vessel owners both for radio navigation and scanning the seabed for fish. Nobody has been able to show that the Loran C system is more precise than the Decca system.

To change systems would require heavy investment which is too expensive for small boats, substantial time for training new users and massive technical inconvenience. Data banks of readings built up over years of experience could be lost. I have been informed it is not possible to transfer information electronically from Decca to Loran C — it would have to be done manually, a nightmare we do not want. It appears the UK finds this system unsatisfactory and is continuing with the Decca system. Why then are we debating legislation which is designed for, perhaps, no reason other than to put the Loran C project back on the rails?

The Minister has proposed a public forum comprising three individuals. The Commissioners of Irish Lights will be directed, following the outcome of the Supreme Court case and the public forum, not to proceed with the erection of Loran C masts at any location without undertaking a renewed and appropriate planning application procedure. It should be taken for granted in any project, wherever it would be, that the necessity for proper planning permission would be enshrined in the legislation. Why is it necessary to emphasise something which we all consider essential for a project anywhere in the country? When we take away the blind from everything that has been presented the legislation provides for the fundamentals with a view to ensuring the Loran C project goes ahead.

The public forum, the whitewash and the other matters will lead to ultimate confrontation with the public in Loop Head who are concerned. We would be better off making a decision here and now because we can anticipate the difficulties. We know the public concerns. Given that it will not be possible to proceed with any degree of unanimity, that the project will not have local support, the Government should accept the Fianna Fáil amendment, otherwise Fianna Fáil will be voting against the Bill.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputy is disregarding maritime safety.

Mr. H. Byrne

The Deputy cares a lot about maritime safety. I will be speaking in a few minutes.

Mr. Molloy

I wish to share my time with Deputies de Valera and Hugh Byrne.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure that is in order and is agreed.

Mr. Molloy

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"while conscious of the need to modernise the law relating to navigational and safety installations, Dáil Éireann declines to have the Bill read a Second Time in order to facilitate the disposal of pending litigation in relation to the Loran C situation in County Clare."

This Bill arises from the decision by the Commissioners of Irish Lights to construct a Loran C navigation mast at Loop Head in County Clare. The residents in the Loop Head area fought that decision through the courts. They were successful in the High Court in October 1995 and in the Supreme Court in July 1996. The objections and concerns of the people of Loop Head are understandable and they have been made very clear to me by the Progressive Democrats councillor, Mary Mannion.

Mr. Carey

She will be the next TD for County Clare.

Mr. Molloy

Please God.

Mr. Carey

And Deputy Molloy will be the next Minister for the Marine.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is a time limit attached to this debate and disruptions are unwelcome and disorderly. I want no more of them.

Mr. Molloy

The residents of the Loop Head peninsula were shocked to discover that an outside agency, the Commissioners of Irish Lights, was about to build a 720 feet mast in the middle of a peaceful and scenic rural area and that it was proposed to do so with the minimum of consultation with the local community. The mast would have been the tallest structure in the region and would even have dwarfed the stacks at the Moneypoint power station. The mast would have been visible from as far away as the Dingle Peninsula, the Aran Islands and Slyne Head in west Connemara.

West Clare depends heavily on tourism. The Loop Head peninsula is a spectacular scenic location, with the Shannon on one side and steep cliffs falling down to the Atlantic on the other. It is the kind of place tourists from Britain and continental Europe come to Ireland to see. This area has considerable untapped tourist potential. Kilkee is one of the towns selected by the Government for inclusion in the scheme of tax breaks to encourage investment in traditional seaside resorts. However, what is the point of encouraging tourism related investment in Kilkee if 15 miles down the road there is an enormous grotesque mast, a huge blot on the landscape, which is visible from a considerable distance? Tourism is the main hope for this region of County Clare. It has proven difficult to attract industry to south west Clare because of its peripheral location and poor transport links with the rest of the country. It stands to reason that we should be doing as much as possible to encourage tourism in the area and as little as possible to hinder it.

I fail to see how the Loran C project fits in with any plan to develop the tourism potential of the Loop Head peninsula and I would appreciate if the Minister would answer some basic questions. I could start by asking the Minister how he would like to see this mast erected in the middle of Dún Laoghaire in his constituency.

Mr. Carey

The Deputy did not think about that when he was Minister. Why did he not object when he was Minister?

Mr. Molloy

He would find out pretty quickly the views of his constituents on this project. The Minister should answer the following questions in his reply. On what criteria was it decided that this equipment was needed?

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy was in Government.

Mr. Molloy

Has this equipment not been rendered——

Mr. Carey

The Deputy is like Pontius Pilate, he is washing his hands of the matter. He is a hypocrite.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us hear Deputy Molloy without interruption.

Mr. Carey

This is out and out hypocrisy.

Mr. Molloy

The Government is engaging in jackboot tactics.

Mr. Carey

We are not.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister does not like me asking these questions.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy is the person who took the decisions.

Mr. Molloy

I did not.

Mr. Carey

The Deputy was a member of the Government in 1992.

Mr. Sheehan

He did not realise he was a member of the Government.

Mr. Carey

He does not know about the agreement made——

Mr. M. Smith

The Deputies opposite are a disgrace.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have asked that the interruptions cease. If there are Members present who do not wish to hear what another Member has to say they have a remedy.

Mr. Carey

If the Deputy was honest I would have no problem.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister of State may have an opportunity of participating in the debate, and I will claim the same safeguards for him if that happens.

Mr. Carey

If Deputy Molloy is honest I will have no problem.

Mr. Molloy

Has this type of equipment not been rendered obsolete by the availability of more modern technology? Did the Commissioners of Irish Lights consult with the Department of the Marine before undertaking this project? If this mast has to be built, were alternative sites considered for it? Have the health risks associated with the mast been fully explored and has all the relevant documentation been made public? Is this equipment needed solely for merchant shipping or is there a military rationale for it? These are reasonable questions and this House, and the people of the Loop Head peninsula, are entitled to clear and straightforward answers, which I hope the Minister will give in his reply.

Nobody objects to the basic purpose of the Bill, namely to update the legislation governing marine navigation and to allow the Commissioners of Irish Lights to modernise their operations. The Commissioners of Irish Lights have served the country extremely well over many years. Many fishermen, sportsmen and sailors owe their lives to the services provided by the commissioners. However, it is important that we allow for full deliberation and consideration of all the facts in relation to the Loop Head development. The Minister confirmed that the matters are still the subject of litigation and certain aspects of the development have still to be decided by the courts. Accordingly, my party has tabled an amendment which proposes to ensure that no further action is taken on the Loran C development until the matter has been resolved by the courts.

Mr. Barrett

I have already said that.

Miss de Valera

I thank Deputies Molloy and Hugh Byrne for sharing their time with me. This issue is of importance to County Clare and, in particular, west Clare. Unfortunately, it is proposed to take this Bill in a very hurried fashion. As I said on the Order of Business, we all welcome the updating of legislation but rushing it through in this way gives rise to suspicion. On the Order of Business the Minister for the Marine tried to say that the legislation did not refer to the Loran C mast project.

Mr. Barrett

I said I would deal with that matter separately.

Miss de Valera

There is no reference to this mast in the legislation but one does not have to read between the lines to know that it relates to it. Indeed the Minister alluded to it in his speech.

Last night at a well attended emergency meeting in west Clare a number of points were put forward, one of which was the need for an all-party approach to this matter. I am, therefore, disappointed at the bully-boy tactics being engaged in by Members on the benches opposite. Like the people who attended the meeting last night, I had hoped that all political parties would share the same view on this issue. Given that there is a guillotine on the debate, the interruptions by the Deputies opposite are unsavoury and unhelpful.

The Minister said the Bill is necessary following the Supreme Court judgment of last July which upheld a High Court decision of October 1995. As in the case of other legislation, there should be an interval between the Second and remaining Stages of this Bill. Unfortunately, this will not happen on this occasion, and one wonders why. I say this given the pending judgment in the current Supreme Court case. As I said on the Order of Business, it is inappropriate to bring the legislation before the House this evening. However, I am glad the Minister will deal separately with the Loran C project. The people of west Clare feel particularly aggrieved, fearful and anxious about this because there have been so many logical and lucid questions asked about the environmental and health impact, neutrality and the fact that the Loran C system is obsolete. These questions have been asked in numerous fora and have not been answered to the satisfaction of local people. It has already been pointed out that the county council looked at this matter and its decision was overruled by An Bord Pleanála. When the An Bord Pleanála hearing took place, public representatives from all parties in County Clare expressed the difficulties facing the local people. The people of Clare were able to come to Dublin today with 16,000 signatures. This represents the views not only of people in County Clare but also of people in the surrounding constituencies and counties. It shows that this issue is of tremendous importance and needs greater consideration.

The Loran C mechanism is obsolete. The British had this system and got rid of it in 1990 because they felt it was not the way to go. The Irish Fishermen's Organisation has also been very much against this system and has given its reasons. The Minister for the Marine should take account of such a respected organisation and its views. The people it represents would be most dependent on such a navigation system for their safety and if they feel it is inadequate the Minister should reconsider his position.

The question of Loran C has come to public attention because, as Deputy Molloy said, it has been worked on by the local community. I do not profess to be an expert on these issues but the people who have taken up the cudgels in west Clare, John McInerney and others, have become experts in this field and the questions they pose have not been answered sufficiently. Perhaps we will get a satisfactory answer from the Minister tonight with regard to the health hazards and the threat to our neutrality. These were two issues among others raised specifically last night and we were asked as public representatives for that constituency to raise them in this debate.

It was thanks to citizens taking their rights to the courts that we learned of these difficulties and legal procedures. The Supreme Court decision has, according to the Minister, necessitated this legislation. If that is so, it would not be too cynical to believe that this legislation is an attempt to change the goalposts simply because the people of west Clare have already proved their point in law and legislation has been introduced to deal with that decision. That is an unsatisfactory way to deal with citizens' rights. That decision should be expressed in law rather than trying to thwart the views and decisions taken and followed through in our legal system.

I refer to the fact that the Minister said he wants to have another look at Loran C and I welcome that. Any situation where we have further debate can be welcomed. It would not be logical or fair to deny that process. The Minister has given an opportunity for a forum. He has said he is doing this on foot of a pending Supreme Court case which I accept. Why then are we discussing this legislation before the decision has been finally taken by that forum and people have full information? You cannot have your cake and eat it. That is a cynical attempt by the Government to placate local people.

Mr. Carey

The Deputy is dishonest.

Mr. Barrett

It is untrue and the Deputy knows it.

Miss de Valera

The Minister should listen as he is only wasting time. He can say that as often as he likes but the people of west Clare will decide for themselves.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy is playing to the gallery. She is dishonest.

Mr. S. Ryan

The Deputy should give a bit of leadership.

Mr. Molloy

The Deputy makes much sense.

Miss de Valera

I beg your indulgence, Sir. I have only so many minutes to contribute to this debate and I am being prevented from doing so by the heckling of those opposite.

Mr. Barrett

It is not telling the truth.

Mr. Carey

The Deputy is dishonest.

Miss de Valera

If they do not wish to agree the very basis of democracy is at least to listen.

Mr. Barrett

It is not to tell lies about me. That is not democracy.

Mr. Carey

The Deputy made an accusation.

Miss de Valera

I do not tell lies. I wish to continue with the Ceann Comhairle's permission.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy should not tell lies about my being dishonest.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have sought earnestly to have order for the Deputy.

Mr. Barrett

It is unparliamentary language.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister made his contribution without any interruption. There is a time limit attached to this debate and——

Mr. Barrett

I wish to protect my interests.

An Ceann Comhairle

——as I have said before, interruptions should not be tolerated.

Mr. Barrett

I do not want to be accused of dishonesty.

An Ceann Comhairle

I also remind the Minister that he has, unlike any other Deputy, a right to reply and has 15 minutes available to him for that purpose. In the meantime he should not interrupt.

Miss de Valera

Thank you, Sir, given the fact that we have a limited time for this discussion——

Mr. Barrett

Which the Deputy agreed to.

Miss de Valera

——and are supposed to rush this legislation through. I reiterate that it is most unwise to speak on legislation that should be set aside until we have heard the outcome of the forum proposed by the Minister. The Minister and the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say to the people of Clare "yes, you will have your forum, you will be consulted", another example of retrospective consultation from this Government, yet the Minister is prepared to go ahead with this legislation.

Mr. Carey

There was none from Fianna Fáil. It ran it through.

Miss de Valera

I agree with the amendment put down by Deputy Michael Smith. It is important to look at section 3 which gives the commissioners power in regard to maritime navigation to construct, operate and maintain radio navigation systems and allows them to buy land for this purpose. This section also gives the commissioners all necessary ancillary powers and ensures that the constitutional rights of any person are not affected by powers given under this section. This is where we wish to insert the following provision: "The provisions of this section shall not facilitate the development of installations not already constructed, including the Loran C".

I hope support will not only be given from all Opposition parties but in the interest of democracy, fair play and true consultation the views of the people of west Clare will be followed through. They have an all party approach to this and at the very least this amendment should be included. When talking about the need to improve and update legislation, such issues as updating buoys and other navigational systems are not on par with the Loran C mast which will have a great effect on the community in west Clare. Fianna Fáil regard this legislation with a jaundiced eye for the simple reason that the Minister has admitted further consultation should take place and a forum should be established. I agree with that principle but the Bill should not go any further than Second Stage. We must first know the outcome of the deliberations of that forum before we can determine the legislation that is necessary.

Mr. H. Byrne

Outsiders would agree this debate has become localised. I have a particular interest in this issue because I have had many dealings with the Commissioners of Irish Lights. I agree with the Minister and Deputy Molloy that the commissioners have a proud record on safety at sea. Many of my friends' families have at least one member involved with the Commissioners of Irish Lights.

In my many dealings with the commissioners I have always found them to be very professional. I live close to the Hook Lighthouse, which is being given to the local community as a heritage centre, and on that we have had consultations with the commissioners. Those consultations were always a high priority with them, and I fail to understand the reason consultation appears to be minimal at this stage.

Despite the Minister's sniggering I believe this decision is being forced upon the commissioners and the building of the Loran C project is part of an international agreement. Is it part of an international agreement and, if so, who proposed it? Who is paying for this? Are the French paying 50 per cent of it?

Mr. Carey

The Deputy should ask Deputy Molloy and Deputy Smith.

Mr. H. Byrne

I was amused to hear the Minister of State refer to safety at sea as one of his priorities. I hope it is his priority and that of the Minister; it should be a priority for all of us.

I will refer to an accident involving Irish and French vessels which occurred four and a half years ago and on which we are still awaiting a result. In reply to a question tabled by me on the matter, the Minister stated that his Department awaited a report from the French authorities on the proceedings of a maritime tribunal on a case which concluded on 27 September 1966. The Minister informed me also that one of his officials attended the tribunal. Why did that person not report back to the Minister? Why is the conclusion of this matter taking so long? Has anybody been appointed in the Department to deal with this investigation? Is it not true that Captain McGrath, who was appointed, has retired and that nobody has been appointed to take his place? I had to smile when the Minister of State referred to safety at sea and that the Loran C installation will see an end to all problems.

Mr. Sheehan

Not before time.

Mr. H. Byrne

Will the Minister get his priorities right and deal with the people who are bereaved as a result of this accident? That would be proof of his interest in safety at sea.

The Commissioners of Irish Lights have led the way in rescues around our coastline. They should not now be painted as the bad boys but given credit for the tremendous work they have done and will do in the future. It was the Minister's decision to introduce this legislation which is being rushed through the House. I am very suspicious about the speed with which it is being progressed.

Mr. Killeen

We are not satisfied with this debate and the manner in which the Government has attempted to ensure we do not have an opportunity to tease out the issues. I do not have any difficulty in giving the Commissioners of Irish Lights whatever powers they are deemed to be deficient in, but I have a number of difficulties generally with the Bill, the first of which has already been articulated in relation to the Loran C. The Bill warrants deeper examination than is possible tonight. I am extremely suspicious of the manner in which it is being presented whereby Committee and Report Stages cannot be taken and the Bill is being pushed through the House with unseemly haste.

Deputy Smith tabled a Committee Stage amendment on behalf of Fianna Fáil which relates specifically to the Loran C project. If the Minister accepted the amendment, that problem, which is a major one for the people in the area, would be addressed. The Minister is in a position to accept the amendment and I strongly urge him to do so.

The Loran C project is clearly facilitated by the Bill, despite the caveats the Minister has entered. If the public disquiet in west Clare which has been articulated by other speakers were addressed by the Government, it would have ensured there was an opportunity to consider the Bill on Committee Stage.

It is no wonder Members of this House, who may have been here when the initial proposal was made in 1992 but were unaware of the difficulties which have now come to the fore, are suspicious about the speed with which this Bill is being passed through the House. We are now aware of the health difficulties, the question of neutrality and French submarines, the visual intrusion, the adverse effects on tourism and the fact that this system is obsolete, yet the Government is forcing through the legislation without due consideration of the issues.

I am greatly surprised that the Taoiseach, who is a proponent of the committee system, is party to this approach. The Minister, in his caveats, clearly accepts that the planning procedure adopted heretofore is faulty. It was not mentioned directly by him but it is a fact that the local planning authority, Clare County Council, of which I am a member, refused planning permission and it was subsequently turned down by An Bord Pleanála.

Questions have arisen about the procedures of An Bord Pleanála. It has been said there is no demand from the IFO, the people who might be seen to benefit from this, that it is under French military control and appears to facilitate French nuclear submarines. Internal memos exist in the Department of the Marine which are clearly against the Loran C project.

Section 3 needs amendment along the lines we have mentioned. If the Minister is serious about these procedures, which seem to be a time wasting exercise and an acknowledgement of the planning procedure heretofore, he must accept Fianna Fáil's amendment in relation to Loran C and deal with that issue.

Section 7 confers extraordinary powers on the Minister in conjunction with the Minister for Finance. I am not satisfied, quite apart from Loran C, that it is appropriate for this House to pass legislation on a public body such as the commissioners, which is independent from the State in many respects. I am gravely concerned about that. The Government is skirting around the main issue, the Loran C system. The manner in which the Bill is being rushed through is a cause of great concern.

Mr. Sheehan

I wish to share time with the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Deputy Gilmore.

Members opposite are trying to impede progress. They are endangering the safety of our fishermen, who travel at least 200 miles south to the Azores, and are making a political football of this issue in west Clare. Who objected when the then Government made a deal overnight with the European Union to erect, without planning permission, two towers on Mount Gabriel in Schull?

Mr. H. Byrne

The Deputy would know all about doing things without planning permission.

Mr. Sheehan

I am well aware of the contribution made by the Commissioners of Irish Lights to the safety of seafaring fishermen in my constituency. The commissioners will not inflict harm on the people of County Clare and the sooner the better they realise they are being codded by Members of the Opposition on this sensitive matter. Everyone knows it is important to install navigational aids along the coastline and that is not possible without modern technology.

When Deputy Molloy was a Minister he did not encourage the public to object to his Government's efforts to provide navigational aids along the coastline. We were fortunate that a good rescue service was in operation in south-west Cork on the night his former leader was shipwrecked off Mizen Head and retrieved by the Baltimore lifeboat service. Were it not for the alertness of the Mizen Head signal station on the night in question the then Taoiseach would have foundered under Mizen Head. That would have been a terrible tragedy for such a colourful character.

How dare Deputy Molloy encourage opposition to the erection of a mast in County Clare? When the Commissioners of Irish Lights modernised the fog signalling station at Mizen Head they handed the station back to the local community as a gift and it is currently used as a maritime institution that attracts approximately 45,000 people per annum. That is progress in the right direction. If we do not progress we are merely banging our heads off the wall.

I was not amazed at Deputy Smith's comments because, coming from a landlocked constituency, he does not have a great deal of experience in maritime matters. However, he should think twice before trying to impede progress on maritime safety.

I fail to understand why Members opposite object to this legislation. We are surrounded by masts in west Cork and we are surviving. The sooner the better the Opposition realises that we must keep in line with the European Union on maritime safety issues. The people of west Clare have nothing to fear from the erection of this mast. There are two spiralling towers on Mount Gabriel and a tall mast on Mizen Head, none of which has had serious consequences for people living near them.

We must upgrade our maritime safety institutions. Do Members opposite want our fishing trawlers which operate up to 300 lines off our coastline cut off from communications on the mainland? Common sense must prevail on this matter. The attitude of Members opposite is similar to Rome burning while Nero fiddled.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. Gilmore)

This legislation is intended to allow the Commissioners of Irish Lights to continue to provide the navigational assistance they currently provide to mariners around our coast. The legislation is necessary because the 19th century legislation under which the commissioners had been operating did not anticipate the changes in navigational technology which are now common place. It is difficult to understand why Members opposite want to oppose legislation which attempts to rectify that anomaly and which would allow the Commissioners of Irish Lights to continue to provide, on a legal basis, navigational aids that are necessary for the safety of life and maritime activity around our coast.

The Opposition's collective amnesia about Loran C is difficult to take. The proposal in regard to Loran C was introduced by a Fianna Fáil-PD Government. When the matter was debated here I did not hear comments from Members opposite about the right of the public to be informed. It was the Government's responsibility at that time to inform people of its intentions. The motion committed this country to an international agreement in regard to Loran C and we must live with its obvious implications.

This Government inherited the Loran C project at a time when the matter was already before the courts.

As it was before the courts, the Government did not proceed with that project. In introducing this legislation, we have not avoided the issue of Loran C, which is of concern to the public, particularly those in the County Clare area. The Minister announced that the Loran C project will be the subject of review by a public forum. The issues raised publicly about Loran C, whether they relate to the necessity for the system, its comparison with other terrestrial-navigational systems, its uses, the modernity of the technology or any other aspect of it including the location of the site and the implications of that for the local people, will be the subject of public discussion, debate and consultation.

The matter will be the subject of an independent report which will be published and will be in the public domain. People who have concerns about the system will have a forum where they can express those concerns and where they will be tested. When putting forward a proposition for a system, the technological aspects of which the public are not familiar with, it is important that the claims made for and against such a system are tested in public debate.

The Government is providing for a process of consultation, information and public debate, which should have taken place five years ago before the motion was introduced in the House by a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government to commit the country to the Loran C project.

Mr. Sargent

I welcome the Minister's statement that Loran C is a matter of concern. I thought the Government was trying to avoid the topic, but the Minister referred to it in some detail, although it was not sufficient to benefit those who are interested in the wider context of the debate. Deputy Hugh Byrne believes that this is a local matter for the people of County Clare, while Deputy Sheehan believes it is a matter for Irish navigation, but it is much more than that. It is not only a local matter, it is an international matter relating to agreements between this country and particularly the French and Dutch — perhaps other countries are involved and we must await that information because we have not got the full story in this debate. The Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil, who were in Government at the time the motion was introduced, probably know more than they are saying and that is regrettable. It is also perhaps a source of embarrassment since the shoe is on the other foot now.

Improvements in safety measures are welcome, but it is important to realise that navigation and marine safety measures already exist. Without Loran C boats did not founder around the coast. Loran C, however, will be an enormous boost to military, particularly NATO, interests in Europe. It is in that regard that the interests of Irish people, who wish Ireland to remain a neutral country, must be taken into account. That is the issue that must be focused on because nobody disagrees about safety at sea. Control of this mast will not be in County Clare, or indeed in Ireland; it will be in Brest, the centre of the French navy. It will be paid for not alone by Irish taxpayers but by international agreement, in proportionate amounts, between the French and Dutch as well as the Irish.

I wonder why we are introducing technology which, as has been stated by many experts, is not state of the art, but which is required by the other participants in this deal. Not only will it be of little interest to navigational concerns in Ireland but, compared to the GPS system, those using Irish waters will not be able to afford the receivers. The GPS system has been well tried and tested around our shores and has served fishermen and leisure boat users well in the past. If we are looking for an alternative to the American GPS satellite system, why not consider a Europe-wide non-military GPS system which is affordable — I understand that a hand held receiver costs about £200. Such a system would serve the Irish people and would meet safety and navigational needs.

There is little point in introducing a system that is very costly and would not be used except by submarines and military naval vessels. That would be not only foolish but would end our neutrality, which has been watered down in the past. It would not be possible to argue that Ireland is a neutral country if we agree deals with military powers. From time to time members of the Government wear CND badges, but how can they reconcile membership of the Government with membership of CND, which is mutually exclusive?

I ask the Government to reconsider the Loran C arrangement, that is assuming that we have not already made a deal. That matter has not been clarified. To guillotine this important Bill, which deals with much more than navigational aid, is inexplicable and downright irresponsible. It should receive the full attention it deserves and should be dealt with properly on Committee Stage. I urge the Government to consider a GPS system that would be controlled by Europe and one that Irish navigational interests could afford.

There should be greater focus in this debate on the Commissioners of Irish Lights as an organisation. While the Loran C issue is of some urgency, given its tortuous and controversial passage through the planning process and the courts, it is important that we do not overlook the fact that control of Irish Lights lies outside this country. As a people, we should take control of Irish Lights, perhaps in a shared capacity, but we should not give away sovereignty of our coastline, as is indicated by the structure of Irish Lights. I would like to know how the Commissioners of Irish Lights can be made more accountable to the people. They are not representing the interests of the people if they propose Loran C as a system of navigation for Ireland.

Mr. Deasy

I wish to share my time with the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Carey.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure that is agreed. However, there is no provision in the order today for the Minister to reply. I am sure the House would like to hear the Minister's response to the points raised. Perhaps we could call the Minister when the two Members have spoken.

Mr. Molloy

On a point of information, will the House discuss Committee Stage tonight?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That depends on the progress of Second Stage.

Mr. Molloy

It seems to be the Government's intention to avoid discussing Committee Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Carey)

I will not speak.

Mr. Deasy

I compliment the wonderful work being done by the Commissioners of Irish Lights. It is nice to see international co-operation in all aspects of navigational aid. We should bear in mind that this is a service to mankind. In 1968, as a result of a lack of navigational aids, an Aer Lingus Viscount airplane disappeared off the south-east coast of Ireland and was never seen again. We should be delighted that we have an advanced navigational system, such as the proposed Loran C.

Members have said that the headquarters of this navigational system is based in Brest in France. We should bear in mind that France is not a member of NATO. I would not object if it was because we depend on countries such as France, Britain and America to defend civilisation. If Loran C helps these countries, then we should agree to it. We should stop being hypocrites and hiding behind other countries when it comes to defending the people because that is what we have been doing for too long. It is about time we showed some manliness and stuck our necks out to help others by providing the necessary infrastructure and logistics.

I remember a time not too many years ago when the Americans defended the Middle East against Saddam Hussein, who is still on the rampage, and many people in this House objected to Shannon Airport being used as a transit point for American forces going to the Gulf War. Instead of thanking these people for saving mankind from tyrants such as Saddam Hussein and Hitler, we are trying to encourage people to carry out such acts by sticking our heads in the sand.

The Government is doing a good job. We should give every assistance for the benefit of mankind. If this portion of the network fits in with the plans for proper navigation by ships or aircraft, then so be it.

Mr. Sargent

Have a referendum.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputy's philosophy would not go that far.

Minister for the Marine (Mr. Barrett)

I have been accused of many things tonight, including being sly, misleading and dishonest. The only people who are dishonest are those to whom I spoke last week when I explained the difficulties that existed. I explained to the two spokespersons from the Opposition parties that I had received a letter from the chairman of the Commissioners of Irish Lights telling me they were withdrawing all services as and from 14 February unless legislation was passed or an indemnity was given by the Government. I explained that we were not in a position to grant an indemnity because there is no legislative base for granting one as moneys have to be voted by the Houses of the Oireachtas. I will now read extracts from the letter from the chairman of the Commissioners of Irish Lights, Mr. Michael O'Neill. It states:

On Friday last, the 24th inst., [that is, the 24 January] the CIL Board met to consider legal opinion obtained from Solicitors and Senior Counsel which advised that each Commissioner is potentially liable for any claims or expenses arising out of the non-statutory illegal operation of radio aids. Legislation to retrospectively legitimise radio aids could not validate any action which a Court might find to be illegal. There is the added difficulty that the monies necessary to operate such unauthorised aids may not be paid out of the General Lighthouse Fund.

If immediate remedial legislative action is not taken, or an acceptable indemnity is not given to the Commissioners, the Board will have no option but to give Mariners on the 14th February next a formal notice of the termination of radio aids to navigation.

I attach, for your information, a list, together with diagrams of services affected, and a draft of the proposed Notice to Mariners.

The proposed notice to mariners states:

The Commissioners of Irish Lights hereby give notice that from mid-day on Friday 28th February 1997, or as soon thereafter as possible, all electronic aids fitted at Lighthouses and Buoys and operated from locations in the Republic of Ireland will be switched off.

People are trying to tell me that I am using a back door method to introduce Loran C and that I am panicking by bringing in this legislation and trying to ram it through the Dáil without any consultation or debate. What would other Members do if they were the Minister for the Marine and they received a letter to say that the Commissioners of Irish Lights were switching off all radio navigational aids to shipping, fishing vessels, yachts and everything that floats on the seas around Ireland? Would they introduce legislation?

I was also accused of misleading the House this morning. I was told by Deputy de Valera that I pretended this legislation did not apply to Loran C.I made no such suggestion. I said this morning on the Order of Business that the primary function of this legislation was to ensure that radio navigational aids to shipping could continue and that the Commissioners of Irish Lights would be given the power to maintain and service such aids. I also said I would announce this evening how we could deal with the Loran C issue separately.

For those who were not here, or who did not listen or wanted to use the opportunity to drum up political hysteria in County Clare so that public meetings could be held and people could make wild allegations and say I was a quisling who was running to introduce legislation, I have no intention of abrogating my responsibility to the shipping and fishing industries and to people who use leisure craft who would see radio navigational aids switched off because we did not have the bottle to bring in legislation. I knew people would make a political football out of it and I knew the game that would be played by the Opposition. I knew it would drum up opposition and say that I was trying to establish the Loran C system through the back door. I am around long enough to realise what it is up to and know exactly the game it is playing but I have stymied its attempt to castigate my colleagues, the Minister of State, Deputy Donal Carey, and Senators Madeleine Taylor-Quinn and Howard, as if they were aliens trying to destroy west Clare. The public forum, which will consist of three independent individuals, will present every man, woman and child in County Clare and every group in the country with an opportunity to make their case as to why the Loran C system should not be operated from County Clare and to identify the associated health dangers, if any.

We should contrast this open and transparent attempt to explain what is involved with the attempt made in 1992 by the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government to ram through the Dáil a motion which committed Ireland to ratifying an international agreement. Did Deputies Molloy and Smith open their mouths and voice their concerns about the Loran C system or mention the people of west Clare when the matter was being discussed at the Cabinet table? They are now using it as a political football and trying to pretend Ireland is sneaking into NATO and we are trying to put the Loran C system in place through the back door.

I have directed the Commissioners of Irish Lights not to proceed with the erection of a mast in any location, in Clare or elsewhere, without first seeking planning permission in the proper fashion. How more open or transparent can one be? In addition, the entire issue must be examined in a public forum which will consist of three independent individuals whose report will be published and debated. We should contrast this with the attempt made in 1992 to ram through the House a motion which committed Ireland to ratifying an international agreement. Nobody knew exactly what was involved but the papers were in the Cabinet room.

Mr. Sheehan

Deputy Molloy had them.

Mr. Deasy

They refused to answer questions in the House.

Mr. Barrett

Deputies Molloy and Smith should not lecture me, therefore, about the need to introduce amendments to this legislation or attempt to suggest I am trying to ram it through without proper debate. I have no alternative but to introduce legislation to ensure the aids already in place can be maintained and serviced and will not be switched off. This is being used to debate and make political capital out of the Loran C system issue. I have been accused of being dishonest by people who lecture us about honesty in politics. This is the height of hypocrisy.

Mr. Sheehan

They are shedding crocodile tears.

Mr. Barrett

Deputy Smith's amendment reads: "The provisions of this section do not facilitate the development of installations not already constructed, including Loran C". This means the Commissioners of Irish Lights would not be able to put in place a radio beacon or any other aid in Dublin Port——

Mr. Molloy

On a point of order, I understand there is only one amendment before the House and it is not the one to which the Minister is referring.

Mr. Barrett

Excuse me, there are two amendments before the House.

Mr. Molloy

It has not been moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is correct.

Mr. Barrett

The Commissioners of Irish Lights would be prevented from putting in place an ordinary radio navigational aid if needed urgently in Dublin Port, for example, where the horrible accident involving the mvKilkenny occurred to avoid further collisions because of the increased volume of trade during the past two years. The Loran C system issue will be dealt with separately in a public forum at which Deputy Sargent, if he so wishes, can make a submission and ask questions.

Mr. Sargent

Like many others.

Mr. Carey

They are welcome to do so.

Mr. Barrett

The merits and demerits of their submissions will be considered by the forum whose report will be published and debated. In the meantime no planning application for a mast anywhere in the country can be lodged.

Mr. Sargent

What is the point of view of the French?

Mr. Barrett

The forum will examine the reasons Loop Head, of the 40 sites looked at, was chosen by the Commissioners of Irish Lights. The questions put to me by Deputy Molloy will, therefore, be answered.

Deputy Sargent mentioned the uses to which the Loran C system may be put by military authorities. The GPS system which he lauded, is owned, supported and controlled by the US military establishment.

Mr. Sargent

Satellites.

Mr. Barrett

The US military establishment and NATO do not depend on the Loran C system. It was put in place originally in the Baltic by the United States Coastguard but it stopped using it some years ago and now has its own military satellite system, GPS.

Mr. Sargent

The Loran C system is out of date.

Mr. Barrett

The GPS military satellite system can be degraded for use by civilian users.

Mr. Sargent

It is used by all leisure craft users.

Mr. Barrett

There are plans for a European Union civilian satellite system but the expert view is that such a system must be complemented by a terrestrial system such as Loran C.

Mr. Sargent

Submarines.

Mr. Barrett

It is extraordinary that the Deputy has used the argument that the Loran C system will be controlled by the French military authorities and lauded the GPS military satellite system which is owned by the US military authorities and can be degraded at a whim.

Mr. Sargent

A European system should be put in place.

Mr. Barrett

The Irish Loran C installation will be owned, operated and controlled by the Commissioners of Irish Lights on behalf of the Government. The agreement on the Loran C system concluded by six north west European states, including Ireland, is designed to ensure the availability of an independent radio navigational system for civilian and commercial use.

Mr. Sargent

As well as military use.

Mr. Barrett

The system is being extended and taken over in this way to avoid reliance on the GPS system which is owned, supported and controlled by the US military establishment. All of the issues, including whether the Loran C system is out of date and whether Loop Head should be the site chosen, will be dealt with in the public forum. I ask Deputies not to mislead the people of County Clare into thinking that this legislation is about Loran C. This legislation is here precisely because——

Mr. Molloy

Because of Loran C. It would not be there otherwise.

Mr. Barrett

——the Supreme Court decided that the Commissioners of Irish Lights did not have power to maintain or service radio navigational systems currently in place.

Mr. Molloy

Who brought the case?

Mr. Barrett

The objectors to the Loran C system were quite entitled to object.

Mr. Molloy

Who were they?

Mr. Gilmore

The Deputy made a mess of it.

Mr. Barrett

If I were Deputy Molloy, I would not be asking too many questions. He was at the Cabinet table. He knew all the answers before I ever heard them.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Molloy

It went before the planning process.

Mr. Barrett

If there is any doubt about what I read out, I would be only too pleased to make available a copy which clearly set a deadline of 14 February available to the spokespersons for the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats Party. When I received that letter, I made contact with the Commissioners of Irish Lights through their chairperson and explained that the legislation was in the course of preparation following the Supreme Court decision and it would not be physically possible to have legislation through by 14 February. I asked them to bear with me and said I would seek assistance from the Opposition. I also told them it normally takes two weeks before an Opposition party would be expected to take a piece of legislation. I explained to them that I would meet the Opposition spokespersons and ask them to co-operate with me in processing as quickly as possible this legislation to restore power to the Commissioners of Irish Lights so that they would not be found personally liable. That is why this legislation is in the House. There is no other reason. No facts whatever are being concealed.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the main question."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 68, Níl 41.

Tá

• Ahearn, Theresa.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bhamjee, Moosajee.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Bree, Declan.
• Broughan, Thomas.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Burton, Joan.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Crawford, Seymour.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Brian.
• Fitzgerald, Eithne.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McDowell, Derek.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Paul.
• McManus, Liz.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Mulvihill, John.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Penrose, William.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, John.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, P.J.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Upton, Pat.
• Walsh, Éamon.

Níl

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Burke, Raphael.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McDaid, James.
• McDowell, Michael.
• Moffatt, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P.J.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Keaveney, Cecilia.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donnell, Liz.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Sargent, Trevor.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smith, Michael.
• Walsh, Joe.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies Callely and Keogh.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am now 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 the Marine and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, that in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section or as appropriate the section as amended is hereby agreed to in Committee, that the title is hereby agreed to in Committee and the Bill is accordingly reported to the House, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed.

Question put and declared carried.