Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jun 2005

Vol. 603 No. 4

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

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

Mr. Boyle

In principle, the laying of this Bill before the House is welcome. Everyone agrees there is a need for improved legislation on maritime safety. Particular issues have arisen over this past decade of added prosperity, where people are experiencing the type of maritime traffic on our beaches and coastlines we never had to anticipate in the past. This is particularly true of fast powered watercraft, such as jet skis and speedboats. There has been some attempt to address this issue at local government level. A colleague on Youghal Town Council, Councillor Liam Burke, has been banging this drum for a long time. The lack of either local by-laws or national legislation on jet skis means a plethora of accidents is waiting to happen. On that level alone, the introduction of this Bill is welcome.

It is to be hoped that the Bill, when passed, will give local authorities additional powers within their own by-laws to specify the type of watercraft may be used in their areas, the places they can be operated in and the speed at which they can travel. The current openness of usage of such vehicles is unacceptable and while there have been a number of serious accidents, the question is why many more have not happened in the existing unregulated legislative environment.

The measure in the Bill dealing with unseaworthy vessels is welcome. This is an area to which we must pay particular attention because we have just heard, in response to questions to the Department of Finance, that a taxation measure has been adopted in the last three years to allow us to compete with other countries that have adopted a low tonnage tax regime for international vessels. This measure means that Ireland can compete with countries such as Liberia and Barbados. However, the danger of this approach is that while it might encourage companies with a large number of vessels to standardise their tax regime in Ireland at very low rates, it may also attract vessels of an unsound type. My party is not convinced that the Government and the regulatory authorities have spent sufficient time ensuring that such tax reliefs are not applied to vessels that are plainly unseaworthy and that the policy itself is not attracting such vessels. The Minister of State, in his response, may try to convince us otherwise but we must be more proactive and vigilant in this area.

The provisions in the Bill dealing with the use of drugs and alcohol are such that one must ask why they were not introduced before now. There was obviously a major lacuna in maritime safety legislation in that we have not been able to monitor or take people to task who are not in control of vessels at sea. While the open ocean is a vast expanse where people in various stages of inebriation or intoxication might appear to be incapable of wreaking havoc, incidents involving other maritime traffic will always expose deficiencies in this area.

The Bill takes into account our coastal waters but does not include waters under the management of Waterways Ireland. While I appreciate that the division of Government responsibilities means that Waterways Ireland is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, the Minister of State might explain why this is the case. We are dealing with legislation on maritime safety which is as important on our inland waters and harbour areas as in our coastal regions. I accept that harbour companies are part of this legislation but there is a danger that an individual taking a vessel from the coastal waters through a harbour into an inland waterway might escape the full rigours of this new law if he or she is in an area that is not the responsibility of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources or a harbour company, in effect, an area managed by Waterways Ireland. If that type of double standard is allowed to exist, it will be a poor day's work in terms of producing proper legislation.

On the question of public acceptance of and demand for this legislation, the central measure is the obligation for children up to the age of 16 to wear a life-jacket while on board pleasure craft. Again, this is so obvious that it begs the question as to why it has taken so long to put such a provision into legislation. However, it would be churlish to deny that it is an important provision and the House will wholeheartedly support it.

The Minister of State, coming as he does from County Donegal, will be aware of the type of safety conditions that existed in the past. When I was a child visiting my father's island of Arranmore, the ferry was not the modern vessel it is today but a fishing boat. The safety measures consisted of a tyre on either side of the vessel, as one travelled for 30 or 35 minutes from Burtonport to Arranmore. That was not that long ago. It was in the past 20 or 30 years that we permitted those standards to exist. It is an indication of progress that we have gone beyond such standards.

I ask that more attention be paid to and greater resources provided for the coastguard service. The service is voluntary and for an island nation, the small, albeit growing, resources that have been invested in it do not match up to the level of resources that should be provided and the type of organisation that should be allowed to exist to protect our coastline and provide support for coastal communities.

In my constituency, we have the advantage of having a number of excellent coastguard groups in Oysterhaven, which will shortly be transferred to a new Dáil constituency, and Crosshaven. The coastguard group in the latter area operates in premises that, to all intents and purposes, have not been renovated since the turn of the century. While I appreciate that the group in Oysterhaven operates from relatively new premises, I would welcome an indication from the Government of a long-term programme to ensure that all coastguard groups operate from modern premises and are fully resourced by a set date. The end of this decade would be a good target in that regard.

There is also a need to integrate fully the coastguard organisation — a voluntary service on the whole — into the emergency services. There is already a close relationship between members of coastguard groups and the local fire brigade service, but the coastguard should become a more important part of the major emergency plans in certain parts of the country. My constituency, for example, is an area that needs a major emergency plan that will work effectively in the event of an accident because of the location of many high-risk industries in Cork Harbour. The coastguard, because of its expertise and experience, can play an important role in the event of the major emergency plan being activated.

While the Bill contains many necessary legislative provisions, there is a question surrounding the size and level of fines and how effective they will be once the legislation is enacted. That question may come within the scope of other legislation, due to be put before the House by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, dealing with fines in general. However, when the House passes a Bill of this nature, it should take into account that what seems to be an acceptable fine at present will soon appear a paltry or minuscule sum because of inflation, the passage of time and the lack of opportunity to review such legislation in a timely fashion. Perhaps an index-linking mechanism could be built into legislation. I am not sure if that is possible. It is something for the Parliamentary Counsel to examine. If not, maybe a review could be carried out in the area of fines. This is one of the few cases where I would approve of a ministerial order being put into a Bill and subsequently being enacted without new legislation. The Minister could be given additional power to review every three or five years the need to increase fines.

I welcome the Bill and hope it will be backed up with adequate resources that will allow all bodies concerned — harbour companies, agencies like the Coast Guard and, in particular, organisations coming on stream with regard to the use of fast-powered watercraft — to work collectively to ensure needless deaths or accidents do not occur.

Mr. M. Brady

As a Deputy representing a coastal constituency covering Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle, I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this legislation which represents a decent effort to curb activities of mechanically propelled watercraft and which will regulate an element of our leisure sector which needs to be brought into line with modern thinking and living. I accept the point made by Deputy Boyle concerning inland waterways where the activities pursued are just as dangerous as those at sea and elsewhere.

This problem has grown over the years in part because people are looking for more adventure in their leisure time, have extra leisure time to spend and have the resources to purchase and maintain expensive craft of a wide variety of designs, from speedboats to personal watercraft, better known as jet skis. Everybody is entitled to do that but this sector must be regulated in the interests of safety and for the enjoyment of the majority, given the many incidents, some fatal, in the recent past. I am not enthusiastic about regulating every element of our lives but where health and safety is concerned, where the environment is at risk and where people feel they can do what they like without regard for others, we have not only a right but also a duty to step in and make rules.

While they will come within the scope of the Bill, I am not sure that those families, for example, angling friends or boating enthusiasts, who set out regularly in the summer for a few hours fishing or exploring otherwise inaccessible parts of our coast or lakes, will have anything to fear from this measure. Anyone who currently uses common sense and has regard for the safety and enjoyment of others will have no difficulty in complying with the provisions of the Bill and the regulations and by-laws which will emanate from it.

The time is long overdue when a discipline which has not emerged naturally must be imposed on the use of fast, mechanically propelled craft. The sooner this legislation is put on the Statute Book the better. There are far too many people abusing our leisure waters. I will not point the finger at young or old, male or female, because this behaviour goes right across the board. A high percentage of people who operate these jet skis do so with little regard for others. Some put people's safety at risk with their high-powered demonstrations of macho skill which impinge on the enjoyment of people fishing, swimming, on the beach or on the riverside with the incessant noise. If one is fishing, one has to pack it in due to the noise and disturbance created by jet skis. Everyone's enjoyment is ruined as a result.

There is very little to recommend these machines in the close quarters in which they are often used and nothing to recommend them when they put at risk people's lives through the near criminal behaviour of those using them. I have witnessed examples of this behaviour while fishing and have some idea of the damage, harassment and inconvenience that can be caused by irresponsible use of such craft. I hasten to add that those who engage in such activities are few enough, but in the context of general water users, they represent a reasonable percentage.

Perhaps the one vessel which causes people most problems is the so-called jet ski or personal watercraft. An increasing number of authorities around the world are meeting the growing danger and annoyance caused by these craft and have introduced stringent by-laws to regulate their use. Others have taken the more drastic step of banning their use in their jurisdictions, although I would not advocate such radical measures here.

Jet skis are expensive to buy. They are glorified motorcycles which can travel on water at speeds of up to 65 miles per hour. While people under 16 years of age are banned from using them, a difficulty arises in that users are not required to undergo any type of prescribed safety training, such as wearing safety belts, or are not aware of safety issues. There are various organisations which could provide such training and those who purchase jet skis, usually people in the 18 to 30 age bracket, should have to undertake safety training of some nature. People who drive motorcycles and cars are required to undertake training and tests. It is regrettable that we tend to focus on such issues when tragedy strikes. I know of one case last year where a 15-year-old boy in Youghal died when his jet ski hit a speedboat.

Enforcement of this legislation will rest with the Garda Síochána. However, the Garda is deployed in other areas and may not have time to police it. Reference was also made to possible involvement by the Irish Coast Guard service, which may be the best body to police the legislation, given its involvement in activities around the coast and the fact that many of its members act in a voluntary capacity.

The legislation mentions a €2,000 fine and seizure in certain cases for breaches of the legislation. Anyone who has visited the Continent will know the use of jet skis is restricted to certain areas away from beaches. These areas are marked. The noise of a jet ski can disturb the tranquillity of a beach on a calm evening. They also cause a great deal of fear among people. I congratulate the Minister for trying to introduce controls in this area, which is an important first step in dealing with the issue.

There has been a great deal of comment about safety training for people on yachts, power boats and other vessels. It should be incumbent on the suppliers of these machines, usually to those between 18 and 30 years, to insist on safety training courses for those who wish to buy them. If we started from that basis, those operating such equipment would behave more responsibly. The use of jet skis in Ireland is not a widespread phenomenon. However, given the affluent society in which we now live, many people can afford to purchase jet skis. We often see them parked outside driveways. Possession of jet skis may become a popular social symbol in the near future.

While I welcome the introduction of the legislation, I am concerned about its enforcement following enactment. I am also concerned about Garda involvement given deployment in other activities. It is probable that the tourism industry will seek to ban the use of jet skis on our beaches. Such a ban is necessary given that many young people use the beaches. Many holiday destinations abroad have zoned particular areas for the use of jet skis. While they are located away from beaches, swimmers often encounter users of jet skis speeding towards them and it does create fear.

The noise of these vehicles disturbs the tranquillity of our waters. I suggest that if they are not banned completely, they should be restricted to areas not used by swimmers and so on. I am extremely concerned about their use in any area. I would be happier if we recommended in the legislation that suitable safety training be introduced for those wishing to use these craft. Currently, a person can purchase a jet ski with the minimum amount of safety training in terms of the use and power of the craft and can then take it out on the water.

The legislation is a step in the right direction. Local authorities will act responsibly in this matter and will, in many cases, ban the use of jet skis from beaches. That may have to happen and if they are to be used, they should be used in controlled areas.

Given that we do not allow indiscriminate car racing along our roads and crowded streets, I do not understand why people feel free to use the crowded waters off popular beaches for the reckless use of personal watercraft. We insist that new drivers of cars and motorbikes take lessons and pass a stringent test before they take what can be a lethal weapon onto the roads. However, jet skis and powerful motorboats have the potential to be lethal in the same way as motorbikes and cars. People should undertake a training course to learn how to use the craft properly. They should ensure they have the right equipment, such as buoyancy aids, wet suits and so forth.

It is important that they know what to do if they get into difficulties. I have no wish to promote a nanny state of over-regulation but if regulations are needed in respect of road vehicles, they are also required in respect of watercraft.

A welcome provision of the Bill is that local authorities can draw up by-laws to cover their functional areas. The imposition of blanket restrictions would not take into account local conditions and the differing topography of the coast. A body of water 30 metres offshore might have a depth of several metres but in other coves and beaches one can wade out a couple of hundred metres without being out of one's depth. Watercraft users should be made aware of this.

I welcome this measure from a political and functional point of view. There is a perception that powers are constantly being taken away from local authorities. We must promote local democracy where we can and be seen to do so. That is not to say there could not and should not be consistency between local authorities where possible rather than all local authorities going their own way. We should standardise when it is appropriate.

The Bill will attract ready support from the public. I receive many complaints, particularly from angling clubs, about jet skis. Many people are tired of having their Sunday afternoons and holidays ruined by the incessant noise and disruption of fast craft in their bathing waters. They must be constantly on the alert not only for the usual dangers to young bathers but also to the imminent arrival of jet skis. In the words of the promotion I quoted earlier, such craft can "slice a buoy to ribbons with surgeon-like expertise".

Many other dangers have to be catered for in the course of a water based holiday or a day at the seaside. Anything we can do to promote water safety, to highlight the dangers involved or, as in this Bill, to try to eliminate the reckless use of dangerous craft must be pursued. I do not hesitate in commending the Bill to the House. I congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward. It is important legislation to ensure that safety prevails on our waterways.

Mr. Connaughton

I welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. I recall that in 1999, 2001 and 2003 attempts were made to provide for the safety of people who use the sea and waterways. For a variety of reasons, none of which I fully understand, they did not succeed. I compliment the Minister of State. If anybody understands the importance of this legislation, he does. This Bill is badly needed.

Everybody accepts that as this country gets more affluent, people have more disposable income. That can be seen in the houses they build, the cars they buy and the sports in which they participate. It is only reasonable to assume it will increase participation in water based activities. That is what has happened. What was outside the reach of a normal family until recently is now well within their reach. I hope more people become involved in water based activities. There is a great future for that sector. We are surrounded by water and there are many unused inland waterways that could be developed. The CSO figures released last week indicate there will be a huge increase in population over the next ten to 15 years. Obviously, water activities will be among the leisure pursuits of many thousands of Irish families.

In an ideal world, one would prefer that there were no rules and that people would act responsibly. However, in this world, if enough people get together to do something, some control measures will be required. Water based activities are no different.

There are many aspects to this legislation but I wish to focus on jet skis. Undoubtedly, it is nice to spend a pleasant summer evening near a peaceful beach. However, if there are a few louts on jet skis, coming too close to the water's edge, revving the engines as much as possible and getting up to dangerous antics — although they are not all irresponsible — it is easy, even for somebody who is unfamiliar with jet skis, to see how an accident could occur.

Furthermore, one would also fear that a type of cult following would emerge for such activities, a little like the motorbike brigades of old. If there were groups of these people travelling from one remote part of the country to another, there could be great difficulty if they got out of control. That is the reason safety measures, controls, fines and so forth must be implemented. We hear much talk about anti-social behaviour. It would be unrealistic not to expect it to find its way into water based activities. There are louts and yobs who will have no trouble finding the money to buy jet skis and so forth, wherever that money comes from, and who will take great pleasure in terrorising people, particularly the elderly, who are out for a stroll by the water.

There is a worse aspect to this. There are many small isolated beaches and fishing grounds in remote parts of the country. These are attractive for people escaping our frantic lifestyle who wish to spend a peaceful day or couple of hours at the water. When these louts appear on jet skis it results in the area getting a bad name. Some parts of the country are so popular that they can overcome such a problem but something like this occurred in south Galway a couple of years ago and it created havoc. For some reason it stopped and I have no wish to see a return of such carry on.

The legislation attempts to make the owners and operators of vessels more aware of their own safety and the safety of the people they transport.

The legislation will be implemented by the local authorities, and I have no problem with that. There are many parallels to this, one of which is the National Roads Authority and the new speed limit signs on the roads. However, I presume local authorities will not be able to do what they wish. Obviously, it is important that they take responsibility for the implementation of this legislation within their areas. However, to ensure overall consistency, I assume there will be overarching directives the local authorities will have to accept. The Minister might refer to this when he sums up. A pattern might emerge of a Lego-land in which every local authority acts differently and where, half a mile up the road in another local authority area, there might be a different interpretation of the legislation. While I cannot imagine what the differences would be as I am not au fait with the detail of the Bill, the Minister might indicate the common denominator in regard to the limit of the powers of local authorities.

We know the objectives of the legislation. However, I understand from the Minister's speech that bodies such as Waterways Ireland, the harbour companies, Iarnród Éireann and, with regard to the fishing harbours, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, are independent republics. The Bill does not impinge on such bodies or, if it does, they have responsibilities for its implementation whereas the local authorities in those areas are not involved. Why was it not possible to ensure that a local authority in a given area was involved? While I accept Waterways Ireland would be involved, for obvious reasons, why, for example, should harbour companies and Iarnród Éireann be exempt from the same legislation in a given local authority area? Why was there not broad brush, national legislation to cover these matters? Why was the Bill fragmented? I see no reason for it.

The holiday season is almost upon us. Unfortunately, according to tourism managers I have spoken with, the number of foreign anglers who visit Ireland is diminishing rapidly. I hope this trend will be arrested because Ireland has much to offer. A point about angling connected to the debate on the Bill is that it tends to be concentrated in areas that are not blessed with many specific tourist attractions — I think of areas in north of my constituency close to Glinsk and Ballymoe on the Roscommon border. Local men and women in such areas spent years trying to organise angling clubs to try to attract visitors. They find it bewildering that, whatever has gone wrong, not as many overseas anglers visit as did previously, and nobody seems to understand the reasons for this. In the context of the Bill, it is vital we ensure that the local environment is as peaceful as possible. Therefore, unruly noise from jet-skis, powerboats and cruisers must be controlled.

This brings me to a matter raised by Members on all sides, namely, how the legislation will be policed. As sure as night follows day, the House will pass the Bill; I have not heard anyone speak against it. The riding instructions will be given to the local authorities and they will duly pass the by-laws. The matter will then be the responsibility of the Garda Síochána, which is possibly the only body that can implement the laws. However, if one is out at sea or in the middle of a lake and witnesses anti-social behaviour, who will be responsible for stopping it? While I accept it would be stopped without difficulty in certain well-known tourist locations, how long would it take in more isolated locations for the powers that be to catch those who are, to put it bluntly, acting the maggot? How sure are we that we will have the type of enforcement capacity to ensure the Bill does not become nonsensical? This question has been discussed in both Houses of the Oireachtas but a question mark remains as to whether the Bill will be properly policed.

When are we likely to see law-breakers being brought to court? I accept we are speaking in a vacuum because the Bill is only now being introduced. However, it would be fair and reasonable to assume that unless more funding is invested in the system for policing the implementation of the Bill, we might as well not debate it in the House.

The former Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern, introduced the legislation for compulsory wearing of lifejackets. I believed at the time that the measure was necessary for those working on boats, such as fishermen, and for those using pleasure craft. I understand the Act applies to persons aged over 16. However, I have not heard of anybody being brought to court for not wearing a lifejacket. I assume that, as in most walks of life, not everybody obeys the law immediately it is enacted. Is it the case that every boat user had a change of heart and duly procured a lifejacket, or that this law is being flouted every day of the week, which would tally with my information? The Minister is in a better position to know about this matter than I. What is the situation? The principle is the same as wearing a seat belt in a car. It is extremely important that those who make their living on the sea or in inland fisheries wear lifejackets.

On another matter, I heard the Minister speak at a safety demonstration in Sligo last Sunday. I ask whether the leisure industry, the Department and related groups do enough in regard to safety. I would expect it to be a significant aspect for individuals and groups involved in the leisure industry. The training acquired at such safety demonstrations is vital and more should be done in this area. Is it possible for some sort of small financial bonus or incentive to be built in to the system so that groups and organisations would want to carry out such demonstrations? The Government can do nothing if members of the various groups which make up the water-based leisure activity sector are not motivated. Something should be done in that regard.

The Minister of State mentioned the licensing of vessels which are more than 24 metres long. There was some reference to vessels between 12 and 24 metres. Do they receive half a licence? If so, why is that the case? Does this mean that there is no licence for vessels less than 12 metres long? What are the owners of such vessels to do? It is important that the register to which the Minister of State refers includes all vessels. The cost involved in licensing a vessel which is longer than 24 metres would be much greater than a vessel which is eight, nine or ten metres long. However, it would be a case of horses for courses. It is important to know why vessels under 12 metres long do not come under the remit of this Bill.

The hydrographic service is very important. Anything connected with science below the water level is hugely significant for those of us concerned with the effects on the Shannon and Suck of flash flooding. The information gleaned from this service should be made available to a variety of people whether for free or for a charge. This major survey will result in expertise and information. There will also be a very useful survey of the seabed. I am interested in terms of flash flooding of the Shannon and the effects that has on its tributaries. Money is now being pumped into this service and its primary purpose is shipping. Waterways Ireland will obviously have a major say in that regard. However, the information and advice that will be collected from the hydrographic survey is very important and many people who have nothing to do with waterways will want to have this information at their disposal. I wish the legislation well and sincerely hope that when it is passed, the Department will be able to police it.

Mr. P. Breen

I also welcome the Bill. Today is 1 June and the tourism season is beginning to get into full swing. Therefore, it is important the legislation is passed as quickly as possible.

The Bill covers many safety issues regarding holidaymakers and leisure activities. Ireland is an island and it is important that we have tighter legislation in respect of this sort of activity. Deputy Connaughton spoke about our Celtic tiger economy. We are very well off these days and people have taken to aquaculture in a big way, particularly in terms of water-based sports. I am sorry the Bill was not introduced a few years ago, but it is better late than never. However, it will have some impact on this holiday season. Therefore, speedy enactment is very important.

There were 51 accidental deaths by drowning in 2003, some of which involved young children under the age of four years. One life lost in our waters is one too many. I hope this Bill will reduce the number of accidental deaths on our waters, whether inland or coastline. I commend the rescue services in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The Sikorsky helicopter and its magnificent crew based in Shannon Airport have carried out trojan work in search and rescue off the west coast.

I wish to address the issue of the use of speedboats and jet skis in our coastal and inland waters. It is hard to find anybody who would speak up for jet ski users. Anybody who has the pleasure of spending a day at a popular beach or lakeside location will know the annoyance caused by noisy jet skis and the danger they pose to human life. They also have a significant environmental impact. I visited a lake in my constituency at a time when jet skiing was a relatively new activity. Somebody brought a jet ski on to the lake and it created havoc, particularly for the farmers who own the surrounding lands. One farmer had thoroughbred horses and the noise of the jet skis, which sound like motorcycles, caused them to run in all directions and over walls. I spoke to an engineer in the council who told me that local authorities had difficulty enforcing the law because the farmers owned the lands around the shoreline and the authorities could not police it. The problem might be cleared up by now but perhaps the Minister of State would clarify the matter when recapping on the Bill.

Jet skis also have an environmental impact, particularly on fish and marine life. We have a large tourism sector in Ireland and fishing is very popular in my constituency in County Clare, especially in the inland lakes. The last thing we want to do is damage fishing stocks and marine life. Many jet skis leak diesel and oil, and that matter should be controlled. We do not want to send the wrong message to Irish and foreign tourists who use our waters. There is nothing of merit to say with regard to jet skis.

The Bill has particular relevance to County Clare. My parish has six or seven islands on the Shannon Estuary and I visit them regularly with land owners because they are areas of great beauty. Many islanders who die on the mainland wish to be buried in the graveyards on the islands. I am delighted that legislation has been brought in with regard to life-jackets. Ten or 11 boats might attend an island funeral, with seven or eight people on each boat, and no one would wear a life-jacket. That was very irresponsible of them at the time, and it was happening throughout the country. I am delighted legislation has been introduced on the use of life-jackets.

At another island funeral last year I was delighted to see at first hand that everybody going on to the boats had a life-jacket; 60, 70 or 80 life-jackets were produced on the day. The Bunratty search and rescue service accompanied the cortege down the Shannon Estuary. Adequate safety measures were put in place for that funeral and I am delighted the position has improved with regard to safety at sea.

I commend the rescue services — I mentioned the helicopter service — and the volunteers, whether it is in Kilkee, Liscannor or Kilrush, who take time out to do this very valuable work and rescue people in the event of tragedies. Last year we had the launch in Killaloe of the community inshore rescue service and I saw the Trojan work done by them. They can travel at very fast speeds up the lakes on two craft, one of which is aptly named the Brian Boru after Brian Boru from Killaloe. They do great work in rescuing people and we are very fortunate to have those services.

In County Clare, we have the coastal areas, the Fergus Estuary, the Shannon Estuary and Lough Derg. We have a high number of leisure and water activities in County Clare but regardless of what we do, it is difficult to enact a law to protect everybody. People will do their own thing and as Deputy Connaughton said, it is difficult to enforce the law. We can only do our best in that regard.

On the coastline some of the most beautiful beaches and inshore areas are increasingly under pressure from leisure craft users. Coastwatch Ireland has pointed out repeatedly that our coasts are under pressure from recreational use and abuse of leisure craft, including jetskis and speedboats. Although most leisure craft users are respectful of their vessels and their environment and are conscious of the potential danger in our waters, there is unfortunately an inconsiderate minority who are a danger to themselves and others as well as being a nuisance.

The provisions in the Bill regarding alcohol are welcome also. We have had some success on our roads with the drink driving campaigns but it is astonishing that people believe they can take control of a boat, jet ski or whatever and that they have no responsibility in terms of safety. Like a car, a boat is a lethal craft and people must take their responsibility seriously but many do not see the danger in them.

The same situation pertains in our lakeside locations. In my constituency I am well aware of the beauty of the scenic area of Lough Derg and the waterways, the pleasure they give people and the huge revenue that flows into the county, both from locals and visitors, the vast majority of whom respect this precious resource.

The Bill also proposes penalties for a range of reckless behaviour surrounding vessels. It provides a statutory basis for codes of practice to be drawn up on the proper operation of vessels, including passenger boats and fishing vessels, and the updating of fines. It provides for fines of up to €2,000 on summary conviction for offences under by-laws. I hope those fines are not too low and perhaps they should be increased because €2,000 is a paltry sum when one considers that the price of some jet skis amounts to thousands of euro. That is something that should be examined also.

The use of unseaworthy vehicles will also be prohibited. That is very important because the investigations that take place following drowning tragedies often reveal that the vessels taken out to sea were not seaworthy. If we have a car we have to maintain it but a boat must be maintained even more so. If a car breaks down one would hope that it would not result in a death but if a boat suffers a leak and proper safety measures are not in place, people can drown. We have seen that happen often and we have heard coroners and the gardaí say following such tragedies that the boat was unseaworthy or that there were too many people on the boat for its size. That is a problem also.

Like previous speakers, I would like to know who will enforce these measures when they are put in place. Will it be the duty of the Garda or the Irish Coast Guard? Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position. The Garda is unable to resource the area of traffic safety and it is unlikely that the Minister would ask it to patrol our seas also. I hope the Irish Coast Guard will play a role in this area also. If we are to police the waters properly in terms of what is happening with jet skis, we will have to recruit more people to take on that job and they will have to be adequately resourced. If they are not resourced, they will be unable to do the job they are appointed to do. That is very important.

The use of unseaworthy vehicles will be prohibited. Although it is obvious that such craft should not be put to sea, some operators have been surprisingly cavalier in their approach to water safety, sometimes with tragic results.

The current position with regard to jet skis is unsatisfactory. Regulation of the use of jet skis varies under by-laws introduced by local authorities. The Bill will co-ordinate regulations under the new powers to be given to the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, providing ultimately for the forfeiture of craft and disqualification from use of offenders and providing also for implementation of the legislation by the Garda.

There have been fatalities associated with jet skis and I hope the increased regulation in this area will minimise the likelihood of serious or fatal accidents in the future. The most high profile person to be involved in one of these accidents is the singer, Kirsty MacColl, who was killed by one of these crafts while swimming off the coast of Mexico. That is an indication that these accidents happen in other countries also. Previous speakers spoke about the use of jet skis in foreign tourist resorts and the fact that areas are assigned for the use of jetskis off the coastline. In that way they do not interfere with swimmers and other holidaymakers.

I have seen these craft operate, and young people take great delight in using them. They are macho craft for macho types who race across the coastline and back again at high speeds, not thinking of the dangers to themselves or others. Deputy Brady referred to their policing in other countries. I have been to countries where they are not policed. There is an area where anyone can go out on a jet ski. People should be trained in using these powerful machines that can go at speeds of up to 60 miles per hour on the water. We all know the impact of water at 60 miles per hour and the consequences that can result for the person on the jet ski or others. It is important that local authorities are given the power to control the use of jet skis and speedboats, whether on inland lakes or offshore.

I note that, on enactment of the Bill, many of the statutory agencies will be able to pass by-laws for inshore and waterway areas. Many county councils are anxious to ban outright the use of jet skis and smaller crafts on their beaches. With the increase in surfers, windsurfers and swimmers the ban of such mechanically propelled craft can only be welcomed as a necessary safety measure. In my county the resort of Lahinch has an excellent reputation for surfing and many European championships are held there. The quietness of a beach is very important and we do not have the same noise with other watersports such as windsurfing and surfing.

I hope the Minister will provide adequate resources for an advertising campaign in the national media. Perhaps he will address this when he concludes discussion on this Bill. It is important that a media campaign is launched to show people how dangerous these machines are. I hope there is an appropriate media campaign to ensure everyone knows the penalties involved for such behaviour. Legislative regulations should be put in place to monitor effectiveness.

I look forward to the effective implementation of the new powers contained in the Bill to deal with long-standing problems in water safety. We hope our natural heritage, our waters off the coast, can be enjoyed by everybody. Perhaps this legislation should have been passed earlier, but it is better late than never. I hope it will reduce the number of deaths off our coastline and that proper regulations will be put in place for the use of jet skis and speedboats. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this Bill and I hope it gets a speedy passage through the House.

Mr. Ferris

I welcome this legislation as I believe it meets a demand for greater control over the use of the type of watercraft covered by the legislation. As a county councillor elected in 1999, I received a number of complaints that certain beaches were being made virtual no-go areas by those who used various vehicles and crafts, such as dune buggies, windsurfers and scramblers.

As a child I used to go to Banna beach, which stretches eight miles from Ballyheigue to Barrow. The only inconveniences one encountered were games of football or soccer on the beach. Hundreds of people were there and everybody enjoyed themselves. With the advent of mechanically propelled watercraft it is a nightmare for families to look after their kids and ensure that they are not hurt. I am not trying to demonise anyone but with the passage of time advances have been made on these new types of vehicles. Young people who use these have less fear than those who are more mature. There is a tendency to try to get the greatest speed out of these vehicles. There is the belief that when one is on water one cannot hurt oneself or anyone else, but that is totally mistaken.

Damage is being done to sand dunes by scramblers and sand buggies, and that is being addressed by county councils. They have introduced a number of by-laws to restrict the use of such vehicles that make it difficult for people to enjoy the amenities, to ensure that the greater demand for the public is met. This legislation will facilitate local authorities in framing by-laws to regulate the use of motorised watercraft and ensuring that those by-laws are enforced with substantial penalties.

I admit that I knew very little about this area until recently. I was aware of the death of young Patrick Daly in Youghal two years ago as a result of an accident involving a jet ski. We all heard of the death of Kirsty MacColl, to which the previous Deputy referred, who died when she was hit by a water vehicle. With Shane McGowan she provided us with tremendous enjoyment. I also remember the death, while attempting to break records, of Donald Campbell.

I was astounded by some of the statistics from countries such as the United States, where hundreds of people have been killed by jet skis. In 1999 personal watercraft accounted for 18% of registered boats, but they were involved in 44% of injuries in California. That is a phenomenal amount of injury and damage. In 2000 the figure had risen to 19% of registered boats and jet skis were involved in 45% of injuries. That is the effect these jet skis have in terms of injuries and deaths in California.

There is very little control over who uses these vehicles. There are no age restrictions and there is no obligation on people to have proper training in handling what are extremely powerful machines. I emphasise the power and speed of these machines and the damage they can do. Young people do not fully realise it and the onus is on us to ensure that legislation not only penalises and restricts but educates people as well. As these are so powerful the potential for serious harm is high, as I have outlined in the examples from California. There is a clear need to regulate their use.

Apart from the safety aspect the main concerns people have regarding the use of mechanised watercraft, and the main issue addressed by the Bill, is the nuisance caused to other users of water amenities. There is nothing better calculated to drive an angler or sailboat user out of his or her reason than for the tranquillity of the stretch of water or lake to be shattered by the arrival of a person on a jet ski. The inconvenience and the danger surrounding jet skis must be emphasised. I am not arguing for a ban on such vehicles. The best rule of thumb is that the interests of the public should take precedence over the enjoyment of an individual. If someone causes a nuisance or danger to others, interfering with access to or enjoyment of public amenities, then regulations are needed to prevent that person from doing so. I hope local authorities and other public bodies referred to in the Bill will use this legislation to frame the type of by-laws that will impose sufficient restrictions on the use of the crafts in question in order that they cannot become a nuisance endangering the public.

Within the Bill's terms of reference, we are talking about severely curtailing the use of jet skis. There is a strong argument for confining then to specific areas, in the same way as certain motorised vehicles for leisure or sporting purposes are confined on land. A solution may be found in specifying particular areas for the use of jet skis. I do not want to see them banned but I have concerns about the age or those who use them as well as the amount of training provided. I am also concerned by the speeds they can attain. The use of jet skis would be acceptable in designated areas in a properly controlled context where those using them would have to undergo training and be subject to speed restrictions. In such circumstances, those who want to should be allowed to enjoy their use. Local authorities should ensure that jet skis and other similar types of watercraft are not permitted in areas for which the authorities have responsibility, such as ports, harbours and marinas. It would be a recipe for disaster otherwise.

I welcome the Bill's provisions for restricting or banning the use of watercraft by people who are drinking alcohol. That step is long overdue. I also welcome the fact that safety procedures will be enforced for vessels that provide a public service. I compliment all water safety services and in particular the Fenit lifeboat whose crew have done tremendous work in the area it serves. Such work is done voluntarily by local people who are on call at all hours to provide the lifeboat service in all types of weather. We are greatly indebted to them. I welcome the Bill and offer it my personal support as well as that of my party.

Mr. F. McGrath

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity of addressing this important legislation. I welcome the comments from my colleagues in all parties concerning maritime safety. Public safety is at the heart of the legislation. As an island nation we must deal seriously with this issue which relates to the sea and inland waterways as well as our coastline and harbours. Sectors such as fishing, tourism and leisure are of great importance given our island status. Our economy must be developed on an all-island basis, otherwise it will be economically, politically and socially divisive in addition to bringing no benefits. A one-island economy is a healthy and progressive idea for developing this State, but that point is not made often enough in this House.

The legislation deals with vital issues of safety in addition to harbours which are covered by section 2(c) and (d). As part of my constituency of Dublin North-Central is situated near Dublin Port and Dublin Bay, maritime safety is a major local issue as well as being a matter of national interest. Last Sunday, for example, more than 500 people attended a meeting in Clontarf about the proposed infill in Dublin Bay. Many residents and community groups came together to discuss matters related to this legislation. They also discussed other matters, including the Ombudsman’s ruling on Dublin Bay, the European Commission’s legal actions concerning the bay, the ownership of the foreshore, the Dublin development plan and the strategic plan for Dublin Bay. The meeting also heard an excellent report by Mr. Jerome Casey, entitled Dublin Port — Serving Dublin City. We also discussed the new and exciting Bremore Port development and the future of Dublin Bay. I thank those who organised that meeting last Sunday, including Mr. Gerry Breen, the former Member of this House, Mr. Seán Dublin Bay Loftus, the treasurer, Mr. Justin O’Flaherty, Mr Joe Nolan, Mr. Liam O’Dwyer and Mr. Peter Bailey. These people have been directly involved in the campaign to save Dublin Bay. Within that area some 630 acres are under-utilised. People want to dump rubbish to infill 52 acres in the bay, but there is no need for this. Our ports and harbours must be efficiently managed through the proper use of public funds for such projects.

In recent weeks we have learned of the €200 million overrun on the Dublin Port tunnel. In addition, some 200 houses in Marino, Santry and Fairview have been damaged as a result of work on that project. These issues are all connected to the maritime questions I have raised in connection with this Bill.

The Dublin Bay amenities study recommended that no development should be permitted in the bay pending completion of detailed area plans. However, there are no such plans. In 2002 the Minister of State was aware of public concern about the port company's proposal which highlights the need for an overall strategic approach to this kind of development. The Minister of State said new statutory arrangements are clearly needed to provide for an integrated management of the coastal zone, including the greater Dublin Bay and adjoining land. He said, however, that it would not be reasonable to defer consideration of the Dublin Port Company's application until the new legislative framework was in place. He said that, in the short term, he was anxious to allow Dublin Port to proceed with this development. I challenge people on this issue because it is related to the idea of preserving our bay. The people of Clontarf and Dublin North-Central want to ensure the bay will be preserved.

Harbours and ports form an important part of the legislation before us. Many of us put forward proposals against the plan to infill 52 acres in the bay area. We recognise, however, that a strategic plan for the island must be developed. The answer to this question lies in the Bremore proposals, which have been supported for many years by Mr. Seán Dublin Bay Loftus. The Drogheda Port Company has a new deep-water port at Bremore which covers 150 acres and is capable of handling 500 million tonnes of freight. That capacity can be expanded by up to 20 million tonnes. We should support this proposal because traffic needs to be diverted out of Dublin which is congested. The Bremore proposal is close to the M1, the Dublin-Belfast railway line and Dublin Airport. Therefore, there is an alternative to the plan to infill 52 acres in Dublin Bay.

I compliment all those involved in Dublin Baywatch and the residents in Clontarf who are doing so much work on this issue. Dublin Bay is our bay and it belongs to the people. In contributing to this debate, I want to ensure that we can protect and preserve what remains of Dublin Bay's amenities.

The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the law against the improper use of certain recreational craft, to outlaw reckless behaviour in operating such craft, to promote good practice in operating vessels generally, to upgrade safety regulations for passenger boats, fishing vessels and pleasure craft and to update penalties and other provisions of certain related Acts.

It is important that we consider the purpose of the Bill because serious public health and safety issues are involved. I do not know what sort of people use jetskis. No doubt some of them are members of the Progressive Democrats or other of the more affluent parties, but there have been many complaints about abuses of our waterways.

Part 2 strengthens the law against improper use of mechanically propelled personal water craft and other recreational craft of not more than 24 metres in length in waters of the State or in seas around them, in the interests of public safety, and is designed to prevent nuisance in public recreation areas and protect natural and other heritage areas. It also confers clear by-law making powers to regulate and control the operation of craft of the types in question, which are of considerable concern to county and city councils.

Section 6(1) refers to Waterways Ireland and the waters under its control and management, to the harbour authorities, to which the Harbours Acts 1946 to 1976 apply, and to the harbour companies within the meaning of the Harbours Acts 1996 to 2000. When we talk of these issues it is important that we reflect on the possible dangers. We cannot allow a minority of people to damage the health and safety of others.

That is another reason I strongly oppose the proposed new infill to Dublin Bay. If one fills in another 52 acres, there will be less space for our citizens and children to play, swim and use the bay as a quality national resource. We are discussing the Maritime Safety Bill. If one fills in 52 acres of Dublin Bay, one could increase flooding in the area. We have recently seen such flooding in Clontarf and Fairview. I gave a commitment to the people of those areas that I would represent their views in the Dáil.

Under the Bill it will be an offence to breach a by-law prohibiting the use of certain craft in specified waters or part thereof, subject to a fine on summary conviction not exceeding €1,000 for a first offence and not exceeding €2,000 for a second or subsequent offence. I do not agree with some of the speakers that the fines should be greater. The legislation is fairly reasonable and balanced. A first offender is fined €1,000 and a person who offends a second time is fined €2,000. We are talking of the safety of young people, of the safety of people in the water. The section is important in that regard.

The legislation also makes it an offence to breach the by-law relating to launching, mooring or berthing craft, with regard to conditions to be complied with for operating craft and maximum speed limits for craft, subject to a fine not exceeding €1,000 on summary conviction for such an offence. It is also an offence, subject to a fine not exceeding €1,000, on summary conviction, for a person to allow himself or herself to be carried or towed by a craft in an area where under a by-law it is prohibited.

It is not good enough for people to be involved in such anti-social behaviour. I spend a great deal of spare time visiting waterways and enjoying the facilities there. I have fished regularly on Lough Derg and have seen reckless jetski use there, which concerns many people, because of young children sailing their boats.

The Bill empowers the authorities specified in section 5 to allow authorised persons to act on their behalf and empowers the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to appoint persons to enforce the provisions of the Bill in Irish waters. The legislation contains important and constructive suggestions and the emphasis on maritime safety is important.

I also welcome the new section 26, which makes it an offence for a person to endanger persons on board a vessel, through recklessness or lack of seamanship. Section 26(2) is a standard defence to allow for action taken in good faith. Section 26(3) provides for a fine and or imprisonment on conviction by the court for such an offence. The new section 26 is important because one cannot allow people to behave recklessly. Particularly on holidays, we have all seen people taking risks with boats. We have seen fishermen taking risks with their crews and other boat owners taking risks with tourists. It is not acceptable for people to go into Irish bays, harbours and waterways without proper equipment such as life-jackets in order to ensure maximum safety. We have seen horrific and tragic accidents in this regard. The new legislation, particularly the new section 26, adds teeth to legislation.

The new section 43 is an amendment of the Harbours Act 1946 in three respects. It is an important new section because we need to deal with the matters involved in a more comprehensive manner.

Regarding the cost of the legislation, the financial memorandum notes that the Bill is Exchequer-neutral. It states:

The proposed strengthening of the law against the improper operations of fast powered watercraft of the types in question in Irish waters will significantly enhance public safety and amenity and protect natural and other heritage areas. Tourism and leisure businesses will also benefit from the stopping of nuisance by such craft.

That will be the key. There will be a net benefit to the economy because if people and families feel safe on the water they will use it more often and will spend more in locations by the lakes or rivers, or in fishing ports.

We should also pay tribute to the brave people involved in the fishing industry. It is all very well for the smart alecs to say those people make a good living out of it at times but in reality it is a difficult, tough and dangerous life. I commend our fishermen for providing excellent services to the people through many difficult times. We should also pay tribute to their families and express our sympathies to those families who have lost fishermen over the years. It is important that we recognise that in this debate.

I also pay tribute to lifeguards and those who run the lifeboats. They make a great contribution. We have some excellent people on the north side of Dublin, from Clontarf, Sutton and out as far as Howth, who give voluntary service and are involved in training, who save lives on a regular basis. They provide an excellent service and take major risks in the interests of public safety. While dealing with maritime safety, it is important that we commend these people.

This debate is important. The legislation is solid and progressive. That is not something which, as an Independent Deputy, I would say very often about Government legislation. This is important legislation and I commend the Minister of State for bringing it before the House. We have an opportunity to rally round. This matter is above party politics because it involves maritime safety. We are talking of our citizens, of people involved in fishing, in the leisure industry and in tourism, all connected with our waterways.

Our waterways are a major revenue earner. We must develop this sector of our tourism industry in a more radical and creative manner. A market is available for those who wish to become involved in water sports and related leisure activities. While we develop that market we should at all times remind ourselves that public safety must be at the core. The Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, along with other Ministers across the board, should look seriously at developing this market because it has massive potential.

People from urban areas do not necessarily get the opportunity to experience coastal areas, waterways, lakes and rivers. I have worked in the north inner city for more than 20 years and when one brings young people to water, whether one brings them fishing, or to the coasts, up to Donegal or over to Galway for weekend trips, or to visit islands, that makes a great impression on them, particularly on young people from urban areas in disadvantaged parts of the city. Our seas and waterways can be used in a progressive way to develop an interest in nature, science and biology. We should remind ourselves that we can link many strands to the debate on maritime issues.

We must be creative and radical with regard to the harbours issue which is dealt with in Part 2, sections C and D. I do not agree with those smart alec economists about the loss of Irish Shipping. I feel sorry about that loss. Some cynics may say we can get along without it but I reject that view. If we still had Irish Shipping as a quality company, it would help the nation develop and assist the economy in a progressive way. I do not accept the nay sayers who say we can get on without it. It was a significant loss. I support and commend those who worked for it for years. It is important to say this. There is a similar debate taking place with regard to Aer Lingus and the aviation industry but sin scéal eile.

It is important to reflect on the fact, when dealing with maritime issues, that as an island nation we have massive potential to develop the economy. There is significant potential in the tourism, fishing and leisure sectors. This is a crock of gold that can be developed. Now that we are in the age of IT, people have longer holidays and shorter working hours. It is important that we take the opportunity to use our seas and waterways to develop the person. In the rat race of the Celtic tiger some may feel they cannot or should not take a break but they should. One of the best ways to do so is to use our waterways, whether for fishing or swimming. Any of these activities is good for the person and society.

I welcome this discussion on the legislation. I have listened to the ideas expressed and hope the Minister will take some of mine on board.

Dr. Fitzpatrick

This much needed Bill is overdue. As a result of our developing economy, people have more wealth and leisure time and many of them buy jet skis or powerful boats. Therefore, we must regulate the maritime sector in some way in the interests of safety.

We often forget that the sea is dangerous and unpredictable. Urbanised people like me do not know much about it and tend to take it for granted because we generally only see it on sunny summer days. We do not see it when the weather changes and it is dangerous and threatening. While on the issue, I pay tribute to those who man our lifeboats and look after safety at sea or on our lakes and rivers.

We are considering regulation in the interests of safety. Perhaps on Committee Stage the Minister will adopt the attitude we had to take towards car testing. For many years people could buy any old banger, put it on the road, pay tax and insurance and drive away. Now we must have NCT tests every two years. These were a good idea. Rarely now do we see old dilapidated bangers on the road that are a danger to life and limb of all those on the road.

The Minister spoke about testing vessels greater than 24 metres in length. That is a rather large boat but I think he should consider testing pleasure boats, most of which are smaller than 24 metres in length. I have seen many that would be 20 feet in length and seen them used and abused on our waterways. The Minister should consider NCT-type testing of boats and equipment of all kinds used on water.

I am glad to see the legislation is strict with regard to the wearing of life-saving belts and jackets. Another issue about which I am concerned, as I have seen no reference to it, is that of drink or drug testing for boat crews. The sea is dangerous and unpredictable. To put to sea under the influence of alcohol or mind or mood altering drugs is a criminal act. It puts the person, the people in his or her care and other users of the sea in danger.

I gather the Minister's remit also extends to the foreshore but this is an issue not mentioned in the Bill or the Minister's speech. In this regard, I am thinking about the increasing use of dune buggies, large high powered four-wheeled machines which damage the fragile and delicate ecology of our sand dunes. Perhaps the Minister will consider the issue on Committee Stage.

I welcome the setting up of the national hydrographic survey. The Ordnance Survey surveyed the land back as far as the 1850s. I am glad its counterpart will now look after the foreshore, the seabed and the waters around our coasts. Some of the maps of our waters are years old. It is the nature of the sea, the foreshore and our river estuaries to change during the years. We must have accurate, up-to-date maps and charts if we are to increase safety levels at sea.

I commend the Minister and the Bill which I will support wholeheartedly in its passage through Committee, Report and Final Stages.

Mr. Connolly

I have no problem in welcoming the Bill because it is both timely and overdue. The legislation is designed to beef up the law against the improper use of personal watercraft such as jet skis and other small recreational watercraft such as speedboats. For too long legislation in this area was inadequate and half-hearted with some local authorities taking decisions to ban jet skis from beaches. There is no doubt that this legislation will have the effect of enhancing public safety as well as protecting heritage areas. Its effect will be to toughen the law against improper use in coastal waters and on lakes and rivers of certain high powered watercraft such as speedboats and jet skis.

The legislation should also have a beneficial knock-on effect for tourism and the holiday industry through the amelioration of safety measures inherent in the Bill. I would not like to be seen as in favour of banning entirely such speed craft. However, I am in favour of the designation of restricted areas for their use, perhaps within certain hours or late in the evening. Theyshould not be used near locations in which people are using conventional craft or children are playing.

I note that speedboats have recently been banned in the Lake District area of Cumbria in northern England. Lake Windermere was used in the past by Sir Malcolm Campbell and his son, Donald Campbell, as a venue for world water speed record attempts. We all have vivid memories of the speeds reached on such occasions. The Lake District has been one of the brightest jewels in Britain's tourism crown for a long time. Millions of tourists flock to its lakes and fells each summer. A ban on certain forms of water sports activity was recently brought into effect because locals and tourists could no longer endure the use of high speed watercraft which was leading to congestion and danger.

Many small boats, kayaks and canoes will be seen on the water when the outdoor season gets under way soon. Unfortunately, the users of such vessels will not have the water to themselves for long. The use of jet skis and powered watercraft has been increasing in recent years. The design, operation and use of such watercraft are fundamentally different from those of conventional boats. Small boats are known collectively as the "no octane brigade", in contrast to powered watercraft which are known as the "go-faster crowd". There is an uneasy truce between the two forms of craft. Our lakes and rivers cannot accommodate everybody's needs indefinitely because our inland waterways are becoming increasingly crowded. The use of powered watercraft is incompatible with certain waterways, the unique attributes of which can be jeopardised.

Parents who think they can earn brownie points with their children by giving them jet skis are teaching them to be abusive, to have a total disregard for people's privacy, to depend on a machine for fun rather than using their minds and to have a complete disregard for nature. Such boat rage is common. The machines in question can charge around at speeds in excess of 70 mph, as if Newton's law of motion had been repealed. Some of those who operate powered watercraft do not listen to the appeals of local residents for peace and calm. Such machines can stop quickly if they strike a floating or partially submerged object but their riders do not necessarily stop as quickly. Powered watercraft are equipped with a dead man's switch, a key that can be pulled by the rider to slow the machine to idling speed if he or she falls off. The machines run in circles in such circumstances, thereby allowing the rider to remount if he or she happens to be still alive.

If children are introduced to powered watercraft too soon, it is natural that they will continue to seek artificial thrills later in life. I do not doubt that jet skis are expensive, noisy, thrilling, fast and macho toys. They can be fun if used at a sufficient distance from others. If a person is rowing a canoe or a kayak on a lake when a large powerboat passes at excessive speed, he or she might be swamped in its wake. It is unfortunate that everything that makes powerboats enjoyable to use is in direct contrast and opposition to the peace and quiet needed by people trying to escape their stressful everyday lives. Access to jet skis in the United States is prohibited in the vicinity of most national parks. Such machines endanger and disturb wildlife because of their high speeds, unpredictable movements and excessive noise. When the ban was introduced in the United States, all national parks experienced an immediate increase of between 6% and 10% in visitor numbers.

Powered watercraft significantly damage the quality of air and water conditions, the enjoyment of visitors and the health and safety of the public. They place many wildlife species in danger. As they have two-stroke engines, they require oil to be burned with petrol to lubricate the engine's internal parts. They pollute watercourses by releasing up to 30% of their mixture of fuel and oil directly into the air and water. An average two hour thrill ride on a powered watercraft can lead to the release of between three and four gallons of unburned petrol and oil into the water. On some weekends thousands of gallons of fuel are dumped in previously unpolluted waters. In California it has been estimated that if one takes a daylong ride on a 100 horsepower jet ski, one will emit the same amount of smog forming air pollution as one would have by driving 100,000 miles in a car. That is considered to be high mileage because it is the equivalent of five years average driving for most.

Powered watercraft have a high pitched chainsaw-type whine which can ruin the outdoor experience of people interested in wildlife. Their noise levels are particularly disturbing for humans and especially dangerous to marine wildlife. Every time a powered watercraft goes over a wave its engine emerges from the water and the level of loudness and pitch changes. For this reason such craft can be much more disturbing than conventional motorboats. Noise from a single jet ski measures between 85 and 102 decibels. A person's hearing is impaired when noise reaches 90 decibels. Powered watercraft can force lake users out of the water by swerving and jumping at speeds of up to 70 mph. A busy city street produces noise levels of 85 decibels, on average. Many are sick and tired of having their weekends disturbed by incessant noise and disruption caused by fast watercraft in their local waters.

Our cherished memories of swimming in our favourite local ponds, fishing in local lakes, enjoying peace and quiet and observing the local wildlife may soon be a thing of the past. In San Francisco powered watercraft are not permitted within a radius of 350 m of the shore. They are banned from estuaries and rivers for a distance of up to seven miles inland.

Powerboat laws were introduced in Wales some years ago after an accident in which a male swan was killed by a jet skier. The laws provide for compulsory tuition, qualifications for users of jet skis and powerboats and the construction of purpose built jet ski berths. Anybody who wishes to use a jet ski in Wales is required to have a level 2 qualification in the use of powered watercraft. Not everyone who owns a jet ski is a nuisance as the majority of such persons are competent and their activities can be said to complement marinas. Parents have an obligation to ensure their children are competent and safe.

The Bill is principally concerned with giving local authorities and port authorities the power to regulate and control the use of powered watercraft and other watercraft by means of penalties. It could benefit by providing for instruction in the safe use of powered watercraft, along the lines of such regulations in the United Kingdom. I would like as many people as possible to enjoy the water while participating in healthy outdoor activities. I, therefore, welcome the Bill which will help to create a safe environment in which such activities can take place. I am happy to support it and trust it will be further modified to enhance the prospects of people being able to enjoy the water in a safe environment.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I would like to make a broad point about the various Bills being produced by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. Some officials from the Department are present today. The House has passed many useful Bills from the Department in the past three years. I welcome the Bill which will be of great importance as part of the effort to save lives.

It seems a great deal of serious and important legislation promised has not been introduced. Such legislation relates to every Department, including the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, will acknowledge that those involved in the fisheries sector are openly discussing the ramifications for the fishing industry of the clampdown that will be imposed by Brussels if we do not act to bring an end to the overfishing of Ireland's quotas. I would like to discuss the implications of such a development for our entire fisheries regime. It is remarkable and surprising that legislative proposals have not emerged in that respect, given that Ireland is likely to be required to take action. Legislation may be necessary to alter the system of management of the sector.

I do not intend to undermine the importance of the Bill under discussion but merely to question the manner in which our legislative priorities are ordered. The House has considered many Bills introduced by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in the past three years. As I said, however, I would have preferred if some of the legislative provisions had been grouped together. If we do not have much time in the Dáil which I understand from the Chief Whip's office to be the case, such a systemof legislative grouping may be necessary. I ask the Minister of State to respond to this general point when he responds at the end of this debate. What other Bills will be introduced by the Department in the near future? It would be more informative to receive such details from the Minister of State than it would be to ask the Taoiseach to look at his piece of paper on the Order of Business.

Having made that general point on the legislative schedule from the Department, I welcome the Bill. It is clear from the comments in the Seanad and the Dáil to date that there is general support for its purpose and intent. I am following a Deputy from another landlocked county. I am a proud Deputy from Dublin South which does not have one inch of seawater and precious few waterways, unless one counts the Dodder. However, that does not stop me having views on the use and abuse of jet skis and the nuisance they can cause. I welcome their management under the Bill.

Reading the other provisions of the Bill, it appears the devil will be in how the legislation is interpreted by the relevant authorities. For a number of years I was a sailor in Dublin Bay among a very low ranking crew of ruffian vessels. If I were to make a literal interpretation of the Bill, it appears that for most of the time my life was in danger and the owner of the vessel should have had his sanity questioned because every time I went out something was broken. Otherwise the trips were a great success. The interpretation and enforcement of the Bill will be crucial because I am sure the intent is not to restrict completely maritime activity to the point where it will not be possible to do anything on the open waves for fear of breaching a by-law or regulation.

The approach adopted in the Bill is correct in terms of giving responsibility to the local authorities. It is not appropriate for us at national level to determine the exact nature of by-laws. I welcome the broad provision giving local authorities and the designated authorities set out in section 17 the responsibility to enforce the legislation.

Local authorities should be much more proactive in managing leisure facilities. However, they are constrained by the lack of finance and often play a narrow role. It is right and appropriate for them to examine and manage their waterway facilities in a more proactive manner. Committing them to commissioning such by-laws which might regulate where one could use certain types of craft would be useful a way of setting their management parameters to everyone's benefit.

I question how we can enforce the proposed by-laws, particularly as they relate to the consumption of alcohol or drugs by skippers of vessels at sea. It appears the Coast Guard must have a responsibility in that regard in terms of having ready access to vessels to which the Garda Síochána might not have easy access.

I hope to tease out with the Minister on Committee and Report Stages how the legislation will be enforced. It appears we are good in this House at drawing up detailed legislation and regulations but if they are not enforced, they are of little use. I am interested in hearing from the Minister of State how the regulations on the seaworthiness of vessels and the consumption of alcohol will be enforced. Which authorities will have primary responsibility in this regard? What infrastructure will be provided for such authorities to ensure they will enforce the legislation effectively? I am concerned that it will be simply a case of providing legislation in order to appear concerned about safety, a concern which will not be backed up by enforcement.

I would be very surprised if there was a Deputy in the House who did not support the main intent and provisions of the legislation. It will be up to Members on this side to go through it in more detail on Committee and Report Stages to improve or change sections by way of amendments. However, my party supports the general intent of the Bill which I welcome.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher)

I wish to deal with a number of issues raised, including those raised by Deputy Eamon Ryan.

Cuirim mo bhuíochas in iúl do na Teachtaí go léir a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht thábhachtach seo agus gach uile Theachta a labhair anseo, ó na páirtithe éagsúla agus iad siúd atá ina dTeachtaí Neamhspleácha. Thug siad go léir tacaíocht don Bhille seo go ginearálta agus don phrionsabal, mar shampla, na Teachtaí Perry, Broughan, Cowley, Boyle, Brady, Connaughton, Pat Breen, Ferris, McGrath, Fitzpatrick, Connolly agus anois an Teachta Ryan. Gabhaim buíochas leo go léir, mar tá a fhios acu cé chomh tábhachtach is atá an Bille seo. Ba mhaith liom go mbeadh an Bille tríd an Dáil agus ar ais ag an Seanad ós rud é go mbeidh leasuithe romhainn ag an choiste an tseachtain seo chugainn. Tá sé tábhachtach go mbeidh muid ábalta é a chur tríd an Oireachtas agus chuig an Uachtarán roimh an samhradh.

I thank Deputies from all parties, including Independent Deputies, for agreeing to consider the Bill so soon after it was passed by the Seanad and the warm welcome for its provisions. As the title indicates, it has the clear aim of enhancing maritime safety by strengthening the law against a wide range of reckless behaviour on or with vessels of any kind on water. I agree with Deputies that it is overdue and needs to be enacted as soon as possible.

The seas around the coast, as well as our rivers, lakes, canals and other inland waterways, are there to be enjoyed by all. Deputy Eamon Ryan is correct in saying he does not want to hinder this enjoyment. We do not want to spoil it for the many responsible people who use our seas, lakes and waterways for recreational purposes. However, we also want to introduce the necessary legislation to empower local authorities, port companies, harbour authorities, Iarnród Éireann which has responsibility for Rosslare Harbour, Waterways Ireland which has responsibility for our canals, rivers and lakes, and the Minister in regard to the five fishery harbour centres at Howth, Dunmore, Castletownbere, Rossaveel and Killybegs.

Deputy Eamon Ryan raised the question of legislation which is to follow. I draw his attention to the list published at the beginning of the session by the Government Chief Whip. He will appreciate that the remit of the Department is very wide and priorities must be established, of which marine safety is one. That is why I was so anxious and appreciative of the party Whips for allowing me to bring the legislation to a stage where it could be enacted by the summer recess. The Deputy referred to other fishery measures and legislation which are also promised and will be brought before the House as soon as practicable. We recently progressed the Sea Pollution Bill.

A number of issues were raised. Deputy Perry referred to the marine casualty investigation board, the remit of which is to carry out investigations into marine accidents in all domestic waters and those which involve Irish-registered vessels. The main purpose of its investigations is to establish the cause or causes of a marine casualty with a view to making recommendations to the Minister with the purpose of avoiding similar incidents. The board publishes reports which are available on its website, www.mcib.i e. I pay tribute to its members who are totally committed to their role. At times they make themselves available above and beyond the call of duty. They have a difficult job which they do well and is greatly appreciated. The board’s recommendations are extremely important.

The Irish seabed survey was also mentioned. The project is in its final phase; hence, the minor reduction in the funding required in 2005. A sum of €3.584 million has been allocated in addition to a sum of €500,000 deferred from the 2004 capital programme. This reflects the wind-down of the project with fewer survey days on board the Marine Institute vessels required this year. A total of €33 million was allocated for the project over seven years from 1999 to 2005. I agree with Deputy Perry's comments on the importance of the project. It is money well spent.

Reference was made to the EU tourism grants scheme which has been suspended since December 2002 due to lack of funding and it is not envisaged, given the lifespan of the national development plan, that it will be reactivated. Deputy Perry referred to the marina project at Rosses Point, County Sligo, which involves the development of a 28 berth marina. The state aid implications of the funding commitment to this and other projects at Caherciveen and Kenmare in County Kerry and Roundstone, County Galway, are being clarified.

The question of compliance with state aid rules was raised during an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. While state aid approval has been sanctioned for the marine tourism grants scheme, it was not clear whether the approval extended to the four projects mentioned. On foot of legal advice, arrangements are being made to meet the European Commission in an attempt to resolve the issue. I support marinas, a number of which should be constructed along our coastline. Unfortunately, this issue has arisen and I am anxious that the meeting with the Commission should take place as soon as possible in order that all four projects can be progressed.

I refer to the adventure activities standards authority. As indicated in replies to parliamentary questions on 8 March, the question of establishing the authority is under review. Its establishment is not being delayed but the review is necessary in the light of the decision by the Minister in 2003 to integrate the functions of the marine safety directorate, the coastguard and the mercantile marine office into a single agency which will be responsible for all aspects of marine safety and emergency response services. The agency's headquarters are scheduled to be located in Drogheda and primary legislation may be required if the agency is to proceed. I had discussions with an interested individual as a result of an accident in Dunmore East a number of years ago but the adventure activities standards authority might be too narrowly focused. That is why I am anxious to review the authority to ensure an all-encompassing body is established.

The issue of drunkenness has been raised by a few Members. Section 24 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1992 outlaws such behaviour and provides for a maximum fine of €1,000. It will be updated to provide for higher penalties with a maximum fine of €5,000 on summary conviction for being under the influence of alcohol and drugs. An amendment in this regard will be tabled on Committee Stage. We were anxious to increase fines during the years but the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will introduce a fines Bill which will ensure fines will increase on an annual or biannual basis and will be linked to an index.

Deputy Broughan questioned the relevance of section 31. I will table an amendment on Committee Stage to delete it. This is being done on the basis of legal advice as the section might cause confusion. Section 30 is the key section in the legislation as it outlaws the endangerment of vessels.

A proposal to establish a register for small commercial and recreational craft of less than 15 net tonnes which would include jet skis has been the subject of public consultation. The feedback is under consideration.

It is not intended to outlaw the emergency towing by a fishing boat of a stricken fishing boat or other vessel. This was raised by Deputy Cowley but safety considerations should always dictate whether towing is feasible without endangering the vessels and crews involved.

Reference was made to the closure of the marine rescue co-ordination centre at Leeson Lane, Dublin. A study was carried out of the Coast Guard services in 2002 by independent consultants who recommended that the Coast Guard should operate two control centres at Valentia Island and Malin Head. They also recommended the closure of the marine rescue co-ordination centre in Dublin. The review had regard to, among other matters, advances in modern communications technologies and a comparison with marine emergency response co-ordination capabilities and manning levels in other countries. The use of two centres will achieve significant savings, thus enabling other elements of the Coast Guard service to be developed which, in turn, will lead to further improvements in marine emergency response services nationally. The centres proposed for Valentia and Malin Head will be developed to handle all emergencies along our coasts and on inland waterways involving mountain and cliff rescue.

Closure of the marine rescue co-ordination centre will not affect the significant emergency response resources on the ground. These will remain available to the Irish Coast Guard on a year round, seven day, 24 hour basis. The closure will not diminish the capability of the Coast Guard to co-ordinate and manage incidents.

I speak on behalf of everyone when I pay tribute to all of those involved in search and rescue. Deputy Perry and others referred to the demonstration in Rosses Point on Sunday, 22 May. It was my first opportunity to attend the display and I was more than impressed. The demonstration is held each year at one of the resorts on the coast and the turnout on 22 May impressive. We must try to ensure that we get more people to attend these displays in order that they see first hand the involvement of our search and rescue service's professionals and the volunteers. Quantifying their involvement in monetary terms would be difficult but the search and rescue services would be much poorer if not for those many people involved and I pay them tribute.

Mr. Cullen

Hear, hear.

Mr. Gallagher

The issue of an emergency towing vessel has been raised a number of times in the House through debates and parliamentary questions. The feasibility of deploying an emergency towing vessel in Irish waters is under consideration in the Department, taking into account the significant costs involved and the cost-benefits associated with such a facility. Some will say we have taken some time to make up our minds but there are many factors to be considered.

In 1998, the Department of the Marine commissioned a study to investigate the feasibility of deploying an emergency towing vessel around our coast. Following an assessment of that study, which was published the following year, it was decided that Ireland should have access to emergency towing vessel capacity to protect our coast from the consequences of major oil pollution and vessel stranding. The Department would consult the Departments of Finance, Defence and Environment, Heritage and Local Government on a number of matters, including cost effectiveness, location, financing and other issues, such as operational aspects and other possible users. Ireland and the United Kingdom should consult on the possible sharing of such a facility to cover the east coast. The Department established an internal working group at that time to manage this consultation process and to try to advance the matter generally.

The significant costs likely to be associated with an emergency towing vessel capability with complex operational requirements are recognised by all. At the time, the consultation group concluded that an emergency towing vessel capability should be provided to service the west coast, possibly via a PPP, and that such a vessel for the east coast could be provided to ensure an acceptable level of cover at minimum cost through a possible joint PPP approach with the United Kingdom. The House will recall the events of last year when a Canadian submarine travelling home from Scotland developed a fault off the north-west coast of Ireland. There was some consternation at the time for the lives of those involved. A number of fishing vessels and the Naval Service were extremely helpful. They assisted in no small way to ensure there was not a serious loss of life. By this, I mean too many lives. Both Deputy Perry and I were present when unfortunately, the bodies of the deceased crew members left Sligo General Hospital to be taken back to Canada. There are dangers and I am not putting this issue on the long finger. I am anxious to come to a conclusion on this matter.

A number of Deputies have raised questions about enforcement. I draw the attention of the House to section 17, which allows the relevant authorities, including city and county councils, the Department and Waterways Ireland, to appoint authorised persons to enforce the Bill. These persons will have considerable powers as outlined in the Bill. The Garda and the Coast Guard will have a role but obviously, they cannot be everywhere. One of the Deputies asked how would we do this. It is not possible to be everywhere, but I am sure that, as soon as those people who are acting illegally are pursued, brought before the courts and made an example of, the Bill will have positive effects. Too many people are being irresponsible but I wish to recognise the many responsible people who observe the law on the sea and on our waterways.

It was suggested that every vessel should be on a register. The Department and I are vigilant in ensuring that only sound vessels are entitled to be on the Irish register. We want Ireland to be known for vessels of a proper standard in which we have confidence. If I find any legal gaps, I will certainly introduce further legislation without delay or incorporate it in the appropriate legislation. We have spoken about jetskis and boats of over 24 metres in length. European legislation insists that such vessels must have certificates of compliance and all the necessary documentation in the Department by the end of June. I will address the other sizes, and explain the situation with them as well as I can.

The matter of jet skis is causing considerable concern for many people, not necessarily those on our coasts but those along our rivers and waterways. I confirm that the whole of the coastal and inland waters of the State can be covered by local targeted by-laws if there is a need. For this reason, I will leave it to the discretion of the local authorities to introduce by-laws when the Bill is enacted. Every local authority may not need to make by-laws but those that must will have the power to do so upon the enactment of the Bill. It has been suggested that there should be a longer period than one month plus seven days to give the public a period to consider the by-laws when they are drafted by the local authorities, the port companies, the harbour authorities, Iarnród Éireann or Waterways Ireland. A month and seven days is adequate to consider the by-laws. I hope that after that short period they will become law.

Many Deputies have raised the question of alcohol. I confirm that breath, blood or urine testing for the purpose of criminal proceedings will have to be done under Garda supervision, if not by it directly. Detailed legislation along the lines of the often challenged provisions of the Road Traffic Act would require a considerable drafting effort without a guarantee that it would be workable in the totally different environment of the sea or waterways. Such an effort would be questionable. As a practical alternative, provision is being made, via a ministerial amendment to section 33, to include codes of practice for vessel operators and guidance to prevent abuse of alcohol or drugs on board vessels. The Department will review the position again in one or two years, in the light of experience with the code of practice and, generally, as part of an ongoing review of marine safety law. This may not be precisely what I would wish for but it is a step in the right direction.

I am pleased that the House has welcomed the Bill, in principle, and that, like me, Members are anxious to ensure it is enacted as quickly as possible. I hope to bring it before the select committee at an early date. I thank Members and parties for their co-operation in ensuring we were able to take Second Stage so quickly following the completion of deliberations in the Seanad. This is an important Bill. Marine safety is vitally important, as is the registration of vessels.

Mar fhocal scoir, cuirim mo bhuíochas in iúl do na Teachtaí go léir a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht thábhachtach seo, agus tá súil agam nach fada go mbeidh muid ábalta an Bille a phlé sa choiste agus dul ar ais chuig an Seanad leis na leasuithe ón Dáil.

Question put and agreed to.