Amendment No. 10 is an alternative to amendment No. 7 and both may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Harbours Bill, 1995: Report Stage (Resumed).
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 28, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
"(e) when making any appointments under paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d), the Minister shall consult with the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland and following such consultation may appoint a particular person to be a director to represent the business interest.".
I will withdraw my amendment in favour of the Minister's.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 9 is an alternative to amendment No. 8 and both may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 28, to delete lines 46 to 48 and substitute the following:
"(6) The Minister shall appoint 3 members of a prescribed local authority or local authorities (each of whom has been nominated for the purposes of this subsection in the prescribed manner by a prescribed local authority or local authorities) to be each a director of a company."
On Committee Stage I indicated that I had no objection to amending section 36 to provide that the local authority directors shall be elected members of a local authority or local authorities. However, I could not accept Senator Fitzgerald's amendment providing for this because it would have meant that only one local authority would be empowered to nominate the three local authority directors.
I pointed out that in the case of the Galway port company, for example, it may be decided that of the three directors to be appointed, two should be nominated by Galway Corporation and one by Galway County Council. Similarly, careful consideration will need to be given to the question of the appointment of local authority directors to the board of the Shannon Estuary port company where at present five separate local authorities have representation on the board of Limerick Harbour Commissioners.
The amendment now proposed provides that the three local authority directors shall be elected members. It also gives the necessary flexibility in relation to the appointment of local authority directors to the boards of such companies as Cork, Galway and the Shannon Estuary port companies. I remind Senators that once the legislation is enacted, regulations prescribing the nominating local authorities and the manner in which such directors are to be selected will be made by the Minister for the Marine following consultation with the Minister for the Environment. Such regulations will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and either House will have the power to annul them within the next 21 sitting days.
I am very happy with the Minister's response. I feared that people who were not elected members could become members of these boards, for example, a county secretary or a citizen. Between us, the Minister and I have done a good job. We must also take into account what was said in the review group's report. The River Shannon is under the jurisdiction of Clare County Council, Kerry County Council and Limerick County Council. I believe a member of Tipperary South Riding was on the old port authority there. However, I will allow Senator Rory Kiely and Senator Neville to sort that out.
I am happy that county councillors will be appointed to these boards. I said on two occasions in the House that the powers of county councillors have been eroded over the past ten years. My party did not appoint elected members to the proper boards and we have continued to lose power. As Senator Cregan said, elected representatives are the best members on boards or committees because they are constantly in touch with the people and they make excellent contributions.
I welcome this amendment. It is important that the position of local public representatives is copper-fastened so that it cannot be eroded, as could have happened under the original wording of the Bill. As Senator Fitzgerlad said, county councillors play a very important role in presenting the views of those they represent and they are accountable. This amendment confirms that public representatives will be represented on the boards of these new semi-State companies.
I welcome this amendment which is a watershed. I have been a Member of the House since 1987 and it is the first time legislation has been introduced which copperfastens the right of elected members of local authorities to be considered for appointment to boards. All legislation which has come before both Houses in which local authority members or Members of this House have traditionally had a role to play at local or regional level has not only eroded that role but abolished it.
I would like to know when this trend developed. At what point in the early 1980s did the bureaucracy or, as the late John Healy called it, the permanent Government decide to put forward proposals of this nature to a Minister? This has spread like a cancer through every Department so that all legislation to come before the Oireachtas contained a clause which debarred elected members of local authorities. In a report published last year Professor Barrington indicated that there are 2,300 appointments in the gift of the Government of the day. That is an astonishing figure compared to the 1,500 to 1,600 elected members of local and urban authorities.
I have never doubted the credentials of this Minister, who is a member of a local authority, in his fight for local democracy. I hope he can bring influence to bear on his colleagues in Government so that there is a strong and important role for elected members of local authorities on boards at local and regional levels, particularly on statutory boards. I hope this legislation will be a precedent and will act as a bar against any other Minister bringing legislation to the House which specifically excludes local elected members from boards.
We are witnessing a crisis in local democracy, such has been the growth of quangos over recent years. The concept of a bottoms-up approach to involve and empower local communities evolved in Europe. I enthusiastically welcome that growth, but it has been without any parallel acknowledgement of growth in the democratisation of local authorities. We now have an imbalance in our society; there is greater power and a greater role for the voluntary non-elected sector than there is for the elected sector. In 1998 we will once again face local elections. Why should people today contest elections when all they have to do is be appointed to various non-elected boards which have real budgetary power and money? The local authorities have little money and its members find themselves fighting among each other over roads, footpaths and street lighting.
This is another opportunity for my colleagues and I to put on the record how important legislation such as the Minister is introducing today is for the future of local democracy. I wholeheartedly welcome it and I commend him for introducing it. I hope it will act as a benchmark for future legislation.
I also welcome this amendment. I spoke earlier about the need to have elected members of local authorities on the harbour boards. The greatest example of the contribution elected members of local authorities can make to these boards is the success of Foynes, a nine member authority of whom six members are also members of local authorities. Senator Neville, is a member, as is Councillor Kevin Sheehy who is in the Visitors' Gallery with Councillor Paddy Hourigan who replaced Deputy Michael Finucane, and Councillor Máirín Barrett, daughter-in-law of Councillor Jim Barrett, a former chairman. They contributed to the success of Foynes and it is most important we have elected representatives on such bodies.
It will be changed now, of course. The membership of Limerick Harbour Board, which was 28 members, has been reduced to 12, whereas the Foynes Harbour Board membership has been increased to 12. Only 25 per cent of Foynes Harbour Board are elected representatives of local authorities. As the Minister pointed out, in Limerick five authorities are represented at present. What will happen in the future when only three will be represented? Clare County Council, Kerry County Council, Limerick County Council, Limerick Corporation and Tipperary North Riding County Council are represented at present. I welcome the amendment and compliment the Minister. We all did a good job on this.
I too welcome this amendment and thank the Minister for accepting the views of Senators from all sides. It was very important to adopt this amendment because there is a strong relationship between the Seanad and the members of local authorities. It is fitting that we should be seen to be looking after the people who elect us and make sure that members of local authorities are fully represented on our boards.
I agree with Senator Mooney's comments. In County Limerick we know that a very capable individual who did not get elected to the county council is now in charge of more money and has more discretion at his disposal than any of us who were elected to the council. It is galling that we are barred from sitting on any of the committees of that body. It appears that the attitude is that as we are elected, we are somehow lesser beings than those who stood for election and failed. It does not make sense and does nothing for our standing as public representatives. The concept of local democracy is very important. We should avail of every opportunity to defend our rights as elected representatives, not selected representatives.
Living, as I do — I have it on unimpeachable authority — in an ivory tower, I lack the sovereign command of local detail that members of local authorities can bring to issues like this.
The Senator is learning fast.
However, I strongly support the principle enunciated by Senator Mooney and supported by Senators Kiely and Kelly. There has undoubtedly been a serious erosion of local government here, particularly since 1977 and the abolition of rates. I do not want to pretend that local government was somehow ideal before 1977; it was not. There were many weaknesses and some abuses but it seems to me that we have gone in entirely the wrong direction in effect trying to subvert the authority of local government, to reduce it with the result that there are now complaints about the calibre of some local representatives.
The point made by the Senators is incontrovertible. One cannot expect to have as many local representatives of the calibre one would wish if one does not allow them the exercise of responsibility in local affairs. I do not see why people would put themselves out the way that our local representatives do if they have as little authority as at present. For that reason, in terms of the direction in which it is going, I very much welcome the inclusion here of this measure and I hope it signals a change of attitude and mentality at central Government level about the role local government ought to play in our society.
I welcome what the Minister is doing. I will not repeat what Members said about the local authority aspect of it other than to say that I support them. It is curious that it was a condition of membership of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation that the parties represented would have a democratic mandate. At that level we are saying that people should have a democratic mandate, but when it comes to local level, the democratic mandate seems to disappear as a qualification.
Senator Mooney has a concern which I will raise on his behalf as he did not have the opportunity to raise it when he was speaking. It is that there will be situations, I can think of at least one, where five local authorities could be represented on a harbour board. I assume that three members will be selected from the five. How will the three be selected out of the five?
I agree with and welcome the amendment. Members of local authorities are very busy and concerned people. I recall that some years ago in County Cork when the Cork-Swansea service was threatened, the fact that we had a member on the Cork harbour commissioners alerted everybody to that fact. This resulted in the local authorities of Cork and Kerry coming together at the time to try to solve the problem.
Perhaps it is outside the remit of the local authority, but emphasis should be placed on keeping such authorities informed. Openness and accountability are very much part of the local authority system. The legislation is very important for harbour development and is very closely linked to the local authorities.
Senators will be aware that the Murphy review group did not recommend that there should be representation from local authorities on the boards of the harbour companies. The report of that group was accepted by the Government, with one significant exception. The Government decided that the boards of the new harbour companies should include representation from local government. This decision was taken for two reasons. First, an important link exists between the ports that serve an area and the local community, town and economy. The Government felt it important that the legislation underpin that link. The second reason is that it is Government policy to devolve as much power as possible to local government. Under the legislation local port authorities will be established as semi-State companies and it makes sense that the right to nominate directors to the boards of those companies should rest, to some extent, with local government.
When that decision was taken, it was intended that the directors appointed by the local authorities would be elected members of those authorities. The Bill, as originally drafted, did allow for the option to be exercised that an appointee might not be an elected member but could be an officer of the local authority. I served on two local authorities for ten years and feel very strongly that there is no substitute for the elected mandate. At present, many comments of a very derogatory nature are made in relation to the elected mandate held by public representatives at local and national level. In a democracy, it is important to utilise every available opportunity to underline the primacy of the elected mandate. If local government representatives are to be appointed to the boards of port companies, it is the Government's view that they should hold an elected mandate and are consequently accountable to the public as a result.
The problem of five into three will not go to which Senator Dardis referred only arises in the case of the Shannon Estuary Port Company. No decision has yet been taken in this regard. The Ministers for the Marine and the Environment will have to engage in a process of consultation in relation to that issue. One of the factors which may help to resolve the problem is the added dimension that there are two ports in the general area to which appointments must be made.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 28, after line 48, to insert the following:
"(7) The Minister shall, in selecting one or more persons to be appointed as a director or directors of a company (not being a director or directors to whom a preceding provision of this section applies), consult with
(a) the Chamber of Commerce of Ireland (or any successor of it),
(b) the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (or any successor of it), and
(c) such other persons as the Minister consider appropriate,
and each of the said persons may, following such consultation, recommend to the Minister that a particular person or persons be appointed as such a director or directors and the Minister shall consider such a recommendation.".
I accepted an amendment in principle from Senator Fitzgerald on Committee Stage to the effect that the Minister, before appointing ministerial directors, should be statutorily required to consult with the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland. However, I indicated that I would like to broaden the consultancy process to cater for situations, such as Foynes, where there are no chambers of commerce in existence and also to provide for consultations with other bodies such as IBEC and leisure and other interests where appropriate. The amendment meets these requirements and I commend it to the House.
The term "persons" in the context of the amendment includes bodies or groups. It would also be necessary to change the title of the section to "Employee, Local Authority and Other Directors". The parliamentary draftsman has advised me that this can be achieved in consultation with the Bills office. Therefore, a specific amendment changing the title to the section is not necessary.
I welcome the effort the Minister has made in this amendment. The legislation has moved a good distance from denying the chambers of commerce any representation on the boards of the new companies. With the consultative role they will have, the chambers of commerce are reasonably happy they will have an input into the nomination of one person.
On Foynes, the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland informed me that every trader who uses the Shannon Estuary and Foynes harbour are members of Limerick Chamber of Commerce. I am happy with the amendment.
We shall have to stop congratulating the Minister because he will get a swelled head. However, he is to be congratulated on this amendment. It is very important that the business communities in harbour areas should be represented, particularly in view of section 30 (1) (a) which states: "The Minister shall as respects a company, the employees of which are more than 50 in number, appoint to be each a director of the company 2 employees....". In that context, it is essential that the business community be represented particularly, as Senator Fitzgerald stated, where they are users of the port.
When this issue was discussed on Committee Stage, the Minister made the point that not all ports were represented by chambers of commerce. From that point of view, it is reasonable that IBEC be included in the amendment. The Minister should request the Minister for Finance to reconsider the situation whereby the chambers of commerce were not afforded the same opportunities under the county enterprise partnership boards — they are represented on many of them but not as of right — as they are under this Bill. It is a very desirable development, and one for which the Minister should be commended.
The Minister has responded to a number of concerns expressed. He has covered the situation in relation to the chambers of commerce and IBEC. Senator Dardis made the point that the users and customers of a port are the people who will ensure its success or failure. I was pleased to note from the Minister's contribution that he includes the leisure industry as a user of our ports. As a business, the leisure industry is of vital importance particularly in regard to tourism. Concerns have been expressed that many ports did not regard the leisure industry as a customer in the past. A tendency existed to believe that this industry was merely obstructing the important business of ports. However, it seems that, in many cases, the leisure industry is a very important element of the business of ports. The Minister responded in a satisfactory manner and I congratualte him for doing so.
I welcome this amendment. I am glad it has developed to include IBEC, which has made a great contribution to development in this country and which would have strong views on the type of people who should operate on any board, including semi-State boards.
I am going to throw a spanner in the works. I will not welcome this enthusiastically not will I criticise it. Having already defended stoutly the right of elected members to be on boards, this raises again the perception of attitudes to elected members on which the Minister touched. There is a widespread view in this country that county councillors do not have any business experience, do not know how to run a business or do not know what that entails.
I know I am indulging in semantics here but encouraging and protecting the right of business organisations to be consulted gives the impression that, on the one hand, the Minister will appoint local authority members and, on the other, he will consult the business sector on further appointments, that the two are immutable and somehow one is isolated from the other.
I have no doubt, and am sure all my colleagues will agree, that there will be a great deal of thought put into who should be appointed by the local authorities concerned to the harbour boards. I am not anticipating the decisions of local authorities in this regard but the chances are that these people will almost certainly have an interest in the harbours and will have the business acumen required to ensure the harbour authorities operate in a cost efficient and responsible manner.
This is more a case of semantics than objections. The one aspect of the Minister's amendment which I welcome the words "such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate", which infers that the Minister is not totally bowled over by the fact that expertise reposes exclusively within the sanctums of the Chamber of Commerce of Ireland or, indeed, IBEC. Individual members of both organisations have not always been the greatest supporters of local authorities or of elected local representatives.
I do not want to open up a can of worms here; I am only sounding a sour note. I do not wish to have my remarks misinterpreted. What the Minister is doing here is right. It is important that business organisations which must be viable, such as these semi-State bodies, should have business expertise on their boards. There seems to be a perception that people elected to local authorities do not have business expertise. Several people here who are members of local authorities come from a business background or are involved actively in business. That is the only point I want to make.
I do not believe we should necessarily go down this road every time a board is being set up and that there must be this requirement to consult the business organisations in order to make an appointment. Why not consult with elected members within the various parliamentary parties in Government?
I am sure that will be done too.
It is an intellectual point. It leads me back to my earlier contribution about perception. I feel sometimes that taking decisions, as in amendment No. 10, copperfastens this widespread perception particularly among these organisations. Why do they not stand for election? They would then have a far better chance of being involved in such boards.
The IFA and the ICMSA should be included also.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator had his opportunity.
When the Bill was circulated I was a little surprised that it did not include chambers of commerce; I had representations from Cobh Chamber of Commerce.
When enacting legislation, the most important thing is to respond as far as possible to submissions from such groups. That is what really strengthens legislation.
When I read the amendment I thought I would have been critical but it does say "...a director or directors ..." so the consultation process with the chambers of commerce, IBEC, etc., is not confined to just one director. It could be one or more directors.
Senator Quinn mentioned rightly the leisure industry. I want to express the hope that he would consult, under "other persons", ISME which represents small and middle sized businesses. I know there are rows or there were rows between IBEC and ISME — I do not know if they are ongoing. The reason I mention this is quite specific. I do not represent ISME and never had any discussion with them. One of the main problems in this country is getting our small firms to grow and since they will only grow by exporting, they must become involved in international trade. Therefore, anything which induces them to go in that direction and which gives them a voice in foreign trade affairs is worth encouraging. I hope the Minister will keep in mind the possibility of consulting people who may have an interest in membership of these boards.
The purpose of this legislation is to set up the 12 largest ports in the country as commercial semi-State bodies, to give them a commercial mandate and, essentially, to give those ports a new lease of life in relation to their management, their role and contribution to the economy.
In doing that, the overriding consideration in appointing the boards of directors of the companies will be to select and appoint the best possible board of directors. In the course of the discussion about how directors should be selected and who should be selected, I said here before and in the Dáil that it is the Government's intention that the people who are appointed will, in the main, have business and professional experience and expertise and will be able to bring that to bear on the work of the board.
The requirements of each port will vary, as will the type of board appointed, who should be appointed to different boards, appointees' backgrounds and their necessary business experience. It is prudent that there should be a formal consultative process to illicit the views of the interested organisations, such as the chambers of commerce.
I do not want to get into this because trying to establish the jurisdictional area of respective chambers of commerce can be as tricky as establishing the jurisdiction of ports. There may be different chambers of commerce or business organisations which have a particular interest in a port. For example, there may a port which would have a large amount of agri-business and it may be prudent to consult bodies involved in agriculture or in agri-business generally. Similarly, some ports have a high profile in the leisure area. For example, a port in my constituency, Dún Laoghaire, has a strong profile in the leisure area and it would be appropriate to consult leisure interests in appointing the board of a company like that.
What we are providing for in the amendment is a process of formal consultation with named organisations with the option of other organisations being included. In addition, it is open, of course, to any organisation or individual to make recommendations about who should be appointed to the boards of these companies. Indeed, many organisations and individuals have already communicated their views as to who should be appointed to the boards of these companies so, while there is a consultative process formally built into the legislation, I do not envisage there being any great difficulty in practice establishing the views of interested parties on who should be on the boards of the companies. I have no doubt that a wealth of talent will be recommended for appointment to the boards of these companies.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 43, line 49, to insert after "amended by", "an".
This is a drafting amendment to provide for the insertion of the word "an" in line 49.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 14 is an alternative to amendment No. 13 and amendment No. 18 is related. The three amendments will be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 44, to delete lines 10 to 22, and substitute the following:
"(31) (a) The harbour master of a harbour may refuse entry into the harbour of a ship, vehicle or other conveyance that is carrying dangerous goods (within the meaning of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code) which, in his or her opinion, would be likely to endanger persons or property.
(b) None of the following, namely
(i) a nuclear powered ship, vehicle or other conveyance,
(ii) a ship, vehicle or other conveyance that is carrying one or more nuclear weapons,
(iii) a ship, vehicle or other conveyance that is carrying nuclear material (within the meaning of the Radiological Protection Act, 1991),
shall enter a harbour.
(c) (i) The Minister may by order exempt a ship carrying nuclear material of a specified class or classes from the application of paragraph (b) (iii) and for so long as such an order is in force paragraph (b) shall be construed and have effect in accordance with the order.
(ii) The reference in this paragraph to an order in force shall, as respects such an order that is amended by an order in force under section 3 (4), be construed as a reference to the first-mentioned order as so amended.
(d) If a ship, vehicle or other conveyance
(i) being a ship, vehicle or other conveyance that has been refused entry in to a harbour under paragraph (a), enters the harbour, or
(ii) in contravention of paragraph (b) enters a harbour, the owner and master of the ship or the owner of the vehicle or conveyance or the person to whom the vehicle or conveyance is hired for the time being shall each be guilty of an offence.
(e) In this subsection 'International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code' means the International Maritime Organisation and includes any amendments of that code for the time being adopted by that organisation.".
Senators will recall that on Committee Stage I indicated that I intended to split section 52 (1) (a) into two separate paragraphs: one empowering the harbour master to refuse entry into the harbour of dangerous goods as classified in the INDG code which in his or her opinion would be likely to endanger persons or property and one statutorily requiring the harbour master to refuse entry into the harbour of a ship or a vehicle or other conveyance that is powered by or carrying nuclear material. Exemptions will have to be granted under this provision in respect of hospital materials and medical supplies which may have levels of radioactivity and materials which in the normal course of events have low background radiation levels. These exemptions will be set out in a ministerial order to be made under the section and following consultation with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. A ministerial order of this nature will have to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, either House having the power to annual it within the following 21 sitting days.
Amendment No. 13 provides for the foregoing in so far as the 12 new port companies are concerned. As Senators are aware, a number of harbours may continue to operate under the Harbours Act, 1946 and with a view to ensuring that nuclear materials or nuclear powered ships are also prohibited from entering these harbours I am putting forward an additional amendment No. 18 to provide for this. The latter amendment amends the Harbours Act, 1946, by the insertion of a new section, section 87 (a).
It is Government policy that ships carrying nuclear materials should not enter into an Irish port. Earlier this year I instructed Dublin port not to admit a vessel which was carrying nuclear materials bound for the Sellafield plant in Cumbria. The new measure I am proposing in the Harbours Bill will make it illegal for vessels carrying nuclear materials or which are nuclear powered from entering any Irish port. Harbour masters of the ports will be required to refuse entry to such ships. Many local authorities throughout the country have already indicated their desire that the ports in their areas be nuclear free. The effect of these amendments is to give the force of law to the nuclear free principle in the ports of this country.
I am extremely concerned about the transportation of nuclear materials by sea. Prohibiting such cargoes from entering Irish ports is one clear measure which will help protect our people from the risk of an accident involving a nuclear ship. In addition to preventing nuclear ships from entering Irish ports, I have also taken a number of initiatives to seek a tightening of the international rules governing the shipment of nuclear materials. Recently I secured agreement from the International Maritime Organisation to review the INF code which governs the shipment of nuclear materials. In March next year a special meeting of the IMO will be held to address our concerns in this matter.
I am extremely happy with this amendment. The Minister has gone further than I had envisaged. I agree that all ports should be included. The only possible complaint I might have is that the fines and penalties are a little low because it would be a serious matter for somebody to contravene this measure. A penalty of £1,500 is very little nowadays. However, I am delighted with the amendment.
My one regret is that neither the Minister nor I nor this House has received the credit we deserve for introducing this legislation. It is probably the first legislation to ban nuclear power in this country. If another party — a somewhat green party — had happened to open their mouths reams of paper would be written about it. Last Sunday's newspapers had pages on nuclear power. I am not looking for any haloes or bouquets but the Minister, his staff and this House should be given the credit they deserve for putting this amendment into the legislation. I hope nobody in the other House will even dream of trying to undo what has been done.
I am very happy that this provision will be law and I am delighted with how the Minister has handled the matter. As I said earlier, I am proud of him.
I also welcome the Minister's decision. It is far reaching and has implications for the future. We are heading towards having a total ban on all nuclear power throughout the country. We discussed this matter on Committee Stage so I will not delay the House now. I congratulate the Minister on his historic decision. The amendment in itself is important but it also puts us on an important policy course. I look forward to similar approaches in future legislation.
I compliment the Minister on his initiative in this regard. I raised an aspect of this issue on Second Stage when I asked a question of the Minister. I appreciate that he is not in a position to give a conclusive answer. An American warship visited Dublin port some years ago and questions were raised about its nuclear status. The American Government issued a statement at the time that its policy was never to comment on the nuclear status of its ships. My question to the Minister is, in the context of the powers of the harbour master and of this welcome amendment, what steps in practical terms can the harbour master or the Government take to ascertain whether a visiting naval vessel is nuclear powered if the policy of the home Government is not to reveal such information?
It is a little like Dublin being declared a nuclear free zone — and it was in that context that the aforementioned controversy arose — in that it is a pious aspiration which certainly sends a signal from this country as to the views of our people on nuclear power. For that reason I strongly welcome the amendment. I do not wish to give the impression that I would oppose the spirit or the letter of it. However, in practical terms perhaps the Minister would outline how he sees harbour masters coping — I am thinking of harbours such as Dublin and Cork rather than the smaller harbours — if such a situation should arise, without creating an international incident or giving the impression that we do not welcome visiting navies to our shores.
I welcome this amendment and congratulate the Minister on taking such a strong stance. It has long been the policy of my party to have Ireland declared a nuclear free zone. Will such ships be banned in future from Irish territorial waters? It is important that these waters be nuclear free. If they are not nuclear free, how would we cope if a ship experienced difficulty close to our shore?
I support the sentiments unanimously expressed by Senators in complimenting the Minister on this worthwhile initiative. Senator Fitzgerald rightly pointed out that the £1,500 fine proposed for summary conviction would not be see as severe in today's circumstances.
The amendment is good and the Minister is to be commended for it. I share Senator Kelly's view that it would be desirable to exclude nuclear vessels from our territorial waters and the Minister may be able to say how this might be done. I assume the usual seafaring norms would apply when ships are in distress.
The amendment says that the harbour master "may" refuse entry. The word "may" causes problems all the time, not just with regard to this Bill but to many others. It might be preferable to use the word "shall" instead but I accept that the amendment, even with the word "may", is a considerable improvement.
Does the Bill apply to ships from foreign navies or is this within the ambit of the Minister for Defence? I share the view that fines are totally inadequate given the value of ships entering our harbours. I am fascinated by the words "vehicle or other conveyance". I assume this applies to things which are part of the cargo of a ship. I had visions of a nuclear powered bicycle coming up the Liffey. I am relieved by the Minister's nod that I am correct in my assumption.
I wonder how in practical terms we could exclude a ship which is determined to dock. Would the harbour master go out in his launch and try to turn back the USS Enterprise? This would be an unequal contest. This is a more serious point than it might appear.
The Minister has spoken strongly about taking action. The public are realising that there is serious intent with regard to this issue. Amendment No. 18 provides for the insertion of a new section after section 87 of the Harbour Act, 1946. It is not possible to repeal this section of the 1946 Act? How does that Act fit in with this Bill? The inclusion of these amendments in the Bill is welcome and signifies the serious intent which is being put into effect.
I welcome this important amendment. On Committee Stage Senator Mooney raised the issue of dangerous goods. Senator Dardis made the important point that the word "may" should be changed to "shall". It is important that a harbour master has power to refuse entry into a harbour of any vehicle carrying dangerous goods, within the meaning of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code. This applies to ships carrying nuclear and other dangerous material. I ask the Minister to comment on this.
We are amending the 1946 Act because the Bill establishes the larger ports as port companies but smaller harbours will continue to function under the 1946 Act. To provide for the ban, it is necessary to amend not only the Bill but also the earlier Act.
Each section of the 1946 Act provides for its own level of fines and penalties It was necessary to include in the section amending the Act a specific penalty. The £1,500 limit is purely for summary convictions. We have no discretion in this matter. In 1937 minor offences were defined as offences for which there are fines of not more than £100. The updated value of this amount is £1,500. If a case were to be taken under the Bill. I envisage that it would be taken by way of indictment rather than summary conviction. For convictions on indictment there are penalties of a £100,000 fine or two years in prison.
The distinction between "may" and "shall" was raised. The word "may" is used in paragraph (1) of the amendment because this refers to ordinary dangerous materials defined in the IMDG code. The harbour master will be able to exercise judgment as to whether or not a particular dangerous material coming into a port is likely to endanger persons or property. Discretion is provided for the harbour master with regard to this list of dangerous goods.
In the case of nuclear materials and nuclear powered vessels there is no discretion. It will be illegal for any ship carrying nuclear materials or which is nuclear powered to enter an Irish port and the harbour master will be required under the Bill to refuse entry to such ships. In exercising their functions under this provision, harbour masters will have available to them the services and technical information of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland in cases where there is doubt. The Bill provides considerable powers to harbour masters to enable them board ships and examine materials.
The practice has been that naval vessels from other countries do not declare whether they are carrying nuclear materials or are powered by nuclear fuel. That is claimed under what is called sovereign immunity where a country's naval or defence forces exercise an exemption from the normal rules which govern civil business. That concept of sovereign immunity is being debated internationally. We are making provision in the Dumping At Sea Bill which will come before this House shortly, to end sovereign immunity in this State. We can use the moral authority that move gives us to seek to end the sovereign immunity concept internationally.
Regarding the transportation of nuclear materials by sea — Senator Kelly asked what happens outside harbours — it is governed by the International Maritime Organisation code, which is known as the code. It is our view that this code is weak. We sought and got agreement some weeks ago at the International Maritime Organisation conference to amend the code. There will be a special meeting of the IMO in March to address the proposals this country put forward in that regard. We are seeking to have amended the rules governing the transportation of nuclear materials, including notice and the issues raised here about the possibilities of accidents.
This country is giving the lead internationally in its efforts to change the rules governing the transportation of nuclear materials. I have no doubt the steps we are taking in our legislation to ban the entry to our ports of ships carrying nuclear materials or those powered by nuclear fuel will greatly strengthen the moral authority this country will have internationally in its efforts to tighten up transportation, which is extremely dangerous. We spend much time talking about nuclear power stations which are located on land, but there are considerable dangers associated with the transportation of nuclear materials on the seas. The potential for catastrophe if an accident, a collision or a terrorist incident should occur is considerable.
Amendment agreed to.
Debate adjourned.