Merchant Shipping (Commissioners of Irish Lights) Bill, 1997: Second Stage.

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

Minister for the Marine (Mr. Barrett)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radio beacons are radio transmitting stations which operate in the low and medium frequency bands and provide ground wave signals from which ships can obtain their bearings by means of direction finding receivers. Racons are radio navigation devices which allow ships' radar to identify the geographic location of the device. Radar target enhancers are devices which automatically transmit a signal in response to an interrogating signal received from ships' radar.

The purpose of these devices is to improve the radar return signal from navigation marks and to improve radar detection of small craft so as to reduce the risk of collision. DGPS improves the accuracy of the satellite global positioning system —GPS — which is a navigation service operated by the United States. The DGPS involves having, at precisely known locations, reference stations which provide real-time corrections to the signals of GPS. Differential corrections are transmitted by radio beacons to any user of the GPS who is near a reference station.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A further provision in the Bill allows the commissioners, for gain or otherwise, to enter into agreements, with the consent of the Minister for the Marine, for the provision of maritime navigation systems and services relating to maritime navigation, safety, distress, wreck location, pollution and related matters on behalf of harbour authorities and other third parties. The need to include this provision arose following legal advice received by the UK Department of Transport which indicated that the maintenance of a third party's buoys is ultra vires the powers of Trinity House, the general lighthouse authority throughout England and Wales. This advice also applies to the Commissioners of Irish Lights with regard to the provision of such services to third parties such as harbour authorities. The commissioners currently maintain in excess of 50 lights and buoys within harbour limits. The Bill validates services provided by the commissioners to harbour authorities to date.

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

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

This Bill is very necessary legislation. As I stated in the Dáil last week, the need for its urgent introduction arose following a letter I recently received from the Chairman of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. He informed me that the commissioners had received legal advice that each commissioner is potentially liable for any claims or expenses arising out of the non-statutory, illegal operation of radio aids to navigation and that they had no option but to notify mariners of the termination of such aids as and from 28 February unless the required legislation was passed or an indemnity was given by the Government. I explained to the commissioners that that is no legislative basis for granting an indemnity as moneys must be voted by the Houses of the Oireachtas. I asked them to bear with me and undertook to introduce the necessary legislation as quickly as possible.

This Bill will, if enacted, update the powers given to the commissioners under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and allow them to continue to provide modern technological aids to navigation to enable ships, fishing vessels and pleasure craft to sail our waters in safety. Before I commend this Bill to the House, I would like to refer to the Loran C long range radio navigation project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since announcing the establishment of this public forum in the Dáil last week the following terms of reference for the forum have been drawn up. First, it is to make arrangements for interested individuals and groups to publicly articulate their views and present supporting evidence, where appropriate, in regard to the proposed Irish Loran C station, with particular reference to the appropriateness of Ireland's involvement in the Loran C project in general; the impact of a Loran C mast on public health and the environment; the selection of an appropriate site for such a mast and any other relevant matters. Second, based on the proceedings outlined above, it is to make an assessment of these issues and report back to the Minister for the Marine as soon as practicable. The membership of the forum is currently being finalised and the necessary administrative arrangements being put in place with a view to having the forum up and running as soon as possible.

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

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I understand that the House wishes to increase the time limit for speakers on this Bill from 20 minutes to 30 minutes. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Daly

This Bill is intended to allow the Commissioners of Irish Lights to continue to provide the navigational assistance which is so essential for the maintenance of maritime safety, reducing the risk of accidents and collisions at sea which often result in widespread pollution and loss of life the safe passage of traffic at sea and the maintenance of a high level of marine safety around the Irish coast.

As an island nation, we are heavily dependent on maritime transport. Maritime traffic is becoming more dense and concentrated and with the rise in economic activity traffic has increased substantially. The Commissioners of Irish Lights have a proud record in the provision of such services. In their unique administrative arrangement and arrangements with the Northern Ireland and UK authorities, they have been successful not only in ensuring safety here but also in the North and the UK and have protected the marine environment for many years.

They must be complimented on their commitment and concern for maritime safety but their involvement in the proposed Loran C radio navigation system has brought them into the courts and into controversy. As a result there has been a negative impact on the good work which the commissioners have undertaken. Unless a speedy resolution to this issue can be found, the commissioners will be drawn into further unhelpful and unfavourable controversy which may damage their good name and reputation.

The Bill is the result of litigation by two farmers in west Clare backed by a huge majority of the local community who oppose the erection of the Loran C navigational mast on the Loop Head peninsula. This resulted in the High Court and Supreme Court decisions in July 1996. As in other areas of Government activity, the powers in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, were not interpreted to include current navigational aids.

The Supreme Court decision in the Loran C case was similar to that given in the Mullaghmore case in that the Supreme Court found that the Commissioners of Public Works did not have the statutory authority to undertake such a venture. However, one difference between this Bill and the Act introduced after the Mullaghmore case was decided is that retrospective legislation was not introduced to cover the three interpretative centres, Mullaghmore, Luggala and the Boyne Valley, which caused controversy at the time. They had to go through the procedures laid down in the new legislation. This Bill is different in that it gives retrospective powers to the Commissioners of Irish Lights. If we pass the Bill in its present from, there will be nothing to stop the commissioners from using this legislation in relation to the Loran C navigational system. I and the people of west Clare are concerned about this.

It is obvious that this legislation is specifically designed to give retrospective cover to the Loran C project. Section 3 gives the Commissioners of Irish Lights power to erect systems, develop roads and purchase land. Subsection (2) states: "The Commissioners shall have, and be deemed always to have had, all such.....powers.....". They did not have these powers before. This provision has been included to remove any legal doubts that might arise should the commissioners proceed to erect this system after the procedures the Minister outlined today have been concluded. There is no other proposal to erect a maritime installation for which such powers are required. However, I am prepared to listen to the Minister's arguments if he can convince me otherwise. This Bill is specifically designed to facilitate the completion of the Loran C project and it gives legislative cover to the existing navigational aids with which we have no difficulty.

I admire the professionalism and expertise of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. However, they should reconsider this project and look at alternative proposals. When I was appointed Minister for the Marine in 1987, I examined the administrative and legal arrangements governing the protection of our marine jurisdiction. I visited the headquarters of the Commissioners of Irish Lights and had useful and informative discussions with them. I had the opportunity to join the commissioners on their light ship when it visited the Shannon estuary. I was impressed with their skills and interest in new technological developments which would help them in the work in which they were involved.

At that time, lighthouses were beginning to be demanned and new technology was replacing systems which had been in place for hundreds of years. The commissioners were acutely aware of the necessity to avail of modern technology to deal with some of the major problems which could arise in the future. There is a continuing necessity to look at alternative systems to Loran C, particularly in light of the demanning of lighthouses, the emergence of drug trafficking along the coastline and the opening up of our fisheries to the Spanish fleet.

I compliment the Minister on the amount of maritime legislation he has introduced since he took office. He has modernised international conventions and introduced new legislative measures to give effect to EU directives. No Department has responded as effectively to the inadequacies of legislation with which we have been saddled for generations as the Department of the Marine. I pay tribute to the Minister and his staff for the work they have done in that regard.

The Loran C navigational system has been overtaken by events and many people feel it is not as effective or accurate as they were led to believe. In light of the controversy which has developed about Loran C and the fact that nothing has happened in the past five years, it is opportune and timely to take another look at alternative systems to meet our requirements. This Bill should exclude the commissioners, the Department or any agency the Government may identify from proceeding with the Loran C navigational system. This Bill would be passed in minutes if we could get the Minister's reassurance in that regard. Following the discussion in the other House, it is clear there will be difficulties with the Loran C radio navigational system. It is a mistake to provide for it in the Bill; it should be specifically excluded from this legislation.

The Supreme Court decision was waiting to happen. Rather than contesting the High Court judgment of October 1995, the commissioners should have been grateful to the Clare farmers and their solicitor, Mr. Michael Nolan, for bringing these proceedings which identified the lack of legislation to deal with these issues. Had it not been for that case and the Supreme Court judgment, which confirmed the High Court decision, a major tragedy could have occurred along the coastline and the commissioners' powers could have been challenged and found to be inadequate. This would have had expensive and far-reaching consequences for the commissioners and the Government. The public owes a great debt of gratitude to the people who challenged the validity of the merchant shipping legislation. These people made stringent efforts to mobilise public support in west Clare against the project which they felt was not adequately researched. They were concerned about its long-term reliability, what it meant for our neutrality and its effect on the environment and on people's health.

On 18 February in the Dáil the Minister put on record extracts from a letter he received from the Chairman of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. It was regrettable that the chairman sent a threatening letter to the Minister for the Marine suggesting that the lights around the coast would be switched off unless legislation was introduced to deal with these matters.

I was a Member of a number of Governments and if such a communication was received by a Minister that chairman would be quickly called to account for his comments. On a number of occasions I observed similar bully boy tactics being used by some of the semi-State bodies in relation to their obligations. Whenever this occurred, the Government quickly pointed out the consequences for these bodies if they persisted with such tactics. Did the Taoiseach see this letter and was the Government aware of it? No Government or Minister for the Marine can give in to threats. I deeply appreciate the work done by the Commissioners of Irish Lights but it is unbecoming for the chairman to behave in this fashion.

If we pass this legislation, which gives sweeping powers to the commissioners, we can expect to see them use similar jackboot tactics on the communities in west Clare or other parts of Ireland. I am not prepared to accept this type of behaviour from the chairman of a body which has an onerous responsibility. The Commissioners of Irish Lights cannot be allowed to dictate policy to the Government.

The Minister was angered by accusations that he had misled the Dáil and the public about the Loran C issue. The Minister is a responsible, straightforward and trustworthy man and I do not accept that he intends to deceive anyone or act in an underhanded manner. However, he is being badly advised by people who would like to see this legislation passed on the back of threats to switch off the lights around the coast. Such an action would create chaos for shipping and that chaos is being threatened in order to achieve the installation of the Loran C system.

It would be preferable if the Loran C system was excluded from this Bill. Another Bill could be introduced if the commissioners remained in favour of this system following the deliberations of the forum. That Bill could outline the terms of reference for the forum. Work could begin following the passage of the Bill giving statutory cover to the existing systems of lights and buoys. This approach would have the advantage of providing a statutory framework for the airing of objections, similar to the planning laws. It must be borne in mind that Clare County Council unanimously rejected the proposal for this system.

The forum announced by the Minister has received no response from the people of west Clare. The vast majority of them, even those willing to entertain the project initially, would like to see the Loran C system sink into the Atlantic off Loop Head. People in Loop Head, the Shannon estuary and west Clare are aware of the importance of safe navigation for the maritime sector. However, they do not want the Loran C system because of health, environmental and other concerns.

The Minister should know that, no matter how democratic or expert his forum may be, the people of Loop Head will accept no recommendation other than the rejection of this proposal. Having rejected this system, it would not be fair or reasonable for the people of west Clare to try to impose it on any other community.

This is an opportune time for the commissioners to examine alternatives. The Minister can assist them in this task. I suggest that he establishes a task force which includes experts on international navigational and safety systems. This task force should examine all possible alternatives and recommend to the Minister of the day a course of action to ensure that the safest and most reliable safety navigation system is in place. When we had difficulties in relation to the provision of a west coast search and rescue service and problems as to how it might be undertaken, bearing in mind the service was being provided by the Air Corps at Baldonnel, a task force was established under the former Commissioner of the Garda Síochána. He reported within six months to the Government and made recommendations which resulted in the setting up of the search and rescue service on the west coast, which has been an outstanding success. Before that decision was made, it is fair to say officials and Ministers did not have a clear view as to how we should proceed. The task force, which included a representative from the European Union, provided much expertise. We could avail of the expertise of a representative from the European Union in the task force I suggest the Minister set up.

I strongly suggest that the Minister exclude the provision for the Loran C system from the Bill. He should set up a task force rather than a forum to discuss Loran C. A task force could draw on international expertise and set down a set of procedures designed to achieve the best possible navigation system, after which we could decide on how they could be implemented.

There has been some criticism of the Loran C system. The Minister will be aware that Decca has served the marine community in many parts of the world for over half a century, and continues to do so. It was anticipated that when the Loran C system would be put in place the Decca system would remain and both would operate simultaneously. I, the Minister or his Department do not have the expertise to decide on these matters. He should not rely totally on the advice from the Commissioners of Irish Lights, although it has expertise. It is necessary to look at international developments in this area. The Minister has the best interests of maritime navigational safety at heart.

There was some discussion about the GPS system, the US global positioning system. As far as I recall when thre was discussion in 1992 about an agreement to which I will refer, it was anticipated that the GPS system would be available for civilian use in 1993. Perhaps the Minister will indicate the position because the US GPS civilian system was supposed to be in place two years ago. However, this system has been criticised because the US can decide when to turn it on and off. Five or six years ago, moves were being made by the international community which was working on a system known as GNSS, a global satellite positioning system. It was anticipated as a replacement for all the older system and would be a more sophisticated global satellite positioning system.

When discussing safety, drug trafficking, navigation or the surveillance of the fishing fleet, I recall the Minister said he would utilise the services of GPS, GNSS or perhaps a combination of the two systems. In the light of that statement, is it advisable to proceed with the Loran C system five years after the initial agreement was made in Oslo? Nothing happened in the past five years and given the way we are proceeding, nothing will happen over the next five years. This brings me to the original agreement which was signed in Oslo on 6 August 1992.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

By Deirdre O'Connor of the Department of the Marine.

Mr. Daly

The Senator may deal with these issues when she is Minister for the Marine, but she will have to wait a while.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

We will see.

Mr. Daly

There is a clause in article 18 of the Loran C agreement for a denuciation of it by any of the contracting parties. In approximately five years the Government may go to the parties to the agreement and say it no longer wants to be part of it. That is an option for the Minister.

The Minister was sensitive in the Dáil about being unfairly criticised, and I sympathise with him as I also suffered as regards this issue. He has documentation at his disposal which indicates that I had no hand, act or part in the location of sites. I am responsible in that I, along with Senator Taylor-Quinn, was a Member of the Dáil when this agreement was unanimously ratified. However, events have overtaken that agreement and circumstances have changed. The Minister is as aware as I that it is not possible to proceed with this proposal and should exclude it by tabling an amendment which we would support and would result in the Bill being passed in minutes.

At a meeting between Deputy Bertie Ahern and those objecting to the proposal, I saw a woman of over 70 years of age who had lived in the area all her life being moved to tears of despair at the prospect of this going ahead. We should not decide on such issues on the basis of sentiment or emotion. However, those in the locality of Loop Head believe this mast is an unnecessary development. A large number of people are in despair at the prospect of this development going ahead. The Minister would give all politicians a vote of confidence if he respected the views of locals by excluding this proposal.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

This Bill is before the House because the people of west Clare took High Court action concerning the powers of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to build radio navigation systems. That was appealed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights to the Supreme Court which held that the Commissioners of Irish Lights do not have the power to erect radio navigational aids because it was not on the minds of legislators when the 1894 Act was passed. That was a wise decision.

The Minister has been advised by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that if it is to continue to provide radio navigational aids around the coast it would be acting ultra vires and could be liable in the event of an accident. I sympathise with the Minister who was obliged to introduce legislation to regularise laws governing navigational aids around the coast. It is important that a proper radio navigation system is in place, as it has been for many years, to ensure safety at sea for personnel on commercial, fishing or pleasure craft. It is extremely important that the system is properly maintained at all times.

People in County Clare have always had a good relationship with the Commissioners of Irish Lights. The commissioners give employment to many families in Clare, particularly west Clare, and that has been appreciated for many years. It is unfortunate that in recent times that relationship has deteriorated rapidly. It is important to examine why that has occurred. The primary reason for the deterioration is that the Minister and Department of the Marine employed the Commissioners of Irish Lights to act as its agent for the erection of a Loran C mast on the Loop Head peninsula. It is important that this House has, for the first time, an opportunity to openly and properly discuss this issue.

On 6 August 1992, the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats Government concluded an international agreement. The agreement, 27 pages long, was very detailed and was not concocted in a few months. Extensive preliminary negotiations obviously preceded its finalisation. It was signed on behalf of the Irish Government by Deirdre O'Connor of the Department of the Marine. The parties to the agreement were the Governments of Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands and Norway. The objectives of the agreement were, under Article 2:

The Main Parties shall provide, maintain and operate the facilities listed in Annex A (hereinafter referred to as "the facilities") as the basis for the LORAN C System described in Annex C, save that the facilities so listed and described at Ejde shall be provided, maintained and operated by Denmark. The Parties shall finance the facilities in accordance with the cost sharing arrangements set out in Annex B and the accounting procedures set out in Annex D.

The reason for this agreement was that the United States indicated that it would no longer use the Loran C system in Europe and that it was prepared to hand over its stations and systems to the countries in which their operations were located. Discussions were undertaken between those countries and Ireland, where no such facilities existed. Under Article 2 of the agreement:

2. Each Party shall be responsible for obtaining the required frequency clearances for its respective areas of responsibility and, in cooperation with relevant national authorities and international organisations, shall seek to reduce interference at these frequencies.

3. In accordance with overall policy provisions and common technical standards laid down from time to time by the Steering Committee established by Article 3, each of the Parties shall arrange for the provision or modification (as necessary), and the maintenance and operation of any of the facilities located in their territory; and the Parties shall endeavour to ensure the continuous operational availability of the facilities and to make good with all speed any damage to or destruction of the facilities.

Article 3 of the agreement deals with the administrative organisation which provides for a steering committee and a co-ordinating agency. Article 4 deals with the functions of the steering committee. The steering committee has the following functions:

(a) to determine the overall policy direction for the implementation and operation of the LORAN C system provided for in this Agreement;

(b) to determine the rules of procedure of the Coordinating Agency;

(d) to take decisions on all budgetary and other financial matters related to the implementation of this Agreement based on proposals made by the Coordinating Agency;

(e) to take decisions on all other proposals made by the Coordinating Agency relevant to the maintenance and operation of the facilities; and

(f) to take decisions on proposals made by the Coordinating Agency with regard to the monitoring, operation and control of the chains.

(2) In carrying out its functions the Steering Committee shall have regard to the national laws and regulations of the Parties.

The agreement goes on to deal with the co-ordinating agency and describes its powers. That agency is obliged to set up a project management team. A further article deals with exchange of information on developments with regard to technical equipment, antennae, buildings, power, maintenance, spare parts, procedures, monitoring, expenditure and any matter deemed necessary by the steering committee.

The agreement was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in October 1992 and its approval was passed by the Dáil on 8 October 1992. The extent of its coverage in the Dáil was one paragraph in the Official Report. The Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Deputy Gallagher, moved the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the International Agreement concerning the Establishment and Operation of a Civil LORAN C Navigation System in North West Europe and the North Atlantic in accordance with Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution, copies of which Agreement were laid before the Dáil on 24th July, 1992.

The motion was put and agreed to and the Dáil went on to deal with other business. The matter was rushed through the Dáil without anybody knowing what was involved.

In the meantime, an equally hush-hush operation was taking place in west Clare. There were whisperings but nobody could get information. There were rumours and counter-rumours about attempts to purchase land and moneys being put on options on land in the Loop Head peninsula. However, it was difficult to find out exactly what was happening. The truth only emerged much later. All this activity was taking place long before 1992. The agreement, which is extensive and goes into fine detail, was being discussed for a number of years in advance of its conclusion, but that was all hush-hush. Why? The Minister must answer that question. It is unfair that he is in such a position because he had nothing to do with the agreement. However, his hands are tied by the actions of a previous Government which entered into an international agreement and made a specific commitment to fulfilling it. Ireland is bound by the agreement. Not only did the previous Government do that, it employed an agent, the Commissioners of Irish Lights, to implement the agreement. Now we must deal with that issue.

The Loran C system was agreed and put into place without any legislation being put before the Oireachtas. It was put before the House and a motion was agreed to. What must be done to get rid of it? Does the Minister have to refer back to the other signatories to get out of it, or are he and his Department bound by Article 18? That is the denunciation article in the agreement. It states:

After the expiry of ten years from the date of entry into force of this Agreement, any Party may denounce the Agreement within the first six months of the eleventh year.

The agreement was signed on 6 August 1992. Does that mean that any time after February, 2003, the Minister may denounce the agreement? The article continues:

2. Any party which has not given notice of denunciation in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall remain bound by the provisions of this Agreement for further consecutive periods of seven years following the expiry of the first ten year period. Such a Party may denounce this Agreement within a period of six months immediately following the expiry of the current seven year period. Such denunciation, which shall be made by notice in writing to the Depositary, shall take effect at the end of the year following the year in which the said notice has been received by the Depositary, or at such later date as may be specified in the notice.

3. Any Party having given notice of denunciation shall remain liable for any commitment undertaken under, and any obligation arising from, this Agreement until such time as its notice of denunciation takes effect. Such Party shall, in particular, remain liable for rendering its contribution under the cost-sharing arrangements set out in Annex B to this Agreement.

4. The Depositary shall, in addition to informing the other Parties in accordance with Article 21 of any notice of denunciation, also inform the Coordinating Agency. On being so informed the Coordinating Agency shall as soon as may be draw up a proposal for amending the cost-sharing arrangements, which shall be submitted to the Steering Committee for decision.

The Minister for the Marine should examine article 18. He should seek legal advice on the denunciation issue to find out if he is fully legally bound by the agreement until 2003 or if his Department can enter negotiations with the parties concerned prior to that year. Nothing other than a withdrawal from this international agreement will resolve the problem.

The people of Clare are very concerned about this problem and have highlighted their concerns whenever possible. The people have taken the matter to the courts on two fronts — the powers of the Commissioners for Irish Lights and the planning laws. The issues needs to be addressed quickly.

The Minister finds himself in a situation created by a previous Government. It is interesting to hear Senator Daly speak on the matter. One would have thought that he was at a great remove from the matter as an ordinary member of Fianna Fáil from Clare, when in fact he was a Minister of State in the Government which signed the convention. One would think he was thousands of miles from Clare when the "hush-hush" discussions took place about the acquisition of land. I would be interested to know why and how the specific land areas on Loop Head were chosen. There were about 40 sites examined and it is curious that the particular site chosen was finally decided upon. Why were land areas a mile or so on either side not chosen? I hope such issues will come to light at a later date.

The Minister has listened over the past few weeks to the concerns I have highlighted on behalf of the people of west Clare and he has responded positively. A central feature of this affair has been the quick and secretive way in which the matter was dealt with — the Houses of the Oireachtas and the people of west Clare did not have an opportunity to debate it. The people of the area were ignorant of what was happening and knew nothing of the Loran C system. Most of us do not have a technical expertise in the matter. The issue was not dealt with in a democratic manner, but in a secretive manner in the hope of getting away with it. However, that will not happen. The persistence and determination of the people of west Clare will help them to fight on. As far as we are concerned the Loran C mast will not be built on Loop Head. The Commissioners for Irish Lights should get that message and if the Loran C system is to proceed they should look elsewhere.

The Minister has responded positively by introducing an element of democracy to the debate. He has agreed to set up a forum to listen to the views of the people. It is in the interest of the people of west Clare that the forum is seen to be independent. It should not have any ties with the Commissioners for Irish Lights. I hope the Minister can assure us of the independence of the forum. In addition, it is important that the forum would meet in County Clare so that the people of the area are not put to any further expense or trouble in articulating their views. The forum should be available to the people and be seen to work for the people. It should not be just another arm of bureaucracy.

Democracy should be by, for and of the people. On this issue the debate has not been for the people. The Minister has introduced this aspect of democracy by proposing to establish the forum. We thank the Minister for this development. The people will have an opportunity at the forum to highlight their concerns on the appropriateness of Ireland involving itself in the Loran C system. We have heard details of GPS and other systems and how the Loran C system is becoming obsolete. The US will close down its Loran C system by 2000 and will depend on the GPS system. The Loran C system could be replaced on a worldwide basis by a combination of the GPS and the Decca systems which could be used in conjunction with the local area augmentation system.

The European Union should examine that possibility because there is increasing evidence that the GPS system is becoming more accurate. In the initial discussion on Loran C fears were expressed about the danger that since the Americans controlled it they could cut if off at various intervals. That was evident during the Gulf War. Seven or eight months ago we received assurances from the Americans that they will no longer interrupt the GPS system, so we can rely on it. We must examine a combination of other systems in the course of this debate. Hopefully, constructive proposals will emerge that will forever deem the Loran C system unnecessary and inappropriate.

The forum will also afford people an opportunity to outline their concerns about the effects and impact of the Loran C mast on public health. They have already done this in numerous fora, including the planning appeal process and various court hearings. The case has been well put by the people of West Clare.

The forum will also afford us all an opportunity of highlighting our concerns about the effect of the mast on the environment in general. The Minister may not be aware that a portion of the Loop Head area has been classified as an NHA and it is possible that portion of it will also be classified as an SAC. If that is so, there is no way to proceed with any mast, apparatus or construction that would be foreign to the environment of the Loop Head peninsula. That fundamental issue is emerging now and will definitely prevent the Loran C mast going ahead.

The final opportunity afforded under this forum will be to discuss the issue of selecting an appropriate site. From that discussion it will emerge that Loop Head is not an appropriate site. The Minister should remember that the mast is nothing more than a monstrosity; we are talking about a massive steel erection higher than the Eiffel Tower. Quite frankly, that is not on and both the Minister and Irish Lights know that.

Mr. O'Toole

I think the Senator is going to vote against it.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

We will enter into that discussion another day because Senator O'Toole is obviously not sufficiently familiar with the fine detail of what is involved.

Mr. O'Toole

The Senator will sit and listen, and I will defend the people of Clare with my vote.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The Senator has certainly been enlightened.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Taylor-Quinn should not invite interruptions. Senator Taylor-Quinn without interruption, please.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I am not inviting them.

Mr. O'Toole

Just vote against it. It is very easy, just cross the floor and vote against it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Do you not know, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, there is a general election coming?

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

On a point of clarification, the interruptions were uninvited.

The people of the area will make full use of this important forum. The net result of this is that the entire Loran C system is up for public debate. For the first time people will be afforded a structured way in which to air their views and concerns. In the event of it being decided to proceed with the Loran C system the entire issue of site selection will be discussed and all 40 sites that were examined previously can be re-examined. This is a positive step and I thank the Minister for agreeing to establish the forum. He should take note of the concerns that exist about the independence of the forum which will be fundamental to its success. People will now have an opportunity of preventing the Loran C mast from being built at Loop Head and even preventing the system entirely from being used elsewhere. I hope people will avail fully of the opportunity that is being afforded to them.

As a result of the discussions I have had with the Minister, he has directed the Commissioners of Irish Lights not to build anything in Clare or elsewhere until all discussions have taken place, the forum has examined the situation comprehensively and has reported its findings. I thank the Minister for agreeing to do that. It was a wise decision. The Minister has also directed Irish Lights to seek planning permission in the event of a decision to proceed with the Loran C system. However, in the view of the experts, this system is not required.

The Bill is necessary to legalise the situation and allow the Commissioners of Irish Lights to continue to provide the radio navigation aids which are already in place. The Bill does not relate specifically to Loran C, but to the navigation system in general. Before the Committee and Final Stages, perhaps the Minister can seek legal opinion as to the full effects of this agreement. What do we have to do to get out of this system? Can we sign out of this international agreement? Can we enter negotiations to sign out of an agreement which was entered into years ago by a previous Administration, or are we bound by the denunciation clause in Article 18 until the year 2003? The position of the agreement in national and international law is fundamental to the issue which centres on this question. I hope the Minister can respond to that concern.

Overall the Bill is necessary and the Minister had no choice but to bring it before the House. The Minister is bound by international agreements that were drawn up by previous Administrations long before he assumed office. I sympathise with his position. As a people we have always dealt with national and international business in an honourable manner. I have no doubt that if we are to break an international agreement we will have to do so legally. That is why I want the Minister to elaborate on the situation relating to the denunciation clause in Article 18.

Mr. O'Toole

Both Senator Fitzgerald and I were raised within a few hundred yards of the Atlantic, so the Minister's passing reference to the inhospitable coastline is a bit upsetting to those of us who live or lived there. I find it quite hospitable. The Minister's remark might give the wrong impression to those from the east coast who tend to come down regularly to that hospitable part of the country. I am sure the Minister did not mean that, but I wanted to draw it to his attention.

I have a deep, long-lasting and abiding love of that part of west Clare around Loop Head. One of my earliest memories of holidays was as a three or four year old child being taken to Loop Head and shown the moveable altar used during the era of the Penal Laws. I am sure it is still there. That part of Ireland is special to many people. It is important for politicians to recognise that the needs of small groups of people in rural areas are as important as those in the centre of a great metropolis. That comes through in Irish life time and time again. I made the point in the House yesterday and again this morning that if the floods in north Clare and south Galway were happening in Donnybrook, a Government commission would be investigating the problem. People in the west are supposed to put up with this hardship for the sake of the rest of us. We should show interest and concern in their affairs and needs.

I recognise the pressure the Minister is under in introducing this legislation and the legalities which make it imperative. I am not an expert, although I do not have a boat, but I think this area is of crucial importance to general safety.

When listening to the Minister's speech I was struck by the strange position of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. One of the junkets attaching to the honourable role of Lord Mayor of Dublin was an annual tour of the lighthouses and light ships. It was considered the greatest gourmet experience of all time and it was said that people sought the position of Lord Mayor in order to part take in these outings. It is an anachronism that the Lord Mayor of Dublin plays such an important role in this area, particularly when responsibilities of the Commissioners of Irish Lights concern the inhospitable coasts, which rarely includes the east coast. I am not impressed simply by longevity, whether it is the rules that established Trinity College or the Commissioners of Irish Lights. If it was right 200 years ago is it not time we started changing it? Perhaps the Minister will examine this issue en passant.

I recognise the need to introduce this legislation. I read it very carefully to see how a position can be arrived at which will protect the legitimate views of people in west Clare and the legislative demands on the Minister. I would be most uncomfortable voting against this Bill. If I were to do so, another piece of legislation would have to be brought forward to regularise the position. I will be seeking ways of amending the legislation to ensure that the Loran C issue is dealt with and will table an amendment along the following lines:

Notwithstanding any powers or provisions conferred on the commissioners or the Minister by this Act, nothing in it shall be used to give effect to the operation of a Loran C radio navigation system.

This provides an easier way forward than the complicated system of public hearings and I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to it. I hope my amendment will receive the support of Members.

I am worried that the Commissioners of Irish Lights can place the Minister in a situation which necessitates him bringing forward urgent legislation. There is something deeply wrong in the relationship which allows this to happen. Will the Minister explain how their previous powers were interpreted to allow them do something patently outside their remit? Despite what Senator Taylor-Quinn says about my knowledge in the area, there seems to be some incompatibility between the Minister's interpretation of the Supreme Court decision and the interpretation of other legal professionals who feel it is only focused on a narrow area of what their powers may or may not be. The Minister seems to be taking a broader view. He did not say what legal advice he had taken in order to establish the exact meaning of the Supreme Court decision. Is the Minister saying that all issues being brought forward by means of enabling legislation are necessary? I would like the legality of this spelt out.

I fully agree with the Minister's view that safety at sea is paramount. Search and rescue was raised on this morning's Order of Business. It is discussed regularly whenever there are problems at sea or a boat missing. Those of us brought up in fishing ports know what it is like when one of the fleet does not return and the manner in which a whole community is galvanised into action. The idea that the Commissioners of Irish Lights were going to turn out the lights all around the coast on the basis that they did not have authority to keep them on smacks of irresponsible behaviour. People should resign their jobs before they turn off all the navigation systems. Who is going to be responsible for loss of life? Negligence can be by commission or omission and any court would consider it negligent of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to turn off the navigation system on the basis of legal interpretation. They would be negligent if by turning them off they created a danger to life at sea. Would the Minister be held responsible for their negligence? If the Commissioners of Irish Lights can take a decision like this which will cost the taxpayer money, then we need to know. It is another reason for examining the present legislation.

There are a number of unanswered questions about the Loran C proposal. I have read about and tried to understand this issue and I am unhappy with a number of aspects. Two things concern me as a citizen and as an elected public representative. I have a letter from the Department of the Marine to the chief executive of the Commissioners of Irish Lights dated July 1988. The letter raises two fundamental questions, one constitutional the other legal. I am not playing politics in raising this — both sides of the House can argue whether it was Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or a Coalition Government that was responsible. I believe it is a question the Minister would want to have answered.

In this letter from the Department to the chief executive of the Commissioners of Irish Lights in July 1988, two questions are asked. First, would our participation infringe on our policy of military neutrality given that control of the Southern chain would be in the hands of the French Navy? This question was asked nine years ago, It is a constitutional question asked of the Commissioners of Irish Lights by a diligent civil servant on behalf of the Department of the Marine. It is a constitutional question of some moment and it becomes more important in the light of the global anger towards the French authorities' nuclear testing in recent years. It needs to be answered.

The second question which is more relevant to this legislation is legal: does our participation in Loran C require special legislation or Dáil approval? Are the Commissioners of Irish Lights empowered to construct and operate the Irish station? If that question was asked by the Department in 1988, who answered it? If the matter was drawn to the attention of the Commissioners of Irish Lights nine years ago and they were made aware of that query, what did they do about it? Did they advise the Department further? Why is the Minister now being forced into legislation when this information was lying around nine years ago? There is something wrong there, perhaps there is a simple explanation. I do not pretend to know of any explanation but I will not let the issue pass. The Minister is entitled to that information, as would any Minister for the Marine since 1988. This is something into which the Minister should look.

In his response, I would like him to deal with the constitutional and legal issues raised nine years ago by his Department with the Commissioners of Irish Lights asking them to look into the matter. They must have done so. I want to know what happened from the time they were asked that question until the time they wrote to him last year saying they were going to turn off the lights of the navigation system. Somebody should be held answerable for the decisions taken, or not taken, along the way. Somebody must find out whether the letter from the Department of the Marine was ignored. If the matter had been dealt with then, this kind of emergency legislation would not be necessary. I congratulate the civil servant who raised that issue; whoever it was had a very clear understanding of the issues. The letter was written following a meeting in Reykjavik where the construction costs of Loran C was discussed.

If for no other reason, the involvement of the French military authorities would be sufficient for me to oppose Irish participation in a joint project which has the potential to become involved in warfare and the other activities of the French Navy in various parts of the world. I do not want to be part of that and neither does the Minister.

I have listened to the Minister's comments on the legislation. They are well weighted and I have no difficulty with what he is saying in terms of explanation. One of the things happening in this House in recent times is that Ministers come in here, look around and count both sides of the House. They make judgements to cater to the numbers present. I would like to know what the Minister thinks of Loran C, not what the Government thinks, not what the Department thinks. When he has heard all the debate, I want him to stand up and say "I am the Minister and this is what I think. I am going back to my Department and this is what I am going to say". Of course, the Minister must take advice and make a decision based on that advice. In his well crafted speech, he has very carefully avoided giving any argument in favour of Loran C. In fairness to the Minister, I think it is important that I point that out. In fairness to himself, the Minister should not have any doubts about being up front in his views. If, at the end of the day, we all have to change our minds, then we should be prepared to do so if better evidence is presented. Such evidence is not available at the moment. Far too many questions remain to be answered.

I am not going to deal with the health debate about masts and so on; I do not understand it and I am sceptical about the whole issue. Whenever a mast is erected, there is a queue of people saying it is detrimental to public health. This may well be the case, but I am leaving that argument aside. However, I do have a view on the technical nature of the mast construction.

From my days in the FCA and a course I did on radio, I recall that — whether one is talking about long wave, short wave or the modern variations of same —land-based radio systems can never match satellite systems. I know that and the Minister knows that. For the simple reason line of sight becomes important to radio waves and land intervention can also be a problem in terms of broadcasting. I believe the Loran C system is a generation behind; it is a generation too late.

The Decca system, with which we are all familiar works and we understand it. The global positioning system — GPS — is, I believe, the next best system and it is far cheaper than the Loran C system. The global satellite navigational system has also been looked at and refined in North America and Canada; it is the preferred option for the future by some of the main maritime nations. I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about this. My understanding is that Canada, the US, the UK, Norway and others favour this system as the way forward. I feel it is. I do not know why we are erecting masts at all.

To digress for a moment; the row about ESAT Digifone is a joke because the system could be achieved for half the price via satellite. We will no sooner have a second digital phone system than we will be selling a satellite phone system in a couple of years. Such a system exists already. Many boats use satellite phones which cost in the region of £5,000. The Loran C seems to be a far more and needlessly expensive option than the satellites or GPS.

It has been made clear by fishermen's associations that the transfer of information from Decca to Loran C cannot be technically streamed and would be difficult to achieve. That transfer of information is crucial. Having grown up in a fishing port when the transition was made from the folklore of fishing to new fishing technology, the best fishermen to my mind were the local fishermen in Dingle who knew where every wreck and submerged rock was located and where the shoals were likely to be. They had received that information through word of mouth and linked it into the technology. These were successful fishermen. We are now faced with a situation where there is no technical marriage of information between the proposed Loran C and the existing Decca system. The location of every hazard will effectively have to be transferred by the fishermen. This will cause problems and give rise to inaccuracies and the cost of equiping boats would be in the region of £4,000 or £5,000. This is unnecessary.

The Minister should look at going straight on, or phasing in, to satellite. Has he the authority to direct the Commissioners of Irish Lights in a certain direction? Has he the authority to ask the commissioners not to proceed with this project or to direct them not to do so? Has he the authority to withhold funding? I would like an answer to those question. I would like to know the extent of the Minister's authority in this area.

I understand that the Irish Fishermen's Organisation and Euro Peche — which I presume means fishermen — are not in favour of Loran C. If the fishing community and the people of west Clare are opposed to it, why are we proceeding with it? Who wants it? I ask the Government and the Minister to separate and distance themselves from the Commissioners of Irish Lights on this issue. I also ask the Minister to forget about the public forum and to accept my amendment which states, "Notwithstanding the powers and provisions conferred on the Commissioners or the Minister by the Act, nothing in it should be used to give effect to the operation of a Loran C navigation system".

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 27 Feb 1997