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

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

Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Dr. Woods)

Senators will probably be aware that this Bill was passed by Dáil Éireann on 18 February last and was subsequently introduced in Seanad Éireann. Second Stage was not completed on that occasion, however, and the Bill subsequently lapsed as it did not return to the House before the Seanad General Election in August. Senator O'Toole was in possession at the time, which was 1 p.m. on 27 February — I understand there has been discussion on this point. This Bill is important because of the urgent need to provide a statutory basis for the existing radio navigational aids which are currently operated by the Commissioners of Irish Lights. These are essential to ensure the safety of vessels and their passengers and crews at sea.

The need for this Bill arose from a legal challenge to the Commissioners of Irish Lights' powers to proceed with the erection and operation of a Loran C radio navigation system at Loop Head, County Clare. These proceedings culminated in a Supreme Court decision to the effect that the powers given to the commissioners under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 could not be interpreted to cover the proposed Loran C radio mast and, by implication, the existing radio-based aids to marine navigation which are currently provided by the commissioners. Given that all modern navigation systems are based on the transmission and reception of radio waves, it is essential that the lacuna in the commissioners' legal powers in respect of the provision of radio aids is rectified. This is the primary purpose of this Bill, which also makes further necessary provision in relation to the functions of the commissioners. The overall aim of the legislation is to ensure that the activities of the commissioners, which are essential to safe maritime navigation around our shores, are carried out within a secure legislative framework.

I understand that when this Bill was first introduced in this House on 27 February there was general support for its objective of remedying the legislative deficiency uncovered by the courts in relation to the current operation by the commissioners of radio aids in general. There was, however, considerable disquiet that the passing of the legislation as introduced would empower the commissioners to proceed with the Loran C long range navigation project. Before dealing with the Bill, I would like to outline the manner in which I propose to address this particular issue and the concerns previously voiced in this House.

Senators will be aware that Ireland is committed, by way of an international agreement approved by Dáil Éireann on 8 October 1992, to the provision of a Loran C radio mast and ancillary facilities in the west of Ireland as an integral part of a north-west European Loran C system.

Norway, the Netherlands, France, Denmark and Germany are our partners in the agreement, the purpose of which is to ensure the availability of an independent land based civilian system as an alternative to the United States military satellite Global Positioning System. The availability of this complementary land based system was seen to significantly improve the safety of navigation and protection of the marine environment in north-west European waters.

The proposed site at Loop Head, County Clare, was chosen following a detailed site selection study 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. On 4 November 1994 the commissioners obtained planning permission, on appeal to An Bord Pleanála, to erect the Loran C mast at Loop Head. The planning appeal took the form of a nine day oral hearing held in Ennis and the resultant permission was subject to a number of conditions, some of which were in the interests of public health and safety. The House will be aware the commissioners have been unable to proceed with the project over the last three years due to protracted legal proceedings. In addition to the litigation concerning the commissioners' legal powers, the scope of the powers under which An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission for the development has been challenged and a Supreme Court appeal has been lodged in this regard.

I am aware concerns have been expressed that the Loran C system poses a threat to health and represents a damaging environmental intrusion. I am also aware it may be considered to be already obsolete. The physical appearance and visual impact of the proposed radio mast has been the subject of particular attention in the media. I recently took the opportunity to go and see a Loran C mast at first hand. I visited the nearest mast in the Loran C chain, which is located at Lessay in north-west France and is of the same dimensions as the one proposed for Loop Head. I was anxious to familiarise myself with such an installation prior to addressing public concerns on the issue.

I mentioned earlier that the provision of a Loran C mast in the west of Ireland arises out of a solemn commitment by the Government and endorsed by Dáil Éireann in the context of a formal international agreement. That being said, I fully recognise that there are concerns about this project, particularly in relation to its siting at Loop Head.

I, therefore, wish to inform the House that I will carry out a fundamental review of the project. To that end, I intend to engage in a process of wide-ranging and extensive consultation involving interested parties, with a view to ensuring that all the relevant issues and information on this project are brought to my attention and into the open. I assure the House that this consultative process will allow for all issues to be aired comprehensively, authoritatively and openly. I am also most keen that I remain personally involved.

I intend, as part of the wide ranging consultation I envisage, that expert opinion on radio navigation and maritime safety in general be obtained. The Commissioners of Irish Lights have expertise in this field and I will be seeking their advice concerning current navigational technology. I am also interested in hearing the expert opinion of international authoritative bodies responsible for worldwide navigation, such as the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities and the International Maritime Organisation. The advice of the EU Commission will also be solicited. These consultations will attempt to elicit the international view on current needs in the maritime safety area, medium to long-term developments and requirements in the area of radio based navigational aids and, especially in that context, the case for a land based complement to support a spacebased system. The views and concerns of the people of the Kilbaha area in Loop Head, and people in general concerned with such installations, will be given no less a hearing. The local people are, after all, those most affected by the proposed Loran C development. To facilitate them in voicing their views, I propose to visit the area and meet with the local people and public representatives.

I also wish to inform the House that I have directed that no further work on the Loran C project should occur pending the consultations I have outlined. To put this direction on a firm legislative footing I have decided to table a significant amendment on Committee Stage. The terms of the proposed amendment require that the powers conferred on the commissioners under section 3 — to develop and operate radio and navigation systems — cannot be activated in respect of the Loran C system unless an appropriate order is made by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. Most importantly, the proposed amendment also provides that any draft ministerial order made in this regard must be approved by each House of the Oireachtas. This will ensure that, in effect, the project will not proceed unless further legislation is adopted by the Dáil and the Seanad. Thus, Deputies and Senators will have an opportunity to debate and decide on any proposal which the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources might bring forward in the future to empower the commissioners to proceed with the Loran C project.

The amendment is designed to facilitate the Bill's passage into law as early as possible in order to legally authorise the Commissioners of Irish Lights to operate and maintain existing radio navigation aids. It will also provide reassurance to all those wishing to be involved in the consultation process and allow them to contribute fully in the knowledge that the Loran C project cannot progress without the approval of both the Dáil and the Seanad.

When the Bill was first introduced in this House certain Senators expressed the intention of tabling an amendment the effect of which would be to remove definitively from the new powers of the commissioners legislative authority to erect a Loran C mast. The Attorney General's Office has since advised that to purport to exclude the Loran C system from the scope of the powers conferred on the commissioners to develop and operate radio and navigation systems could be interpreted to be at variance with our obligations under the International Agreement on Loran C which Ireland entered into in good faith. Furthermore, the Department of Foreign Affairs has advised that a legislative amendment along these lines could damage our international standing.

I trust the House will appreciate that I could not accept a legislative proposal which could be detrimental to our international reputation and have other potentially serious consequences. That being said, I reiterate that the mechanism I intend to adopt in my proposed amendment will have the effect of ensuring that this House and Dáil Éireann will determine finally how the Loran C project is to be dealt with having regard to international obligations.

I understand that when the Bill was last before the House Senators raised important questions on Article 18 of the International Agreement, which deals with denunciation. It would be useful to clarify the position in this regard. Article 18 provides that after the expiry of ten years from the date of entry into force of the agreement, any party may denounce the agreement within the first six months of the eleventh year. It further provides that such denunciation shall take effect at the end of the following year.

While the agreement was signed on 6 August 1992, I am advised that it did not actually enter into force until 2 April 1994, following ratification by the last State party, the Netherlands. This means it would not be possible for any party to denounce the agreement until April 2004 and this would not have effect until the end of 2005. Both the Attorney General's Office and the Department of Foreign Affairs have advised that withdrawal from the agreement before that date could only realistically be effected with the consent of our partners in the agreement. This would obviously be a very serious step which would involve protracted negotiations.

In conclusion, the combination of my proposed amendment to the Bill and the consultation process in relation to Loran C will have a twofold effect. First, it will enable the hiatus in the commissioners' legal framework to be speedily addressed. This is important to people at sea. Second, it will ensure that no action can or will be taken in relation to the Loran C project pending comprehensive consultations on all the issues involved and that informed decisions can be taken on foot of these consultations by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources and, ultimately, by each House of the Oireachtas as to the future of the project. This approach, which involves any future amendment coming before both Houses of the Oireachtas for debate, will meet the concerns of all interests to the greatest possible extent.

I will deal with the main provisions in the Bill but before doing so, I wish to outline the statutory background of the Commissioners of Irish Lights and elaborate on their current legal position. The activities of the commissioners have their legal origin in an Act passed by the Irish Parliament in 1786 and their current constitution is effectively the same as provided for in that Act. The Commissioners of Irish Lights started out as a "corporation for preserving and improving Dublin Port" and did not acquire their present title until 1867 when the Dublin Port Act established them as a separate entity from the Dublin Port and Docks Board. The Irish Lights Commissioners (Adaptation) Order, 1935, legitimised the functions of the commissioners in the Irish State.

The source of the current powers of the commissioners is the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act. This Act vests the superintendence and management of all lighthouses, buoys and beacons in Britain and Ireland in three general lighthouse authorities. The Commissioners of Irish Lights is the general lighthouse authority responsible for providing and maintaining aids to navigation throughout Ireland and its adjacent seas and islands. The fact that their remit covers the 32 counties of Ireland makes the commissioners a unique body. Trinity House is the lighthouse authority responsible for England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar, and the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses serve Scotland and the Isle of Man. The special nature of the commissioners as a statutory body carrying out its essential functions on an all Ireland basis render it particularly important that we work to ensure that it has an appropriate and modern legislative base for its operations.

The 1894 Act empowers the Commissioners of Irish Lights to erect or place any lighthouse, buoy or beacon and allows them to purchase any land which may be necessary for the exercise of their powers. It also vests in the commissioners the overall control of local lighthouses, buoys or beacons provided by individual harbour authorities. Under the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Wreck) Act, 1993, the commissioners also have powers in relation to the marking and removal of wrecks which are a danger to navigation.

The courts have taken a particular view of the commissioners' powers under the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act. In October 1995 the High Court held that these powers must be defined by reference to precise equipment, that is, lighthouses, buoys and beacons and not by reference to navigational aids in general terms. The court ruled that the definitions of "lighthouse" and "beacons" in the 1894 Act could not be interpreted to include aids to navigation designed to facilitate the transmission of electro-magnetic waves or pulses as such aids were unknown at that time. The subsequent Supreme Court majority judgment delivered in July 1996 held that the proposed Loran C mast is not a beacon within the meaning of the 1894 Act by virtue of two factors: first, because of its extremely long range, and, second, because it provides aid to navigation based on the transmission and reception of radio signals rather than by visual or aural means.

The decision by the courts to effectively restrict the scope of the legislative power in relation to beacons to what was comprehended in 1894 casts serious doubts on the vires of even the most basic radio navigation aids operated by the commissioners. The Attorney General's Office, therefore, advised that there was a need for this Bill to modernise the commissioners' powers to ensure that they can continue to provide valuable radio aids in the interest of maritime safety.

Senators may be aware that the commissioners have voiced considerable and justified concern about the position in which they have found themselves. They have indicated that their legal advice suggests that each commissioner is potentially liable for any claims or expenses arising out of the current operation of radio aids to navigation. This advice placed the commissioners in a serious predicament, so much so that their chairman indicated that they had no option but to terminate the provision of such aids unless the required legislation was passed. The commissioners subsequently agreed, however, not to proceed with this course of action on the understanding that the necessary legislation would be introduced as quickly as possible.

It is important not to underestimate the role of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. They are charged under the law with responsibility to take specific measures aimed at accident prevention, pollution avoidance and, most significantly, the safety of life at sea. The commissioners have statutory responsibility for protecting the safety of mariners in the often hazardous waters around our extensive coastline. Ireland's geographic position at the hub of transatlantic shipping means that aids to navigation provided by the commissioners are not only used by vessels plying to and from Irish ports but also a significant volume of passing traffic.

The nature and quality of aids to navigation are improving in line with rapid advances in technology — hence the need for the legislative changes before the House today. The traditional visual aids, such as lighthouses and buoys, which remain an important part of the marine safety infrastructure, are being modernised. All lighthouses are now automated and all buoys have been converted to solar power. In the modern world of shipping, in which vessels travel faster, traffic is denser and the risk of accidents and pollution is consequently greater, there is a need for enhanced position-fixing accuracy for all types of vessels. Modern radio navigation systems fulfil this requirement.

The Commissioners of Irish Lights have always endeavoured to keep abreast of navigational technology and have provided radio based aids to navigation from as far back as 1931. At present they operate such aids at locations around the coast of Ireland. These modern electronic aids enable vessels to determine their position by interpreting radio signals from shore based transmitters. The four types of radio navigation systems provided by the commissioners are radio beacons, radar beacons, which are known as racons, radar target enhancers and the Differential Global Positioning System known as DGPS. However, as I have already explained, the courts have effectively ruled that these systems are ultra vires the powers given to the commissioners under the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act. The UK amended that Act in 1979 to provide a legislative basis for the inclusion of radio aids to navigation in the powers of general lighthouse authorities in their jurisdiction. As I mentioned earlier, I am sure Senators will agree it is incumbent upon us to ensure that a North-South, all-Ireland body such as the Commissioners of Irish Lights, is as equipped with an appropriate legislative framework to carry out its vital role in the Republic of Ireland as it is in Northern Ireland.

Before outlining the main provisions in the Bill I would like to deal with a technical point in relation to one of the definitions in the legislation. The Minister referred to in the Bill is defined therein as the Minister for the Marine rather than the current title of the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. This is due to the fact that the title of the Minister has been changed by Government order since the Bill was published following its passage through the Dáil. The parliamentary draftsman has advised that it is, therefore, necessary to table a minor technical amendment in this regard and I propose to do so on Committee Stage. I mention this matter mainly by way of clarification because, in dealing now with the main provisions in the Bill, I propose, in order to avoid any confusion, to refer to the current title of Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources rather than the Minister for the Marine.

First and foremost, the Bill addresses the legal deficiencies highlighted by the courts by conferring on the commissioners, in relation to maritime navigation, powers to erect, operate and maintain radio navigation systems. It also enables them to purchase land necessary to exercise these powers. The commissioners provided radio navigation systems in the past in the interests of maritime safety and the Bill seeks to validate such provision. Due provision has also been made to ensure that the constitutional rights of any person are not affected by the powers conferred on the commissioners in relation to radio aids to navigation.

As I indicated earlier, the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act vested the superintendence and management of all lighthouses, buoys and beacons, including those provided by harbour authorities, in the commissioners. The primary purpose of the Bill is to extend this power to embrace the superintendence and management of all maritime radio navigation systems, thus putting the commissioners' powers in relation to these aids on a secure footing throughout the island of Ireland.

The Bill also provides that the commissioners may, with the consent of the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, co-operate with other agencies, including a competent authority of another jurisdiction or an international organisation, 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.

International co-operation is of great importance in the provision of aids to navigation and in relation to maritime navigation generally. This provision ensures that there is a legal basis for such co-operation on the part of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. The commissioners are represented on the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities, and this organisation promotes co-operation between lighthouse authorities and the co-ordination of worldwide standards on aids to navigation matters. At a more local level, the commissioners, as one of the three general authorities for Britain and Ireland, co-operate closely with Trinity House and the commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, which between them serve England, Scotland and Wales. This provision also permits the commissioners to co-operate with other bodies in relation to the provision of services relating to wreck, pollution or related matters. The need for such co-operation arises particularly in emergencies and, where necessary, the commissioners light tender ship can provide assistance to the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources or other competent authorities. In the past, the Irish Lights vessel has aided the Department in search and rescue work.

Another provision in the Bill empowers the commissioners to make financial contributions towards the funding of international organisations or bodies concerned with maritime navigational assistance. The exercise of this power requires the consent of both the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources 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 and the Bill seeks to place these payments on a solid legislative footing.

The Bill also contains a provision which allows the commissioners, for gain or otherwise, to enter into agreements and contracts with the permission of the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, for the provision of maritime navigation systems and the performance of services relating to maritime navigation, safety, distress, wreck location, pollution and related matters on behalf of harbour authorities and other third parties. The requirement for this provision stems from legal advice received by the former UK Department of Transport to the effect 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. A number of lights and buoys within harbour limits are currently maintained by the commissioners. The Bill validates services provided by the commissioners to harbour authorities to date and extends the scope for the commissioners in relation to contracting services to third parties. The UK has already taken legislative action in this regard. The Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act, which was introduced earlier this year, contains a similar provision which permits general lighthouse authorities in the UK to enter into contracts with third parties.

On the same general theme, it is considered prudent to cater for future developments in technology and practices. Accordingly, the Bill also incorporates a provision enabling the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources to confer on the commissioners appropriate additional functions in relation to maritime navigational matters. Any order made in this regard must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and can be annulled by a resolution of either House.

On the basis that this legislation is vital to enable the Commissioners of Irish Lights to continue to provide modern navigational aids for the safety of mariners, and having regard to the firm commitments which I have given on the Loran C project I commend this Bill to the House.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I welcome Deputy Woods to the House in his capacity as Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources and wish him every success with his Ministry.

I was more than surprised to see that this Bill was on the Order of Business for discussion. Senator Fitzgerald is smiling; I am sure he too is amused to see this Bill back on to the floor of Seanad Éireann.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

It was demanded by the Senator's Leader.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The last time it appeared was February and my opposition to the content of the Bill at that time is clearly on the record. I continue to take the same position on a particular section of this Bill.

It must be appreciated that the Bill before the House has emerged because the people of west Clare took a High Court case which succeeded. That case was appealed by the Commissioners for Irish Lights to the Supreme Court which still found in favour of the people of west Clare. I also understand a bill of costs was awarded to the people of west Clare which was sent to the Commissioners of Irish Lights and then sent to the Department of the Marine, but somehow that Department has not addressed that issue yet. Would it not at least have been decent to deal with outstanding financial obligations and legal commitments before proceeding to reintroduce this Bill in Seanad Éireann? One must question why this Bill was brought back here without first dealing with these outstanding issues. Maybe the Minister will address that issue before the conclusion of the debate.

The people of west Clare have been very concerned about the proposal to build the Loran C mast. We must realise this system did not start today or yesterday. Discussions go back prior to the early 1990s and an international agreement was concluded by the previous Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat Government in 1992. That agreement was signed by an official from the Department on behalf of Ireland along with other member states who signed the agreement. I will not go into the details of the agreement, as I outlined them when this issue was debated previously. I am delighted the Minister has clarified one issue I raised at that time in relation to the denunciation article in the agreement, article 18. He has clarified here today that we would have to wait until 2004 to denounce, which is unacceptable. It is not a satisfactory conclusion and cannot be used successfully to allay the fears of the people of west Clare.

I would point out to the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources that it is not just the people of the Loop Head and the Kilbaha areas who are concerned but those people from Loop Head to Milltown Malbay to Kildysert. There is serious concern in that entire area about this proposal. I am not sure the Minister realises this is a natural heritage area. It would be sacrilegious for any organisation, Commissioners of Irish Lights as agent for the Minister, or anybody else, to propose to erect such a monstrosity in a natural heritage area. It is unacceptable to erect a steel mast the height of the Eiffel Tower in a very beautiful peninsula, unique in bird life, in its environment, history and tradition, particularly its marine life and topography. There are many beautiful features, such as arches and bridges, which are a tourist attraction in the area.

The Minister coming here with this Bill is unusual, particularly as he is coming from a party which in February in Dáil Éireann vehemently opposed this Bill. The Fianna Fáil spokesperson at the time, now Minister for Defence, Deputy Smith, is on the record as saying on 18 February 1997:

This Bill is draconian, it is a panic measure which does not conform to the planning laws and it loses sight of many advances which have taken place, and will take place, in marine navigation.

Here is a member of the present Government who said this just six months ago. He with other Government colleagues voted against it — Deputies Dermot Ahern, de Valera, Harney, Killeen, Martin, Molloy, O'Donnell, Ó Cuív, O'Donoghue, O'Malley and Walsh. I am sure the Chair appreciates my amazement at seeing this Bill on the Order of Business for this week. We have had a number of U-turns. Is this a U-turn on a U-turn? Are we going full circle? Will we have another U-turn? The combinations and permutations become increasingly interesting as time goes on. I appreciate that the Minister will give serious consideration to this matter. He attempted, after a fashion, to address certain concerns during his contribution.

Following the debate on this Bill in the Seanad six months ago, I entered into intense discussions with the then Minister, Deputy Barrett, and other members of the previous Government. I informed them that the proposals in the Bill were unacceptable. The proposals outlined earlier by the current Minister were put to me in the past and they are not sufficient to allay people's concerns. He indicated his intention to table an amendment to section 3. My party also intends to table amendments to that section, which we will promote in a forceful manner, on Committee Stage.

The Minister stated:

The terms of the proposed amendment require that the powers conferred on the commissioners under section 3 — to develop and operate radio and navigation systems — cannot be activated in respect of the Loran C system unless an appropriate order is made by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. Most importantly, the proposed amendment also provides that any draft ministerial order made in this regard must be approved by each House of the Oireachtas. This will ensure that, in effect, the project will not proceed unless further legislation is adopted by the Dáil and the Seanad.

I first heard this suggestion six months ago during discussions with the Minister's predecessor. Being somewhat cynical, and having seen the system in operation, I explained at the time that I found it unacceptable. Under the scenario in question an order can come before either House of the Oireachtas and be passed on the Order of Business before people know what is happening. If a Member of this House or the Lower House who is concerned about this facet of the Loran C system was not in attendance to object to the passage of such an order, the Commissioners for Irish Lights might become empowered to erect a Loran C mast on Loop Head. The Minister must give consideration to introducing an amendment other than the one he intends to table.

I accept that the Attorney General's Office gave the advice to which the Minister referred. However, that office should be asked to explore the possibility of drafting other amendments which would not cause difficulties for the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources on the international stage but which would prohibit the Commissioners for Irish Lights from being empowered to erect the Loran C mast. There are ways and methods to address this matter which would not cause Ireland to become the subject of international concern or scorn. If the Minister is prepared to accept a number of the amendments we propose to table, I believe he will not be caused any legal or international difficulties.

One message which must be clearly delivered to the Minister is that a Loran C mast will never be erected on Loop Head. While he has agreed to meet people and public representatives from the area, it would have been more courteous to meet them prior to the Bill's reintroduction. The Minister should have engaged in discussions with the people involved and heard their concerns firsthand. He need only read remarks made by his party colleagues in the Dáil last February and those of a former Member of this House, Deputy Daly, to become aware of those concerns. The Minister's contribution did not take account of the concerns expressed by the people.

The Minister stated that we must be concerned about our international standing. It is important for him, and may be in his political interest, to be concerned about his Government's national standing because we could have a decade of the Rosary on the number of U-turns made by the current Administration.

I thank the Minister for addressing the issue of Article 18 because he answered the questions I raised six months ago in this regard. During the previous debate on this Bill, the Minister's predecessor agreed to establish a forum to address a number of issues of concern. He also gave a commitment that the Loran C system would not proceed. He stated that if it was to proceed it would be subject to a new planning process and fresh investigation. When consideration was given to erecting the Loran C mast a number of years ago, 40 sites were examined and it was decided that Loop Head was most suitable.

The Minister should give serious consideration to the various radio navigation systems such as GPS, DECCA and Loran C. It is widely accepted that the Loran C system is obsolete. The Americans propose to discontinue its use in the year 2000 and the British have already done so. I suggest that the Minister raise this matter with his European colleagues at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers. He should ask them to address the question of using the GPS system throughout Europe and banning the Loran C system because it serves no useful purpose. The facilities offered by Loran C can be provided by the GPS and DECCA support systems.

The Minister and his Department must address this matter. I am disappointed that he has reintroduced this Bill, which should have been left on the shelf to gather dust for eternity.

Mr. Bonner

Ós rud é gurb é seo an chéad uair dom abhairt sa Seanad agus go dtagaim as an Ghaeltacht, ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá i mo theanga dhúchais. Ba mhaith liom mo chomhghairdeas a déanamh leat as ucht tú bheith tofa mar Leas-Chathaoirleach agus leis an Chathaoirleach as a toghadh. Tá a fhios agam go dtabharfaídh sibh cothrom na Féinne do gach duine sa Seanad mar a thug tú nuair a bhí tú mar Chathaoirleach sa Seanad atá imithe. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire ar an chéad uair dó sa Seanad mar Aire Mara agus Acmhainí Nádúrtha. Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go geal leis ag a chuid oibre agus go mbeidh sé ann le fada.

As this is my maiden speech, I take the opportunity to congratulate Senators Mullooly and Cosgrave on their election as Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach. I know they will afford all Members equal standing and fair play as their predecessors did during the lifetime of the previous Seanad.

I congratulate Deputy Woods on his appointment as Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. I apologise that I was not able to meet him on his recent visit to my county but he is aware that he is held in high regard by members of the fishing industry in County Donegal. I understand that he is the longest serving Fianna Fáil Minister in the Government. I congratulate him and wish him long service. I take this opportunity to wish him well in the negotiations in which he will be obliged to engage in the near future. With the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy in 2002 the Minister will face a difficult task but we, in the fishing industry in Donegal, would like him to prepare well to ensure we get a fair deal.

I do not intend to dwell on the Loran C issue. I do not know whether it was foresight on my part, but in his fairmindedness, the Minister will propose an amendment in that regard on Committee Stage. I will concentrate on the safety aspects of the services provided by the Commissioners for Irish Lights. I am confused by Senator Quinn's reference to U-turns. Having read the previous debates on this matter, I noticed that Deputy Michael Smith proposed an amendment in the Dáil in February which was not accepted by the previous Government.

The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 and the Dublin Port Act, 1867, established the Commissioners of Irish Lights. The Acts vested in the commissioners the superintendence and management of the lighthouses, buoys and beacons in the maritime area of Ireland. The commissioners are unique in that their remit covers the entire island. In this historic week in which talks on the future of the island are taking place in the North, it is worth recalling that as far back as the last century it was possible to agree to and set up a body which could act for all of the island.

The need for this Bill arises due to a High Court decision, upheld subsequently by the Supreme Court in July 1996. The effect of the court's decision was that the commissioners' powers under the 1894 Act could not be interpreted to include the provision of radio based aids to marine navigation, which were unknown at the time of the enactment of the legislation. This is not the first time that old laws have been deemed to have been overtaken by events and new technology. The purpose of the Bill is to empower the commissioners to continue to provide such modern technological aids in the interests of maritime safety and to make further provisions in relation to their functions. The Bill will enable the commissioners to continue to provide services to the maritime community and to adjust to new technical developments which may arise in the future. I am sure the Minister's amendment will ensure this is the case.

It is important to recognise the onerous task with which the commissioners have been charged. They are responsible for aiding the safe passage of all mariners and seafarers in and around the coastline of Ireland. In the last debate in the House on this issue the coastline was referred to as "inhospitable" and Senator O'Toole took objection to that on the basis that he had not found any hostility in Irish waters. Senator O'Toole must not be a fisherman because if he were he would know how hostile those waters can be.

Mr. Norris

Senator O'Toole is a most accomplished fisherman, particularly of compliments.

Mr. Bonner

In addition to the inshore sea traffic using Irish ports, aids to navigation provided in Irish waters are used by most of the vessels using the world shipping lanes between North America and Europe. We appreciate the professionalism of the job done by the commissioners and we must enact this Bill as quickly as possible to remove any threat that they could be held liable in the event of an accident at sea if the radio based aids continue to be used without supporting legislation. The commissioners continued to provide this service for the eight months after the Bill was first introduced in the Dáil in February. The purpose of this Bill is to provide them with the power to provide navigational assistance which is essential for the maintenance of maritime safety, reducing the risk of accidents and collisions at sea which often result in pollution and loss of life, the safe passage of traffic at sea and the maintenance of a high level of maritime safety.

I admire the professionalism and expertise of the commissioners in carrying out their functions. Given Ireland's heavy dependence on maritime transport, maritime traffic has become more dense because of the increase in economic activity. More than 75 per cent of our exports and imports rely on our sea routes and the commissioners are responsible for the protection of this vital lifeline with the outside world.

Alternative technological systems which command the support of the fishing industry, the community and the public must be put in place to take account of the fact that all lighthouses are unmanned. The traditional visual aids of lighthouse beacons and buoys which have been modernised in line with technological advances still play an important part in maritime safety by identifying hidden and underwater dangers. In the future they will become more of a hazard warning and will be replaced by radio navigational systems which will enhance the position fixing accuracy required by modern shipping.

When enacted the Bill will update the powers given to the commissioners under the 1854 Act and allow them to continue to provide modern technological aids to navigation to enable ships, fishing trawlers and other craft to sail safely. The commissioners have a distinguished record in the provision of these services. We must pass this legislation as speedily as possible so that the safety of all seafarers is ensured.

As a representative of the people of south-west Donegal I know and understand the risks they take in pursuing their livelihoods. Fishing is a dangerous occupation and the community I represent has suffered greatly from fishing tragedies. In the past 25 years four trawlers have foundered off our coast. I knew the crews of three of the trawlers, the Evelyn Marie, the Carraig Una and the Skiford, who came from my local port of Burtonport. The most recent tragedy was in 1995 with the loss of the Carrickatine, which was also owned by a Burtonport fisherman. It remains the most unexplained of these tragedies, regardless of the modern navigational aids which are available. I support measures which enhance the safety of fishermen and which command the support of the fishermen's organisations. I encourage Senators to support the Bill.

Having referred to the four trawlers which foundered I wish to stress the importance of the fishing industry to south-west Donegal. It is the biggest job creator in west Donegal providing approximately 3,000 jobs during the season, of which 1,200 are full-time. We also have between 250 and 300 full-time fishermen on our trawlers. The exports from Killybegs and Burtonport alone amounted to about £100 million in the year to 31 March 1997. Many other jobs are created in related service and other industries. I have been fortunate to benefit from fishing as an accountant working in the industry.

The industry is mainly carried out from the three towns of Killybegs, Burtonport and Kincaslough. While exports and profits are important, the safety of the fishermen who sail night after night in the worst of weather is uppermost in my mind. That is why I would like to see this Bill passed as quickly as possible.

On behalf of these fishermen, I thank the Minister for his efforts during his term as Minister for Social Welfare to regularise the PRSI system and I thank the Commissioners of Irish Lights for their efforts in ensuring the fishermen's safety. I also thank the RNLI for the service they provide to seafaring people, especially those members based at the local station in Aranmore Island. However, I regret that the RNLI had to shelve plans to base a new lifeboat at its purpose-built facility on Aranmore Island due to the approach channel to Burtonport harbour being unable to facilitate this boat. The problem was not due to the Commissioners of Irish Lights or any navigational aids but to insufficient draught in the channel. I sincerely hope that the Minister will visit Burtonport in the near future to examine and discuss the matter.

I did not intend to mention the Loran C problem, but I appreciate the difficulties with which the people of County Clare are faced. Nobody understands this problem better than I. I stood as a Fianna Fáil candidate in Donegal South-West in the general election. I lost what was supposed to be the safest seat in Ireland. This was due to bad legislation introduced by a previous Minister on the granting of MMDS licences. I do not need to be lectured on the problem in County Clare. I commend all Senators and Deputies from County Clare who supported their constituents on this issue. The Minister is now prepared to listen and amend the legislation on Committee Stage. Like Clare, Donegal is a beautiful county. It was only last week that the people of Donegal stood up against ESAT to ensure that a vice was not erected on a local Garda station and that another installation by ESAT was removed. This was due to the power of the people, and that is why the people of Clare have succeeded. I hope that an acceptable solution to the problem will be found before Committee Stage of the Bill.

Nobody objects to the basic purpose of the Bill which is to update the legislation governing marine navigation and to allow the Commissioners of Irish Lights to modernise their operation. As far as I understand, the only problem that arose in both the Dáil and Seanad was the question of the Loran C mast at Loop Head. The Commissioners have served the country extremely well over the years. Many fishermen owe their lives to the service provided by the Commissioners. Why should this be put at risk? I ask Senators to support the Bill and ensure the legislation is quickly enacted.

The legislation is intended to allow the Commissioners of Irish Lights to continue to provide the navigational assistance they currently provide to mariners around the coast. This legislation is necessary because the legislation of the last century, under which the Commissioners of Irish Lights have been operating, did not anticipate the present changes in navigational technology.

I hope the Bill is enacted as speedily as possible. The safety of everybody at sea is my priority and I encourage Senators to support the Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I compliment the Senator on an excellent maiden speech and thank him for his gracious words to the Cathaoirleach and myself.

Mr. Norris

You took the words out of my mouth, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. It was a very fine speech by the Senator. It was clearly delivered and well thought-out.

I share some of Senator Bonner's concerns. It is not just in Dingle or Donegal that there is a substantial fishing interest. This is also true of Howth and we have the problem of marine traffic in Dublin Bay. Everybody accepts and understands the necessity for proper policing of greatly increased traffic in Dublin Bay. After the tragedy of the sinking of the Kilkenny in 1991, the Dublin port authorities carried out an extensive investigation with the object of improving safety in Dublin Bay. Traffic has more than doubled in the past four years. This is an extraordinarily rapid development and two principal conclusions were reached. First of all, it was hoped to introduce a vessel traffic system using radar assistance under which there would be a traffic separation system around the bay. I corresponded with the Dublin port authorities suggesting that without the passage of this or a similar Bill, this would not be possible. Certain elements of this Bill are very welcome.

There was concern previously about the attitude of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. They seemed to be playing a very strong hand and using the big stick. It was suggested and confirmed in The Irish Times of 3 March 1997 that a letter had been exchanged between the commissioners and the Minister indicating that if the Bill was not passed they would switch off navigational aids. This seemed to be a most extraordinary threat. It was put in a slightly different context subsequently by the Commissioners of Irish Lights. In the context of the last discussion on this matter, it is worth remembering that, at that point, the Seanad was in the fortunate position of being, to some extent at least, under the sway of the five Independent Members, because we held the balance of power. I think I am correct in saying that we had the assistance of Fianna Fáil Senators on this. I remember in particular the speeches of Senators Brendan Daly and Tom Fitzgerald on this issue. Independent Members had a crucial impact on the Bill.

The erection of a mast of this kind is a very disturbing. I was interested that the Minister said:

I visited the nearest mast in the Loran C chain which is located in Lessay in north west France and is the same dimensions as the one proposed for Loop Head. I was anxious to familiarise myself with such an installation prior to addressing public concerns on the issue.

Why did the Minister not treat us to a description of this remarkable feature of the landscape? Why did he not give us any reaction whatever? Was it a thing of beauty, was it something that added to the landscape or did it disturb visually? I am surprised that the Minister stopped there. He went to the trouble of visiting it so that he could discuss it in public and then says nothing about it. That worries me. It must be a considerable distortion in terms of visual amenity. There is also the question of the concerns raised by the already existing environmental impact study commissioned by the Commissioners of Irish Lights which stated that there was a risk of radiation burns from unearthed buildings and fences in the vicinity of the mast. That causes considerable concern. I would like to see further indications of this kind of activity.

I want to put something else on the record which I consider to be particularly important and that is the coyness with which we are all skating round the potential military implications of this material. The French are not notably generous to this country so why are they helping to pay for this mast? Is it because it fits in well with their military submarine communications network? I am not sure we want to be involved in this with our European partners. If one looks at the qualities of leadership in some of our European neighbours — this is supposed to be a European project — I recall a dispute I had with Alain Juppé when he was Foreign Minister about East Timor and the supply of French armaments to the Indonesians for the purpose of genocide. His response was that the European Union was not a human rights association.

Another European colleague, Mr. Alan Clarke, distinguished himself in recent years with his vicious attitudes on the questions of East Timor and genocide while simultaneously holding a senior position in the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which must have struck some people as a little ironic. A few days ago he said the Northern Ireland problem could be solved by murdering 600 people.

Any military implication should be right out in the open and I am not clear that is the case. Later, I will point out the parts of the Minister's speech where I think this possibility is left completely open. While I welcome everything to do with the safety of fishermen and merchant shipping in Dublin bay and other coastal waters, I strongly suspect the involvement of military interests in the Loran C project. I also think there are considerable environmental problems with it. I am surprised at the Minister's coyness in not sharing with the House his view of this particular kind of radio mast.

In his speech the Minister indicates he will deal with the Loran C system by "an appropriate order" after an investigation. That is welcome movement but I am not sure it is sufficient. I will wait to hear what amendments emerge from this side of the House and will listen with interest to the rest of the discussion but I am not sure it is sufficient, particularly in the light of concerns expressed that this kind of instrument can so easily be slipped in without anybody realising it.

I requested a previous Government to alert me to some European directives concerning copyright, particularly in relation to the works of James Joyce and Virginia Woolf. I was given an undertaking that I would be told about them, but the Minister blithely signed them into existence without realising what had happened and the House was never informed about it.

In his speech the Minister says

The Attorney General's Office has since advised that to purport to exclude the Loran C system from the scope of the powers conferred on the commissioners to develop and operate radio navigation systems could be interpreted to be at variance with our obligations under the International Agreement on Loran C, which Ireland entered into in good faith. Furthermore, the Department of Foreign Affairs has advised that a legislative amendment along these lines could damage our international standing.

That may well be true, but what are the implications of this for the investigation the Minister has promised? If the investigation does not support Loran C, according to the advice received from the Attorney General, we might be in some kind of legal bind, and according to the advice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs, it might damage our international standing. Does that mean that we are not to take seriously the consultative examination the Minister has promised? I would like the Minister to be clear on that because there seems to be some kind of conflict.

Far be it from me to comment on their lordships' and ladyships' wisdom in the Supreme Court, but I am rather surprised a majority found that a beacon could not be the kind of material concerned in the Loran C mast. For many years the phrase "radio beacon" has been widely current in common English usage. Perhaps the judges were unaware of this, but it goes back a long way.

I notice that the Minister will table a small amendment. Under his new title of Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources it behoves him to make sure the environment is not damaged in any way by the erection of this kind of mast.

I return to my concern about the military application of this mast. The Minister clearly seems to be laying this possibility open when he says:

It is perfectly clear that the apparently vague phrase "other agencies, including a competent authority of another jurisdiction or an international organisation" covers a series of military alliances, either with other European countries — a number of which I am deeply suspicious of because of the past actions and characters of some of their senior Ministers — or with NATO. I am not happy that we should be involved in this kind of area.

I welcome those sections of the Bill which genuinely provide for the safety of fishermen and those involved in the merchant navy, as well as for the better regulation of marine traffic in our coastal waters. I am still strongly suspicious, however, of the whole Loran C mast situation for the following reasons: its impact on the visual amenity of a beautiful part of our country, the possible dangers from different kinds of radiation emitted, which are admitted by the Commissioners for Irish Lights, and most particularly because I see this as a way of sneaking us into a degree of co-operation with military alliances for which the Irish people have absolutely no relish.

The military aspect is the most worrying of all, particularly because of the secrecy involved in the way it was approached originally. The Commissioners of Irish Lights secretly tried to obtain land without disclosing the purpose and tried to get planning permission in a sly and roundabout way. If there was nothing to which they felt people might object, why were they so extraordinarily discreet in pursuing their objectives?

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

Ba mhaith liom mo chomhghairdeas a ghabháil leat féin agus arís comhghairdeas a ghabháil le hAire na Mara agus Acmhainní Nádúrtha, agus céad míle fáilte a chur roimh an Aire chuig an Teach.

It is hard to know where to start in relation to this matter because, even though I did not speak on the Bill the last time, I was involved throughout its passage and I undertook much research on it. Senator Taylor-Quinn said, rightly, that she opposed the Bill at that time. Senator Norris said the Bill would not have passed at that time simply because the combined Opposition would have defeated the Government side. If it had not been for that threat, the then Minister would have proceeded and the Bill would have been passed. There is a big difference in the Bill coming before the House on this occasion because the Government side has a huge majority. They could, if they wished, refuse to listen to anyone and force the Bill through.

On the last occasion there was a threat to the former Minister because the feeling in the House was that the Bill would undoubtedly be defeated. While very few Members were opposed to the entire Bill, they were opposed to one aspect of it — the Loran C mast in County Clare. Naturally I am also opposed to that mast because if it was not erected in Clare I would be afraid the Department or the commissioners might put it in Kerry and the problem would then be outside my own door.

The Minister has not made a U-turn, but he has made definite changes to the Bill and has put them in writing for the House. We all heard the Minister say that the views and concerns of the people of the Kilbaha area on Loop Head, and of those generally concerned, would be given the same hearing as everyone else. He said that there is no way that a Loran C or any other mast can be erected in any part of Ireland unless an appropriate order is made by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources and this order must have the prior approval of the Dáil and Seanad.

It is fair to say that our trouble started in 1992. It amazes me, if Senator Taylor-Quinn is correct, that some civil servant signed an agreement with four or five states without first consulting everybody concerned. That day is gone. One must first consult with the people. It is no good signing an agreement just because other countries are doing so. We must ensure in future that agreements are examined at home first and that there is full consultation and co-operation. We must ensure it is done in a proper manner and that proper planning permission is received.

I sympathise with the Commissioners of Irish Lights, who are trying to put in place a proper navigation system. When Irish fishermen first set off about ten years ago to fish 200 miles from the coast at the continental shelf, it was a new venture. They had not gone on fishing trips of up to 14 days before. I recall having a pint with a couple of old fishermen one night in Dingle, County Kerry. One said that he had been out there 30 years ago. The other said: "You were, but you did not know it", which was correct because he had no way of navigating at that time other than through the use of a compass. However, with modern navigational aids a person can be guided across mountains or seas and be told exactly where he or she is with the use of a screen and the navigational satellite.

I am worried about an aspect of this matter to which Senator Norris referred. It is obvious from reading the newspapers that there are military implications. Why do we want a second navigation system? We want one — I am all in favour of it — as a proper back up in the event of things going wrong. We are told that during the Gulf War the United States was able to deliberately disorientate the enemy by changing the navigational satellite slightly. The system can be interfered with and that it a problem. It can be accurate but it is in the control of a powerful State — the United States Air Force, as far as I know — and it can be altered in times of war. We do not want to be drawn into wars.

The Loran C system has proved to be a successful navigation system and it is a good back up system. The only problem is that, as far as I know, is not compatible with DECCA. If fishermen changed to the Loran C system, the installation of the necessary equipment would impose a huge cost on them.

I do not know which navigation system is appropriate but we need a back up system and a second system to check that both systems in use are giving the same readings.

My knowledge in this area is limited. To give Senators an idea of what I am talking about, from the time a fishing boat leaves the pier a tape inside the Sat Nav records where it is going. When it has gone 50 or 60 miles, the crew start fishing. If the fishing is good, the captain will be delighted and will want to return to the identical spot the next day. If that is the case, all he need do is insert the tape in the Sat Nav the following day and the boat will automatically steer the same course to the same spot.

We are talking about this Bill in something of a flippant way but it is of vital importance. It is unfortunate that the Commissioners of Irish Lights find themselves in a situation like this where all the navigation aids are basically illegal. Many of the navigation aids are within harbours which are under the control of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. If there were a dreadful accident tomorrow morning and the owners of a big ship or fishing boat sued the Commissioners of Irish Lights on a personal level, the commissioners would find themselves in deep water.

I urge the House to pass the Bill and accept the Minister's word. It is the same Bill as that introduced earlier this year, but the attitude of the Minister towards the Bill is totally different to that which pertained when the Bill was before the House some months ago. Senator Taylor-Quinn is correct. I was to speak next on the Bill on that occasion. I was going to oppose a section of the Bill with regard to Loran C and go along with the rest of it, in the same way as Senator Taylor-Quinn is now talking about tabling an amendment, which we must wait and see. I hope the Minister will elaborate on this in his reply.

As far as I can see, if the Bill as amended is passed, the people of County Clare need have no worries because I know the Minister of old. He is a Minister who nearly goes to too much trouble at times. I could see him talking to the people of west County Clare, consulting and doing everything in his power to make sure that this mast is not erected against their will.

The threat of defeat stopped the passage of the Bill on the last occasion. On this occasion the Government has a big majority and it could steamroll the Bill through the House. The Government is not doing that because the Minister has stated clearly that there will be consultation. That seems to be the biggest problem. Although he has been clear about that, I urge him to elaborate on that matter in his reply. I have received a number of letters from people concerned about this Bill and the problem that has arisen.

The Minister mentioned beacons and lights used by harbour authorities. When the new Harbours Act was first initiated, it included substantial fines and penalties for people who broke laws within harbours. However, if I may be parochial, the fines under the Harbours Act, 1946, which we operate in Dingle harbour, are minimal. An offence in Cork harbour may incur fines of £1,000 or £1,500 with a threat of jail, whereas, under the 1946 Act the same offence committed in Dingle and other harbours may incur a fine of £10 to £50. This should be brought into line and the penalties examined.

I urge the House to accept the Minister's word in this case. I sympathise with the people in Clare and support their efforts. The Minister will do as he says — he has said before witnesses in this House and it is on the record that no mast will be erected in Clare without further legislation coming before the House.

Mr. Caffrey

I welcome the Minister and wish him well in his new portfolio. I am not as familiar as other Senators with the Bill — if they will pardon the pun, I am navigating in unchartered waters. I only realised half an hour ago that the Bill had been debated here before. It is unfortunate that the Commissioners of Irish Lights have been entangled in the technological and legal warfare that has arisen from this legislation. The commissioners are trying to do their statutory duty under an 1894 Act which made no provision for modern navigation methods. The importance of the Bill in giving the necessary statutory power to the commissioners to install and equip a modern marine navigation system cannot be over-emphasised. We must recognise the tremendous statutory responsibility on the commissioners to aid the safe passage around our shores of our seafarers and fishermen. It is hard to believe that they were operating under an outdated law. Roughly 90 per cent of our imports and exports are transported by sea. The commissioners are responsible for ensuring the safe passage of all who travel around our coasts and they have not failed in that duty. The degree of safety with which our fleet can travel the coast is vitally important.

The Dáil debate on the Bill featured a great deal of hypocrisy. The heat it generated was far greater than the heat Loran C will generate, if it is ever built. I have sympathy with the people of Clare and it is unfortunate that the two sides debating the Bill have so divided public opinion. On one hand, it is necessary to update our navigation systems; on the other, we must prove that the system to be installed will be safe for public health.

In that regard, the Government should consider setting up a statutory scientific body with overall responsibility for determining the health implications of these masts, which are proliferating throughout the country. The IPA has certain responsibilities in that area but they are not regarded as a scientific body with the knowledge and expertise necessary to give a definitive answer. Currently, amateur physicists in every parish are deciding what amount of low level radiation is safe. Many of them do not have the capacity or qualifications to make a guess on the matter. I may call for a debate on this issue at a later stage, to ask the Government to set up a scientific body, equivalent to An Bord Pleanála, which would make the final decision on these matters. The people have rights and democracy must be seen to work. However, if we are to introduce legislation which involves parish committees making decisions, we will have problems for many years. We need a body which can give a definitive and knowledgeable scientific answer which will be accepted by the people. They do not accept the amateur pronouncements on these matters being made at present.

If the Loran C mast is erected, and there will undoubtedly be much consultation on that matter, we will be moving into a new area. This problem has only arisen in the last few years. In my area I attend one meeting every week about the erection of masts. Objections are mostly made on health grounds, yet there is no scientific body of opinion which can give a definitive answer.

I await the amendments to the Bill and will do further research. I hope the Minister's consultations will result in a compromise. Feelings on these matters can be quite intense but they are not always based on authoritative judgments and may therefore be faulty. It is time to rectify that position.

Mr. O'Donovan

I welcome the Minister. In commending this Bill, we should take cognisance of the very serious situation which exists as a result of the legal challenge. I am not in any way condemning the people in the Loop Head area for their objections to the Loran C mast. However, that successful challenge in the Supreme Court has resulted in a legal dilemma, particularly for the Commissioners of Irish Lights.

It would be remiss of me not to pay the highest compliments to the commissioners and to people such as lighthouse keepers, who have served our coastline very well over the years. I come from an area in west Cork with a very rugged coastline. The busiest shipping lines pass quite close to the west Cork and Kerry coastline.

It is essential that proper navigational systems with the most modern technology be made available to ensure the safety of sailors and fishermen. The present position has resulted in a vacuum which must be rectified and the Bill is a step in that direction.

The Minister clearly recognises the dilemma facing the people in Loop Head in Clare. He is proposing to introduce an amendment to the legislation which will protect the people of Loop Head. The essence of what he is saying, which is crucially different from what was said during the last Seanad debate on this Bill, is that no mast, whether in Loop Head, Mizen Head or elsewhere, will be erected without further consultation and the agreement of both Houses of the Oireachtas. That amendment protects the rights of the objectors, pending full investigation.

I know from previous experiences with the Minister, Deputy Woods, in other ministries that he is fully committed to exploring all the pros and cons of this mast. He has already visited a similar mast in north-west France. He will leave no stone unturned in undertaking the most open and detailed investigation to ensure that whenever a mast is erected, it will be done so with the highest regard for any objections.

I spoke in the Seanad on the situation of the west coast some years ago. Apart from the safety of human life at sea, there are also problems with pollution. There were the famous incidents of the Kowloon Bridge, and a ship which was washed up on the Kerry shoreline and another which came into Bantry Bay and eventually left after successful repairs. There is another famous wreck partly submerged between Bere Island and the mainland. Whether it is off the west coasts of Cork, Kerry, Clare or Donegal, the most advanced navigational technology should be made available to this country to ensure the safety of our sailors, the prevention of pollution and the proper monitoring of some of the busiest shipping lanes off our coastline.

While the modernisation of the lighthouses might have been regarded as necessary, it was sad because lighthouse keepers have served us well over the years. Until recently, all our lighthouses were manned by people who spent their lives in the service of operating them. They provided an excellent service over the years. It is a reflection of modern times that technology has meant the service provided by lighthouse keepers is no longer necessary as lighthouses are now fully automated.

I read the previous debates in this and the other House on the Bill and it seems there is a general concern throughout the country about masts. Anywhere masts are erected local people seem to express concerns about radiation and so on. It is an ongoing debate. However, masts for telecommunications, mobile telephones and television signals are not nearly as important as the provision of a proper navigational service around our coastline. It is essential that this be recognised.

It is totally unfair that the Commissioners of Irish Lights may, in their current situation, be held personally responsible in the event of any catastrophe. They should not have to carry such an ongoing risk. If they were to take other advice they might decide not to take such a risk. We have a duty to ensure this risk is obviated at the earliest possible opportunity.

I commend the Bill. I hope, in light of the concern expressed in the House some months ago and what the Minister has committed himself to do under this Bill, that the controversial Loran C mast for Loop Head will not be proceeded with without further debate. This Bill must be enacted as soon as possible to ensure the current legal limbo is not allowed continue.

Mr. S. Ryan

I am pleased to contribute to this debate, although I am somewhat surprised to see the Bill before us in its present form. This Bill was debated by the previous Seanad and I usually read the Official Report of any previous debate on a Bill to get a flavour of how the debate proceeded. I was surprised by the bitterness of that debate, although I was aware the issue was regarded as a very serious one for the people of Clare.

The dangers posed by radiowaves, microwaves and electromagnetic radiation are a serious source of public worry. Whenever human kind makes a huge advance, drawbacks and reservations seem to crop up. There is nothing wrong with that, provided we are objective about it. In recent times, the erection of masts to facilitate the two mobile telephone networks currently on offer has been a source of concern to people all over the country, both urban and rural. However, there seems to be no decrease in the number of people who are prepared to use mobile telephones and who demand an even greater and clearer service.

Further clarification is required from the Government regarding the safety aspect of mobile telephone masts. We must convince people by providing them with information which shows they are safe. The directive from the relevant Department that these masts would be erected on Garda stations is a cause of concern, especially in urban areas. Each case must be examined on its merits. In my constituency it was proposed to erect a mast in Rush on a Garda station located beside a school, which was unacceptable. Further thought and clarification is required on this issue.

This Bill is similar to that passed by the previous Government in the Dáil last February. I am surprised at its introduction here, especially in view of the venom with which Fianna Fáil opposed it on that occasion. At the time, we were approaching a general election which created a unique atmosphere. It was not to be expected, therefore, that the Bill in its present form would be one of the first to be presented to the House. However, the Government has displayed a remarkable aptitude for the art of the U-turn. It has lately been doing U-turns on its U-turns. In view of this, my surprise is perhaps naive.

As a public representative living beside the Irish coast I am concerned at the public perception of the Government, given that it is only a little over 100 days in office. The public is concerned that it has abandoned the campaign of opposition to Sellafield and to the nuclear issue in general. The Government has failed to reconstitute the ministerial committee on Sellafield and related nuclear issues, which was established by the previous Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin. It has also failed to reconstitute the interdepartmental expert group which was established by the ministerial committee. I understood that there was cross-party support in both Houses with regard to Sellafield. However, on the basis of the performance of the Government to date, the public is losing confidence on the issue. The relevant Minister must take responsibly for it.

Acting Chairman (Mr. R. Kiely)

The Senator should adhere to the terms of the debate.

Mr. S. Ryan

This legislation is necessary. The Supreme Court judgment means many existing services provided by the Commissioners of Irish Lights are ultra vires that organisation. This cannot be allowed to continue. The commissioners have a long and proud history of service to the Irish seafaring community. They are also one of the few bodies that operate on a cross-Border basis. It is unacceptable that they are placed in this invidious position.

With regard to Loran C, the Government is obliged to proceed with implementing the system following international agreements entered into freely and endorsed by the Oireachtas. It would be a bad precedent for this House to renege on agreements entered into by previous Governments.

I am not convinced by the argument that the Loran C system represents an infringement of our neutrality. The same argument could have been made about lighthouses, which have aided the passage of military vessels in the past. There is little point in attributing blame to specific systems which can only rightly be attributed to how humans use them.

I have always opposed nuclear powered submarines using the Irish Sea and our coastlines. In addition, the recent NASA launch of a rocket containing plutonium is also a cause for concern. I have been equally displeased with the Government's handling of the Sellafield issue. We must look at the use of our coastlines by the major powers and their nuclear powered submarines.

The Bill is necessary because the Supreme Court, on foot of an appeal from the High Court, adjudicated that the powers conferred on the Commissioners of Irish Lights by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, are insufficient to take account of changes in technology. However, there are other aspects of that Act which have not been adequately addressed in this legislation. For example, it contains provisions empowering the captains of ships to restrict and, in some cases, detain seamen who fail to rejoin their ship or carry out orders. These have not been repealed by this legislation despite the fact that they belong to a different age and despite commitments given by Irish representatives in Europe. Will the Minister advise on the present position?

The Minister is considering an amendment to the Bill which would provide for the possible removal of the mast at Loop Head. I am not in a position to comment on whether the mast is appropriately positioned, although I note that the decision is being put through the rigours of the planning process. In terms of the international commitments we gave, if the mast is not erected at this location it must be erected elsewhere. This aspect must be considered and I am pleased the Minister gave a commitment that it would be examined and a report prepared. However, it should be noted by the Government that unless it reneges on its international commitments, the mast will have to be sited elsewhere.

The main issue is the location of the mast. This concerns the people in the area in terms of the environment and safety. The remainder of the Bill, by and large, has the support of the Labour Party and other groups in the House. However, more thought and consideration must be given to elements of the Bill relating to the mast. I look forward to the amendments the Minister intends to introduce. My group will not make a final decision until they are published and if they are not satisfactory we will consider tabling other amendments on Committee Stage.

Mr. O'Toole

I contributed to the previous debate on the Bill before the proceedings of the House were rudely interrupted by an election and a change of Government. At that point I was uncomfortable about voting against the Bill because I thought it was progressive and dealt with many important aspects. However, I could not live with the Bill being used to facilitate the erection of a Loran C mast at Loop Head and I intended to table the following amendment:

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

I congratulate the Minister on and thank him for the commitment he gave today. In common with Senator Ryan, I await the precise wording of the amendments but it would be churlish not to note that viewpoints have been considered and a productive response has been made. This is heartening and encouraging in the political system. This development will be well received by the people of west Clare and others.

I have huge reservations about this matter. I listened to many of the contributions to this debate and although it would be inappropriate to deal in detail with all the points made, I wish to query an issue raised by Senator Taylor-Quinn. She said the agreement was signed by a civil servant but I understood the original agreement was signed by the then Minister, Deputy David Andrews. Perhaps the Minister could clarify this aspect in his response.

In the last Seanad, we on this side had the numbers to block the Bill's progress through the House. That was most positive and I am sure the Fine Gael Party Senators who were uncomfortable with the Bill when they were on the other side of the House are happy matters have worked out in this manner. Although I risk the ire of the Acting Chairman by broaching another subject, it is also significant to note that the intervention of the Independent group carried the vote regarding the court case being taken by the County Louth residents against British Nuclear Fuels. It is interesting that happened today. It is good to have a mix of party and Independent Members who can come together and convince each other of the merit of certain issues.

It is most important to note that the local people in County Clare took on the system on this issue. They managed to hold back the tide and effectively achieved a result. They deserve credit for much work on this matter and I am sure that people in the Acting Chairman's county, which is close to County Clare, are happy this matter is working out properly. It is a tribute to people power. In common with other speakers, I have grave reservations about people who line up to object every time a spade is stuck in the ground or somebody wants to erect a mast. In this day and age we and the natural environment must make concessions to ensure safety, adequate communications, etc. These matters are important.

However, my arguments against the Loran C site were, first, it was unnecessary, second, it should not be located in such a beautiful area and third, it was outdated. If it is necessary to construct a mast somewhere it should be erected on Rockall. There cannot be any argument between the UK and Ireland about who owns the mast and we could share the cost, the rock and the output from it. Before the Minister receives a note from his advisers about this suggestion in terms of how it would be powered and if it would be necessary to use a long distance cable from north Donegal, I point out there is plenty of wave and air power there.

Mr. S. Ryan

There is wind too.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

And solar power.

Mr. O'Toole

There is also solar power to keep it going; it would not require huge output. I ask the Minister to consider this proposal. The people who suggested siting the mast in west Clare felt it could be erected there and that suited them. However, I suggest it should be on Rockall. If that it not suitable, we should float it out to sea. There are many imaginative ways to approach this matter which do not require the spoiling of Loop Head, one of the most beautiful parts of the country. The Loran C site is unnecessary because events have overtaken it.

Regarding the row about masts for communications systems for ESAT and Eircell, I argued the point with ESAT's Mr. Denis O'Brien and people in Eircell that they would be unnecessary if all mobile telephones worked from satellites. The masts are necessary for the current system but the other way would be cheaper and would not spoil the environment. There would be a clear line of sight in all areas and reception would be much improved. The masts for the telephone systems about which there are all the rows will be as useful as copper wire on poles in ten years. It is similar to computers where we are forced to move along generation by generation. The consumer policies of large global producers ensure we do not skip a generation. We saw people reporting from the Iran-Iraq war with satellite communication telephones which had to be carried in suitcases. However, nowadays the same type of satellite equipment is used but a telephone fits in one's pocket. I ask the Minister to bear this aspect in mind.

The Department said at one point that the cost of putting in place a navigational system based on satellite instead of Loran C would be £60 billion. I do not believe that figure and I will not believe it until somebody shows me a balance sheet. I suspect whoever formulated that figure cleverly included the cost of launching satellites. There is enough hardware in space at present to send separate television signals to every house in the country never mind operate a navigation system. However, I recognise and accept the point made by the Commissioners of Irish Lights and the Minister's advisers that there should be two systems.

We need a backup system, particularly for safety at sea. Current safety standards require that boats working on the Loran C system also have a DECCA system — a dual system with two or three aerials. Such a system would cost approximately £900 or £1,000. There is no reason there should not be a dual satellite system. Before somebody tells me the cost of that, I am aware there are at least two huge global concerns putting in place a system of geo-stationary satellites around the globe to ensure mobile telephone systems will work from satellites in a short time. There is no reason that these satellites could not also be used to give navigational and locational aid to ships. Since we last discussed this matter we witnessed an extraordinary episode in the South Pacific where Frank Bullimore was lost at sea for two or three days. He was located through a navigational rather than a Loran C system as it is far more specific and accurate.

The Loran C mast is 720 or 730 feet in height while the Tara mast in County Meath, which caused considerable aggravation when erected and is a blot on the landscape, is over 800 feet. There is an 80 or 90 foot difference between the two masts. I presume that is necessary because they are outputting on different wavelengths. I was able to receive Radio Tara on the west coast of France. Will the output from the Loran C mast which the Minister looked at in north-west France cover the west coast of Ireland? It should and I would like to hear his view on that.

Senator Bonner asked what fishermen knew. Even if I was the worst fisherman that ever lived, I would go to organisations such as the Irish Fishermen's Organisation and ask it its view on the Loran C mast. I would also ask its counterpart in France for its view. Both groups are on the record as being opposed to this. Even if I had a different view, I would differ to them and I suggest that is not a bad policy to take. Donegal people tend to get it right in such matters.

I could speak at length on this issue but it would dilute the import of what I have to say. We set out to prove a point about Loran C and I am delighted the Minister has come to the House today and is ready to meet our needs. I am also glad that he will hold a position on it. Will the Minister get the present and future costs of navigational systems which are satellite based and not only current ones? The GPS system is the main satellite system at present while DECCA is also useful. Both system will meet the needs of people at sea. A satellite system, however, would be better because it would reach further out to sea than DECCA or Loran C and could be a global system. While I do not know enough about Loran C, I suspect it does not work in the middle of the north Atlantic and that it is difficult to hook-up with anything which is land based even with a long wave output.

I congratulate the people in west Clare who took this issue through the system, and the Minister. People must recognise that the unholy alliance between Independent Members and Members of political parties can hold back negative proposals. It has been a good day in this House in relation to Loran C and in the other House as regards the case against British Nuclear Fuels. I ask the Minister to ensure he does what he promises.

Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Dr. Woods)

I thank Senators who contributed to an extensive debate during which a number of issues were raised. Senator Taylor-Quinn asked about the legal costs. As I understand, the legal process is not complete in that the appeal is still in progress. This is a matter for the Taxing Master and the Attorney General. The Senator will know that the Attorney General deals with such matters rather than Departments. I will, however, inquire about the costs.

Senator Taylor-Quinn also referred to the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, who tabled a somewhat similar amendment in the Dáil which the Government at the time did not accept. There is no point going over the rows and arguments which took place. What we are doing now is consistent with what was said by Members on our side of the House at the time. I did not want to rehash the debate and gave credit to Senator O'Toole who was in possession at 1 p.m. on 27 February. We should leave that discussion behind and deal with the new situation resulting from the change in Government.

This Bill must give the Commissioners of Irish Lights the powers they need and leave it at that or give them those powers while specifically stating that this issue must be treated differently, which is what we are doing. We have said the Loran C issue must come back to the Minister in the first instance and be debated in the Dáil and the Seanad. That is a legislative process to which the Minister will be bound.

It was stated that this matter could be brought forward in the Dáil but Members may be asleep at the time. There would have to be a major conspiracy of silence which would not occur in this case. This is an affirmative and positive amendment. We could have an amendment whereby the Minister must sign an order or an order must be laid before the House and to which one could object within 21 days. At another level, we could also introduce legislation. The order must come before the Minister who will decide, with the permission of the Government, whether to bring forward an amendment for debate in the Dáil and Seanad. The controls cannot be any tighter than that. It is a very satisfactory way of dealing with this issue because it allows urgent legislation to be introduced. I understand that several Senators have asked why the issue should be returned so soon to the Seanad. It is an urgent matter and must be dealt with quickly. Also, the Leader of the Opposition asked for it to be a priority, and rightly so.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Is the Minister referring to Senator Manning?

Dr. Woods

Yes.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

That will be clarified.

Dr. Woods

That is my understanding. Senators have suggested that I should have entered into the consultative process before today. Since we are putting the issue aside for the present, that is unnecessary because we can have all the consultation required later.

Táim an-bhuíoch don Seanadóir Bonner thar cheann a fhocail fáilte dom inniu. I thank Senator Bonner for his welcome today and I congratulate him on his maiden speech. He is from one of the biggest fishing areas in the country, Killybegs, and Senator Fitzgerald represents another in Dingle. Senator Bonner concentrated on the importance of the Bill and the urgent need for this legislation. I appreciate that, as do most Members, and we are proceeding in that manner.

Senator Norris welcomed much of the Bill as it deals with the safety of seafarers. He mentioned a letter in The Irish Times that suggested the Commissioners of Irish Lights might switch off the system. I doubted that would happen, but they are in a difficult situation which will have to be remedied. Senator Norris also asked why I did not describe the mast and its effects at length. I see no need to do that because the matter is being put aside and can be discussed later. Several Senators asked about the height of the mast. It will be about 700 feet tall, as Senator O'Toole said. It has been described in some newspapers as being like the Eiffel Tower. It is nothing like that, being very thin by comparison. However, it is 700 feet and has all the stays that go with such a height.

Senator Norris was also concerned about the military nature of the system, and Senators have mentioned the fact that the American system is controlled by military bases there. Nobody wants to have a military system, and considerable thought is being given in America as to how the system could be applied to the commercial world. That will be relevant to subsequent debate here. Senator Norris also wondered if an order was sufficient, asking if, like an EU Directive, it could be slipped through. I have explained that it cannot; it will have to be approved or otherwise by the Dáil and Seanad. I am dealing with legislation for 20 years and this method will deal well with this issue legislatively.

If someone is suggesting that all Members of the Dáil and Seanad will suddenly become automatons——

Mr. O'Toole

I stay awake.

Dr. Woods

——and do the same thing on this issue, then that would happen in other areas also. I do not envisage that ever happening here, although it might happen in other countries.

On co-operation with other agencies, whenever one introduces legislation one is open to all sorts of suggestions. The Commissioners of Irish Lights cannot co-operate, in law, with other agencies in relation to the maintenance of buoys. There are buoys nearer to other agencies than to ours, and they could maintain ours if we maintain theirs; we co-operate with Britain and other countries on marine safety in areas near those countries. There is no creeping militarism about this. If that was suggested, we would have heard about it earlier.

Senator Ryan mentioned the need to get a clear fix when ships are so close at sea. The need for a land-based fix on what is happening at sea that is separate from the excellent satellite system gave rise to this issue. Senator Fitzgerald gave examples where no navigational aids were available. There are enormous benefits in having those essential aids available. He also referred to the Desert Storm period, when America altered the positioning of the DGPS, and I am told it can be altered for other reasons for very short periods. That is one reason for having a separate, land-based system. If policy in this area changes, the situation will be different and we will examine the new circumstances.

Senator Fitzgerald referred to the fact that major commercial harbours operate under the Harbours Act, 1946, but other harbours have minimal fines. The Department informs me that a Bill is in preparation that will deal with this issue. Much work must be done on updating legislation in this area.

Senator Caffrey said he had not known about this Bill. Perhaps he was fortunate, as this meant he could approach it with a fresh perspective. He emphasised the volume of our imports and exports that travel by sea and the importance of safety at sea. The Commissioners of Irish Lights have not fallen down in this area, although laws must be updated to maintain their position. Senator Caffrey introduced an interesting point when he suggested the Government should give a definitive view on the health implications of these masts. The Senator referred to gifted amateurs in local communities who are trying to learn all they can to support their points of view. A body such as the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland is the principal one in this area. Nevertheless it may well be worthwhile to have a co-ordination of views so that a definitive view on any of these issues can be given. There are other European bodies which also express views but the problem is that people do not accept them even when they are expressed by bodies such as the RPII.

Senator O'Donovan talked about the legal dilemma that needs to be resolved, the busy shipping lanes and the importance of dealing with the vacuum in relation to safety.

Senator Seán Ryan talked about the need to deal with all the different kinds of masts and related problems. He then mentioned Sellafield. Living as he does on the east coast, I understand his concern and anxiety. All of us on the east coast are very concerned. I assure him that the Government has made available the money which was promised before the election, and it will be working with the committee to proceed further with that. The Government accepted the Opposition motion so we are as one in that area.

Mr. O'Toole

That is the kind of pragmatic thinking we like.

Dr. Woods

Senator O'Toole spoke about the amendment he was thinking about and I thank him for his comment. He is prepared to recognise this is a genuine move, and I assure him it is. What I have said about the proposed amendment is absolute and there is no question of any hidden agenda.

The Senator asked who signed this. It was a civil servant but it was in the period when Minister Andrews was in office. It was a Government decision that had nothing to do with Loop Head.

Mr. S. Ryan

We are not blaming the Minister.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

That was not suggested.

Dr. Woods

That was a subsequent development. It was an agreement going back to 1992 to have a land base. The DECCA base was seen as becoming obsolete. There is a novel suggestion to put it on Rockall and use wave power, but it would need to be much more southerly, off Kerry for instance. If the Senator can find an island in that area the Government would be interested.

Mr. S. Ryan

There is one up for sale.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Kinsealy is looking for an offer.

Dr. Woods

Senator O'Toole raised the question that the DECCA system might be the more modern but that even this system might become obsolete. That is something everybody must consider. He also raised the question of getting a different satellite and having a different positioning from that point of view. I understand Europe is planning another system that would cost millions of pounds, but cost would not be as big a problem for Europe as it would be for Ireland. Russia and the USA have the satellites and that raises another possibility. However, the objective here was to have a land based approach.

The Senator asked if the output from the mast will cover the west of Ireland. It will. Output from the French mast will extend well into the Atlantic and output from the Irish post will extend even further. The whole system is based on triangulation.

By introducing legislation in the manner I planned, I am securing the continued operation of essential marine navigation aids. Everybody agrees with that. I am also addressing concerns about the proposed Loran C mast by introducing an amendment to the legislation which will ensure that the erection of the mast cannot proceed unless a new order is made by the Minister and approved and passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. European regulations do not come before the Houses, but I emphasise this must come before the Houses for debate.

The commissioners currently provide a wide range of radio based aids to marine navigation, including radio beacons, radar beacons, radar enhancers and the global positioning system. The primary purpose of this new legislation is to enable the commissioners to continue to provide these radio navigation systems in the interests of maritime safety. It is essential the necessary legislative framework is in place to allow the commissioners to provide these vital radio based aids to navigation to seafarers. The amendment the Government is proposing will ensure that the Loran C project will not proceed unless the new order is made and passed by both Houses before it comes into effect. I am ensuring, therefore, the Loran C project will not proceed unless new legislation is adopted by the Dáil and Seanad.

I intend to carry out a fundamental review of all aspects of the Loran C issue, many of which the Senators have mentioned. This will allow me to hear at first hand the views of all the interested parties, particularly those living in the Loop Head area. The proposed amendment would ensure that interested parties can contribute to the wide-ranging consultation process in the secure knowledge that no action can be taken in the meantime to progress this project. The amendment will state the section which gives these powers to the commissioners shall not apply to the radio and navigation system known as Loran C until such date as the Minister may appoint by order, subject to any restrictions or conditions the Minister may specify in an order, and following on from that, where an order is proposed to be made under subsection 3 of the section, a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made unless a resolution approving the draft is passed by each such House. It is an affirmative order which is legislation, and it must come back to the House for that purpose. That is what we propose. It is consistent with the concerns that were expressed earlier.

There was the question about the NHA status. My Department has been informed by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands that the Loran C site is not included in the sites proposed for NHA status on the Loop Head peninsula. It appears that the UK may join the group negotiating for the land-based system to replace DECCA as the terrestrial support framework for the GPS.

With regard to An Bord Pleanála, the planning permission contains certain restrictions.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Does the Minister intend to seek further planning permission?

Dr. Woods

I understand what the Senator is driving at. I am aware of the situation relating to Burtonport.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

No answer.

Dr. Woods

I have undertaken to meet the people of Burtonport. I am sorry it was not possible to do so during my visit to Killybegs, but I had a full programme of engagements.

I dealt with the health issues raised by Senator Caffrey. Senator Seán Ryan raised the issue of seamen, who are the subject of a separate Bill. A great deal of outmoded legislation affects their profession, probably because it is such an ancient one, but a separate Bill is being drafted which I hope to introduce in 1998.

I hope I have given the assurances required by Members and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 5.45 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997

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

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Oct 1997