Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 24 Oct 1997

Vol. 152 No. 8

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

Question again proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

When we last debated this section I expressed disappointment that the Minister did not accept many of the amendments we tabled. I am especially disappointed that those amendments which took consideration of the international agreement were not favourably considered by him. I hope he will introduce an appropriate amendment on Report Stage.

Section 3 is the essence of the Bill. It gives powers to the Commissioners of Irish Lights. There is widespread concern regarding the powers which will enable them to build a Loran C mast.

The Minister's amendment was accepted by the House. Unfortunately it does nothing to relieve the concerns of the people of west County Clare regarding Loran C. The Minister indicated that any developments in this area would have to be debated by both Houses of the Oireachtas and he went on to outline the way in which parliamentary business is ordered and conducted, how parliamentary party meetings are ordered and how members of parliamentary parties are notified of the business of the Houses.

However, the Minister should reflect on the fate of legislation which was enacted speedily and in an unsatisfactory manner, such as the rod licensing legislation in 1988. This international agreement was agreed before most people realised its full implications. Cognisance must be taken of these factors. The reality of proceedings in the Houses of the Oireachtas has meant that legislation has been enacted before the majority of Members in either House was aware of its implications. I hope this slipshod, smart manoeuvring tactic will not be used by any Minister or official in the Department in the future in relation to this section. If that happens, it will be the sword on which they fall.

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

Before dealing with the Bill, I wish to say that I am very distressed and upset about the terrible tragedy which occurred in Counanna Harbour in Cahirciveen. I have been informed this morning by the marine emergency services that the bodies of both people have been recovered. I extend my sincere sympathy to the family, friends and relatives of the couple and to the people of the area. Mr. and Mrs. O'Donoghue were particularly well known and their deaths are a tragedy. It is particularly upsetting that it occurred at a time when the fishing industry in the area appears to be doing well.

I thank the Irish Marine Emergency Service, and the rescue services under my Department's overall direction. This came into operation immediately and we are aware from reports that they were on hand within minutes. The Irish Marine Emergency Service, which co-ordinated the search, rescue and recovery of the bodies, deployed the marine emergency service at Shannon, the Dingle coastal unit lifeboat, personnel from the local coastal unit and the Valentia RNLI lifeboat and the naval vessel, the LE Eimear. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of the emergency services which involved the deployment of considerable resources it was not possible to rescue the two people involved.

I extend my sympathy to those so recently bereaved by the tragedy. I was not far from the area at the time and it was a great shock to everybody there. I am sure the House also extends its sympathy. The personnel of the rescue services do a tremendous job but some of the people in the coastal units of the IMES are less well known. They are all local volunteers who were members of the former coast and cliff rescue service.

Regarding Senator Taylor-Quinn's points, we dealt with this issue in considerable depth previously. Although the provisions are strong, the Senator is concerned there may be a parallel between this matter and past issues such as the rod licence dispute and that some measure might be forced through. If the Government wanted to force a measure through, it could do so today. If a future Administration wants to introduce legislation, it is free to do so at any time if it has a majority and can vote it through the Houses. The previous Government put this Bill through the Lower House without amendment.

I do not agree with the Senator that provisions can be rushed through. People will know they are before the House and a major row would be caused if a Government decided to force them through without giving Members an opportunity to express their concerns. We have made substantial amendments. Senators understand what we are doing and the way in which we are doing it. They realise nothing will happen without a full and open debate in both Houses. If a future Minister decides to bring forward an order under this arrangement — we discussed this at length — such an order must come before both Houses for debate. The procedure is open. It will depend on how people feel about this issue at the time. There is no question of such an order being pushed through. That could happen with another type of order but with this arrangement, there is no way it could happen. I agree with the Senator that this is the substantive issue in the section and we have covered it adequately. On that basis, I ask Senators to agree to the section.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 4.

Mr. S. Ryan

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 4 between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) Co-operation under subsection (1) shall not be provided for the purpose of providing maritime navigational assistance to the military vessels or aircraft of another state, unless the assent of Dáil Éireann has been first obtained.".

I will not press this amendment, although I have tabled another on Report Stage which will cover what we are trying to achieve here.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

It is appropriate to join with the Minister in extending our sympathy to the O'Donoghue family following the tragic accident in Dingle. It is sad that this elderly couple who set out on a nice autumn afternoon should return in their coffins. Those involved in the rescue must be complimented on their fine work and on acting so quickly. The groups involved, including the Shannon rescue service, the local Dingle peninsula service and the RNLI successfully managed to recover the bodies.

It is also appropriate to convey our appreciation to the Commissioners of Irish Lights and the search and rescue services throughout the country on their tremendous work over the years in carrying out so many rescues in extremely difficult situations, including inclement weather conditions. Many foreign registered boats as well as the RAF have been involved in rescues. Nobody would dare suggest the commissioners do not have the powers to co-operate with the relevant authorities and agencies concerned with rescues.

Mr. Bonner

On behalf of Government Members, I express my condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in County Kerry yesterday. It brings to mind quite poignantly the situation we have faced on many occasions in County Donegal and the hardship and distress caused to families when they lose loved ones. When we look at the sea and think of tranquil and pleasant experiences we fail to realise its power and it is only on occasions such as this we realise how inhospitable it can be.

I pay tribute to the rescue services which took part in the search and, fortunately, bodies were found. While we have State services and co-operation between ourselves and Great Britain in sea rescues, such events highlight the great efforts of the voluntary organisations and the local cliff and sea rescue teams on behalf of all seafaring people.

I have been invited to a dance by a voluntary group in Donegal. I congratulate such voluntary groups and stress the importance of these people. Once again, I offer my condolences and thank the rescue services for what they have done over the past few days.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Mr. S. Ryan

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 4, line 29, after "assistance" to insert the following:

"provided that, where the contribution has been made pursuant to an international agreement, such agreement has been approved by Dáil Éireann".

Before addressing the amendment, the Labour group in the Seanad and I extend sympathy to the family and friends of Mr. and Mrs. O'Donoghue who tragically died. It is ironic the glut of fish in our seas were in some way responsible for this tragedy. These were two elderly people who caught fish and sold them for a living. May they rest in peace.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the legislation is constitutional. Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution states: "The State shall not be bound by an international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann." This is not reflected in the Bill and this amendment ensures it is in line with the Constitution.

Reference is made in this section to the Minister and the Minister for Finance and, as far as I am concerned, it is not satisfactory or constitutional.

Dr. Woods

The Department of Foreign Affairs has advised that, in accordance with the Constitution, any international agreement involving a charge on public funds has to be approved by Dáil Éireann. The commissioners' involvement in an international agreement under sections 4 and 6 requires the consent of the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources and such an agreement would be likely to involve funding from the Exchequer. This amendment is, therefore, not considered necessary or appropriate in that the point is already covered and the requirement is there. Senators will be aware that the international agreement on Loran C was approved by Dáil Éireann on 8 October 1992. Therefore, I do not accept the amendment.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I support the amendment tabled by Senator Ryan and his colleagues because it is an important one which makes the Dáil and Seanad central to these matters. The Minister referred to Loran C. How much money has been paid by the Department or the Department of Finance towards securing the Loran C system? How much has been paid towards storing a mast somewhere in Paris? Are these moneys coming from the Minister's Department or the Department of Finance? There is need for vigilance in this section and I understand the motivation of Senator Ryan in tabling this amendment.

Mr. S. Ryan

I do not accept the Minister's view that my amendment is not required in the context of this section. The section states: "The Commissioners shall have, and be deemed always to have had, power to make monetary contributions, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance, towards the funding of international organisations or bodies concerned with maritime navigational assistance". How can we be sure the funding of such agreements is in accordance with the wishes of the people? It is not sufficient in the context of this section that it is left to the Minister and the Minister for Finance to approve, possibly retrospectively, the recommendations of the commissioners. That is not satisfactory. It is not the commissioners, the Minister or the Minister for Finance who will be answerable but Dáil Éireann. This section deals with international agreements and, on that alone, it should incorporate this simple amendment whose only purpose is to protect the constitutionality of the Bill, thus protecting what is its envisaged purpose.

Mr. Bonner

While I understand why this amendment has been tabled, the Minister has already assured us that, where funding needs to be made available, it must be approved by the Dáil. The legislation already deals with that so we are only prolonging the situation. The amendment is superfluous and only amends something which already exists.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I join with the Minister and other Members in extending our sympathy and condolences to the bereaved families of the couple who tragically lost their lives off the coast of Kerry. I have many friends in the Caherciveen area and know that the shock of a tragedy at sea is something we often face. For decades Irish and Anglo-Irish writers, in poetry and prose, have tried to capture the sense of tragedy, loss and shock of these unfortunate and, sometimes, inexplicable accidents. Despite this, they are a source of great shock and deep grief for all concerned. Déanaim comhbhrón leis na comhaltaí eile agus ar dheis Dé go raibh a n-anamacha.

Normally I would be sympathetic to the sentiments and concerns articulated by Senator Ryan in his efforts to provide a safeguard for the Houses of the Oireachtas, the taxpayer and the people in terms of the spending of money to promote international agreements. That is a commendable and laudable aspiration. However, it is clear from the Minister's comments that there is a distinct obligation on a Minister to come back to the Dáil and Seanad where additional funding is sought to support such an agreement. That obligation negates the need for this amendment.

Dr. Woods

The storage to date is of the order of £50,000 and the cost to the Exchequer is slightly over £955,000. In accordance with the Constitution, any international agreement involving a charge on public funds has to be approved by Dáil Éireann. Therefore, this is covered by these provisions. Under sections 4 and 6 of the Bill, the commissioners' involvement in an international agreement would require the consent of the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources and such an agreement, if it involved any expenditure, would have to come before Dáil Éireann. The expenditures involved in the Loran C system came before Dáil Éireann on 8 October 1992 and were approved at that time.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. S. Ryan

If the Minister is satisfied that the Bill does not require this amendment, which is designed to ensure its constitutionality, then I am satisfied to take this undertaking on board.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I agree with this section. However, I hope that very serious consideration will be given by the Minister, the Department and the Commissioners of Irish Lights before any lighthouse is removed. Lighthouses are very much a part of local tradition and heritage and are landmarks. They have always been a source of interest to local communities and an attraction for visitors. Lighthouses are a unique feature of the Irish landscape but no more will be built. As part of our history, they are all the more important and significant. If any consideration is given to removing or selling lighthouses, the local community should be consulted. If possible lighthouses should be used as heritage or interpretative centres. Lighthouses are a national treasure which should not be disposed of, removed, transported elsewhere or knocked down. The Commissioners of Irish Lights and their staff are to be complimented for the meticulous manner in which they have maintained Irish lighthouses; they were an example to every other section of the community.

Mr. Bonner

I concur with Senator Taylor-Quinn's comments. As someone who comes from a seafaring constituency, one of my earliest childhood memories is of visiting lighthouses and being enthralled by them and by the men who worked there. I would not like to see lighthouses being closed down completely or made defunct. I am sure the Minister and his Department would make funding available to assist fishing communities to establish maritime museums which would protect our heritage for future generations.

Mr. S. Ryan

Section 6 states that the commissioners shall have power to enter into agreements and to identify wreck locations. Will the Minister outline for me the powers of the commissioners in relation to the removal of these wrecks? A number of wrecks are located along the Irish coastline and these are a matter of concern particularly in relation to shipping. In the past, the owners of these wrecks could not be located. I am aware that the commissioners have the power and responsibility to identify the wrecks but I would like to know who has the power and responsibility to remove them. This should be done in the interests of safety.

Dr. Woods

The receivers of wrecks are responsible for their removal. The Department often becomes involved because some wrecks are part of our national heritage. However, wrecks located in shipping lanes can cause problems and we must find means of disposing of them. A famous wreck, the Bardini Reefer, is referred to in the Lower House from time to time, particularly by the west Cork Deputies. It has been a source of nuisance and yet is considered to be part of the area's heritage.

Senator Taylor Quinn asked us to ensure that lighthouses are not removed; I could not help laughing at that. Perhaps if masts were built in the form of lighthouses there might be less trouble about them.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

One of my initial amendments, amendment No. 5, related to the scale and size of navigation systems.

Dr. Woods

The Loran C system is much narrower than a lighthouse.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

At 720 feet it is much higher.

Dr. Woods

I welcome the comments of Senator Taylor-Quinn on how well lighthouses have been maintained over the years. I have a personal interest in this because my grandfather was a lighthouse keeper who kept his lighthouses very well. We should record the manner in which they have been kept. The commissioners have kept the lighthouses particularly well. They have also made arrangements to turn defunct lighthouses into, for example, local heritage centres. I will convey to the commissioners the views expressed in the House, with which I agree. They are relevant and it is particularly important that they be kept and maintained as part of our heritage.

I accept and will keep in mind the comments of Senators Taylor-Quinn and S. Ryan on this section.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I move amendment No. 14a:

In page 5, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following new subsection:

"(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of the LORAN C navigation system.".

I tabled this amendment as I assumed the Minister's amendment to section 3 would be accepted. Section 3 is now an extensive section which conveys major powers to the commissioners. The conferral of additional powers or functions to the commissioners is necessary. Inherent in this section is a danger of its use to supersede section 3. Section 7 could allow for something to happen which would not be allowed under section 3. The amendment ensures that the provisions of section 7 shall not apply to the Loran C navigation system in an effort to confine all matters relevant to Loran C to section 3.

I would not like a case to arise where some bright genius in the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources or the Attorney General's Office might propose a way of legally manipulating the system. This amendment is specifically aimed at copperfastening the legislation to ensure there are no loopholes, apart from that in section 3, through which Loran C can be forced ahead. I hope the Minister is aware of the motivation behind this amendment and that if he brings an order before the Houses in the future to enable Loran C go ahead he will be able to amend the legislation. Many of the concerns and fears of people in west Clare would be allayed if this amendment were accepted. Development of the Loran C system is definite as almost £1 million has already been spent on it, otherwise that amount of Exchequer money would not have been spent.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

They spent more money in Clare on various sites.

Dr. Woods

Some of it is good land in Clare.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

It is particularly attractive land in a fine location. We hope the matter can be corrected and I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

Dr. Woods

I remember correctly there is nearly £500,000 has been invested in County Clare. That could be worth more now so perhaps the State will make a profit.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The local landowners expect to make a profit if they buy the land back for about half of what they received for it because it was bought at a high price.

Dr. Woods

I do not know. We had better not go into that now. It brings out the point that some of the expenditure relates to the land. I am just making that point; I do not want to add to it in any way.

The steps we have taken earlier in section 3 ensure that nothing can go ahead unless and until it is decided by debate in both Houses. We are effectively back to the same point. My amendment to section 3 makes more than adequate provision for this. I understand what Senator Taylor-Quinn is doing. She is just trying to add that the provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of the Loran C navigation system. I am advised by the Attorney General that it is not necessary or appropriate to insert this amendment into section 7 in view of my amendment to section 3.

As amended, section 3 deals comprehensively with the Loran C issue and, because it is primary legislation, it would override any order purported to be made under section 7, even if, as is most unlikely, a future Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources were to contemplate such a course of action. I assure the House that I will not do so.

For that reason, the matter is comprehensively covered by my amendment to section 3. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Bonner

I am only in the House a short period and I have never heard as much about Loran C to date as I have heard today. I applaud Senator Taylor-Quinn's efforts on behalf of the people of County Clare but this amendment is not necessary because, as the Minister pointed out, he has adequately dealt with the issue under section 3. In fact Loran C is no longer in the frame because the amendment to section 3 has dealt with it.

There is a motion on the Order Paper in connection with the effects of microwave transmitters. Unfortunately I was not here in 1989 when the MMDS franchises were granted by the Oireachtas but I am sure Senator Taylor-Quinn was a Member of the Dáil on that occasion. Unfortunately we have no redress on that matter, but I fully support Senator Taylor-Quinn's efforts to have the Loran C issue addressed. However, the Minister has dealt with it.

Mr. S. Ryan

Does the Senator want it in County Donegal?

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Skerries.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Senator Tom Fitzgerald does not want it.

Mr. Bonner

The opinion of the people in the west is that everything, Structural Funds included, has gone to the east coast so we will gladly let the Senator have it on the east coast.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Well said. In view of what the Minister said, I take the point that the order, which would have to be discussed and passed by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas, is a more serious one than the second class order under this section, which must be laid in the Library to which one may object within 21 days. In that case, the order under section 3 would supersede the intention behind my amendment to section 7. Am I correct?

Dr. Woods

Yes.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

If that is the case, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 7 agreed to.

Section 8 agreed to.

SECTION 9.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 15 in the name of Senator Seán Ryan is out of order because it is outside the scope of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Amendment No. 15 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. S. Ryan

I am disappointed the amendment to repeal sections 221 and 225 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, is deemed to be out of order. It is completely illogical—

An Cathaoirleach

It is not in order to question the ruling of the Chair in respect of an amendment which has been ruled out of order. However, I will allow the Senator to contribute on the section.

Mr. S. Ryan

The 1894 Act is British legislation. The previous Government gave a commitment to repeal all such legislation and I believe that should be done. Given that we are in breach of various conventions and human rights legislation, will the Minister indicate the stage we have reached in respect of updating the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894? Commitments were given to the Council of Europe that the legislation would be updated. However, as a maritime country, Ireland remains dependent on outdated legislation from 1894. That is completely unacceptable.

Amendment No. 15 has been ruled out of order. However, if the Minister considers the provisions in sections 221 and 225 of the 1894 Act he will see that the legislation is Victorian. I intend no disrespect to the officials of the Department. It is the Minister's responsibility to ensure the legislation required to meet current maritime conditions is put in place. After all, it is not as if a large volume of legislation has passed through the Department of the Marine over the years. It is time legislation to update the position was forthcoming.

A commitment was made to the Council of Europe which took issue with the Government that new legislation in this area would come before the Houses before the end of 1996. Ireland is one of the few countries in Europe which is still governed by this outdated legislation. A commitment must be given to our fishing and maritime industries to update the 1894 Act, because that is what is required. There is no point in dealing with outdated legislation. Will the Minister provide a specific timescale for the introduction of proper and long overdue legislation in this area?

Dr. Woods

I accept the Senator's views. Provisions need to be updated, as does the 1894 Act. As indicated on Second Stage, I intend introducing a Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill soon to deal with such matters, specifically sections 221 and 225. That Bill is being drafted in the parliamentary draftsman's office and it should be published later this year or early next year.

On lighthouses generally, I will review the situation with the Commissioners of Irish Lights to look at their future as part of our maritime heritage as well as in connection with safety at sea. I accept Senators' points and it is time to look at the future rather than have things happen piecemeal.

Question put and agreed to.

TITLE.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendment No. 16 is out of order.

Amendment No. 16 not moved.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.