Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 24 Oct 1997

Vol. 152 No. 8

Merchant Shipping (Commissioners of Irish Lights) Bill, 1997: Report and Final Stages.

Mr. S. Ryan

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

"9. The Commissioners shall not have power under this Act to provide maritime navigational assistance to the military vessels or aircraft of a state, or an organisation of states, which is participating in a war or engaged in any other form of armed aggression unless the assent of Dáil Éireann has first been obtained."

Given people's concerns about neutrality and the context of this Bill, it is important that we differentiate between those States participating in a war and those engaged in other forms of armed aggression. I withdrew other amendments because I agreed with the Minister about the responsibilities of the Commissioners of Irish Lights or anyone involved in search and rescue operations during peacetime. All our facilities should be made available to anyone in difficulty. We are differentiating between that aspect of the Bill and inclusion of a specific reference to those engaged in war.

In the Gulf War, after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, a United Nations mission stopped over in Shannon but the Houses of the Oireachtas had to be brought back to give sanction to that operation, which it did by an overwhelming majority. However, people are still concerned about our neutrality, especially during war, which is why this amendment is now proposed. Our people cherish neutrality and they should be able to have confidence in it.

Other Senators may argue that the amendment puts ordinary seafarers at risk but it does not. In normal times when there is no war, the facilities of the State are available to save people. The amendment refers to countries participating in war and it would go against the wishes of the people to make the facilities of the State available in such cases, unless the consent of Dáil Éireann is granted.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I second Senator Ryan's amendment which keeps our Constitution to the forefront. Any action taken must be constitutional and no legislation should provide otherwise. This amendment is important because, as the Senator said, the Houses of the Oireachtas have had to meet in the past to allow war materials to travel through this country and war planes to stop over in Shannon. The amendment should refer to armed manoeuvres as well as armed conflict.

On Committee Stage we mentioned the ability of technology to pick up signals. Planes are easy to spot because there are very few airports. If planes land they are obvious and become a source of public discussion. Sea going vessels are much less obvious because fewer people can see them, particularly in the case of submarines. That, however, is no justification for not legislating prudently to protect the Constitution and ensure it is adhered to at all times. Our neutrality should not be altered until a referendum is held. Any legislation which may empower a Department or its agent to take unconstitutional action is unacceptable. This amendment is wise and prudent in the circumstances.

Ireland is supposed to be a nuclear-free zone and nuclear powered submarines should not be assisted by the Commissioners of Irish Lights or by any navigational aid system they supply outside our waters. While military manoeuvres take place in the north Atlantic, we should not provide assistance to it while publicly appearing to be a nuclear-free zone. If we are nuclear free, we should not provide navigational aid to nuclear powered submarines. The amendment is highly commendable and I hope the Minister can accept it.

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

The Commissioners of Irish Lights are subject to the general supervision of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources in this jurisdiction in regard to all matters which come within their sphere of operation. The funding system under which they operate would not allow them to undertake any new projects in relation to radio navigation aids without the express approval of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources subject to specific funds being made available. They are not free agents operating within our jurisdiction.

Senator Taylor-Quinn spoke of stopping over and refuelling at Shannon. That is a totally separate matter for the Government of the day. The Government decides on that. One may disagree with the Government of the day but it comes within the competence of the Government and the Department concerned.

We are discussing navigational aids broadcasting on the air waves. Anyone can pick up readings of their bearings. We are back to this discussion of the GPS system. The system is there and anybody with the proper equipment can use it. The United States can restrict the system's use if they desire.

Mr. S. Ryan

They can switch it off.

Dr. Woods

If they switched it off there would be a number of ships in serious trouble.

Mr. S. Ryan

However, they can switch it off.

Dr. Woods

If they did, their own ships would be in great trouble. There is a huge volume of traffic on the sea. If we wanted to switch it off we could, but we would have to ensure people would be able to calculate their positions by other means. In normal circumstances the navigational aids are there whether they are buoys, beacons or signals on the air waves.

There is no question here that relates to neutrality. That is an issue for the Government of the day to decide on. There is the question of humanitarian rescue. If people are lost at sea from a passing vessel, no matter what type of vessel it is, the standard humanitarian tradition of sea rescue would come into operation, as it did in wartime.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

This deals specifically with military purposes and purposes of warfare.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has already made her contribution.

Dr. Woods

Suppose a military vessel or aircraft is in trouble; the personnel are still people in difficulty.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

That is humanitarian.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Will the Senator stop interrupting?

Dr. Woods

Anyone who could help to locate people in the sea will be called upon and will act on a humanitarian basis. If it happens that those people have to be held as prisoners of war that is the procedure. I see no need for this amendment. It is unnecessary. That issue is well covered in the Bill. I understand what Senator Seán Ryan is getting at: it is a residual of the Loran C issue which was dealt with in section 3, as to who controls the output of the system's signals. We discussed this at some length earlier and I see no need to be concerned about it. Giving assistance to vessels at sea comes under the general supervision of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources under the direction of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. S. Ryan

The Minister is being complacent.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

He is.

Mr. S. Ryan

There is a lot of waffle in what he is saying. This amendment is specific. It puts down a marker in relation to the aspirations and views of the majority of the people as expounded, particularly by the Minister's own party as well as all other parties in the State.

We are not talking about a normal operation. In a normal case we would endeavour to save those in distress at sea. Those are normal operations which are carried out to international standards and long may our nation apply them. We have applied them in various other areas including peacekeeping, where we put ourselves at risk to save people.

The Minister said that, in war, we can switch off the appliances that may be required, but if a submarine sets off to attack another country I assure the Minister it will not depend on the Loran C system to get it from point A to B because it will have its own navigational mechanisms on board.

The commissioners will not have control over all the activities taking place either in our airspace or territorial waters, or even underwater. A specific request to use our navigational facilities in pursuance of war is not in line with the Constitution or the aspirations of the people.

The Labour Party wants this amendment incorporated into the Bill, while at the same time acknowledging that even though it is inserted, the commissioners may not have much control over it. At least it puts down a marker that this country will not be engaged in such activities. I ask the Minister to take the amendment on board and incorporate it in the Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. S. Ryan

It is being pressed. I was hoping the Minister would give me a negative response.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

He is not required to do so.

Dr. Woods

I cannot speak to that amendment in this regard.

Mr. S. Ryan

The Minister cannot speak?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator had the right of reply.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Bill received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

It is unfortunate this Bill has gone so far through the Houses of the Oireachtas and that it has now reached its Final Stage in the Seanad. It first came about because of High Court and Supreme Court cases taken by the people of west Clare. The Supreme Court ruled on one point only which was that the Loran C mast was not a beacon under the 1894 Act and, thus, the Commissioners of Irish Lights were acting ultra vires their powers under that Act. The court said nothing about any other functions of the Commissioners of Irish Lights, with which the Bill deals.

All the Minister had to say was that one could imply from the Supreme Court judgment that the commissioners did not have powers in a variety of other functions and hence this Bill. However, the Bill was brought forward because of implication or supposition from a judgment of the Supreme Court. If the Minister and his Department were sincere in their concern about the implications of the court decision they simply had to introduce a short Bill to amend the 1894 Act stating that all systems in effect in Irish waters as of the date of passing of the Bill should be deemed to be validly operated by the commissioners. Instead of that we have had a substantial Bill presented.

The underlying, hidden agenda is the Loran C issue. We must remember that in 1985 a memo on that issue was sent from a member of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to the Department of the Marine.

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

We have dealt with that.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Will the Senator confine her remarks to the Bill?

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

This is relevant to the Bill. That memo specifically indicated that the commissioners lacked powers under the 1894 Act and that they did not have the power to operate Loran C.

Dr. Woods

This claim was refuted earlier on and has been dealt with comprehensively. This is being rehashed again for media purposes without——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Will the Minister allow the Senator to continue?

Dr. Woods

It should be understood that these are allegations about civil servants.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

This is a red herring because the Minister does not like what I am saying, neither did the commissioners or An Bord Pleanála when this issue was raised at an oral hearing in Ennis. This is the sensitive nub of the issue and is of major concern to many people. We must record it, palatable or otherwise.

There is a memo dated 12 April 1985 sent by the chief executive officer of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to Mr. Richard Ryan, a commissioner in the Department of the Marine, clearly specifying that the commissioners lacked powers under the 1894 Act to operate Loran C and that new legislation was necessary. In light of that information in the Department I find it extraordinary that Department and the Department of Finance proceeded to give powers and moneys to purchase——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I would ask the Senator to conclude.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I will conclude, but I will say what I have to say; I am entitled to do that.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator must speak to the Bill.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

This relates specifically to what is in the Bill. In light of the fact that judicial review proceedings were issued in December 1994, why did CIL seek and get authority and money to fight those proceedings in the High Court? Why, when they were beaten in the High Court, did they get permission to proceed to lodge an appeal to the Supreme Court? I would like to know the real reason someone in the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources is pushing this legislation. The reality is that either the Department or CIL is haphazard and does not have a lot of care how it spends public money. It is clear from what the Minister said today that almost £1 million has been spent for the promotion and establishment of Loran C, that these agencies and the Department allowed this money to be spent although they did not have the statutory power to do so; they will only have the statutory power when this Bill is passed. Yet they exercised powers two and three years in advance of being given such powers. I find that extraordinary and I hope we get an explanation which has not been forthcoming today or in the debate in either House up to now.

This legislation has one purpose only — to get a Loran C mast erected on Loop Head. In excess of £500,000 has been spent in the purchase of land, £50,000 has been spent to store the mast outside Paris and almost another £500,000 has been spent on what we do not know. All this has been done without the legal and statutory powers to do so. It has been authorised by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, the Commissioners of Irish Lights and probably by the Department of Finance. However, it is only when this Bill is passed that these agencies will have the power to take these steps. Since this question has not been answered the legislation before us is flawed.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I would like to respond to the Senator's remarks.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister will respond; I ask the Senator to deal with the content of the Bill.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I was out of order using that formula of words so I withdraw my remarks.

Having listened to the Committee Stage debate, I find some of the views conveyed by Senator Taylor-Quinn strange. I believe Senator Taylor-Quinn believes her views are valid; there seems to be a degree of paranoia about the motives of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources in relation to the purposes of the Bill.

Looking at the reasons given for the various sections in the Bill — I am sure the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Barrett, did some work on it — and examining the Minister's decision to take the Loran C dimension out of the Bill, although it is being asserted that it is still centre stage, I cannot accept that as being logical. Having listened to views about the potential collusion, military exercises or wartime military activities, even if one were to go along with the view that we refuse to provide maritime navigation assistance to the military vessels or aircraft of a State engaged in war — because that seemed to be a fairly central part of the Opposition's concerns about the Bill — there are many cases at sea and in the air where vessels involved in military manoeuvres or wartime activities find themselves in peril. They may call upon the assistance of navigational aids. Is the Opposition suggesting that elements of the Bill should not be enacted because they would enable help to be provided to such vessels? It is contradictory to suggest that a vessel of destruction in distress, with a potential huge loss of life, should be denied all forms of navigational aid by the State.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

That is a misrepresentation of what was said.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

If some of the suggestions made by the Opposition were implemented, serious problems could arise with regard to the services, including humanitarian aid, which this State likes to provide.

Mr. S. Ryan

I refute the comments made by Senator Liam Fitzgerald which typically misrepresented the amendment we proposed and which Fianna Fáil Members, acting against their principles on neutrality, voted against. We put much thought into making this a better Bill but the Minister was not prepared to accept the amendments we considered necessary to ensure the constitutionality of the legislation.

In view of the strength of our position in the House we have had to accept the Minister's position. He made a number of commitments regarding the purposes of the Bill and his intentions for the legislation. Given the spirit of the debate, I have no doubt he will honour those commitments. I will monitor the issue.

I wish the commissioners well in implementing the provisions of this legislation. They have done a good job on behalf of the State. I also wish well those involved in research and safety around our coastlines. I hope the State will give them all the support they need as far as possible. I welcome the commitment by the Minister to introduce maritime legislation, which is long overdue.

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

Serious allegations have been made to the effect that civil servants in my Department have had information available to them all the time but did not act on it. This is based on a memo supplied on 12 April 1985 to Mr. Richie Ryan for transmission to Deputy Jim Mitchell, the then Minister for Communications.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

From the chief executive officer of the Commissioners of Irish Lights.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister without interruption.

Dr. Woods

There is nothing sinister or hidden about this matter. The memo was dealt with when Fine Gael was in Government in 1985. It shows how a document can be taken out of context and misrepresented. It is yet another example of misrepresentation. I am surprised this issue has been mentioned again. I thought Fifth Stage was an opportunity for Members to pass general comments, not to deal again with issues already covered comprehensively on other Stages.

Nevertheless, in 1985 when Deputy Jim Mitchell was the Minister for Communications and Mr. Richie Ryan was the Chairman of the Commissioners of Irish Lights, a view was expressed regarding doubts that might arise in the future about beacons. This was in terms of legislation generally because the Commissioners of Irish Lights operated radio and radar beacons which were deemed to be covered by the Act. It was suggested, in case any limitations were imposed, that it might be desirable to examine the possibility of introducing legislation to clarify the position.

The matter was then referred to the Attorney General. He examined it and his response was that they were all marks and signs. The Department of the Marine and the Commissioners of Irish Lights had legal advice to the effect that radio stations for the Decca navigation system came within the commissioners' powers to provide beacons even though such radio systems were not contemplated in 1894. On the basis of this broad legal interpretation, it was considered that Loran C, which is a similar radio system to Decca, was within the remit of the commissioners' existing powers. This was the legal interpretation at that time. Nothing was hidden; there was no uisce faoi thalamh. The matter was discussed and that was the considered view.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

A Decca mast is not a fraction of the size of a Loran C mast.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator had an opportunity to contribute. I ask that the Minister be allowed to continue without interruption.

Dr. Woods

That is the Senator's view but it was not the view of the Attorney General at that time. His views are taken before those of Members of this or the Lower House. The courts have since adopted a narrower view of the commissioners' powers. This aspect was dealt with in considerable detail during the debate because it raises many other issues. For example, if a narrow view is taken and we stick to the type of beacons in use in 1894, which were fires lit on hills to warn ships, we are accepting that we cannot move forward and only communication of that nature was intended.

The view taken by the courts was much narrower and this led to the need to introduce amending legislation. There was nothing hidden, secret or underhand about this matter. Different Ministers held office during this time and officials were in communication. Nothing untoward was involved and I do not want people to have a different impression. If that was the case, the next thing would be headlines in the newspapers about another sinister document. I want to be clear about this matter to avoid such circumstances. I have only been in the Department and involved in this issue a short time but that is the background to it.

I thank Senators for their contributions. I received advice from the Attorney General on amendments tabled by Senators and was assured the points about which they are concerned are covered by the legislation. For that reason, I did not accept some of the amendments, although I accepted one of Senator Ryan's at an early stage. This is good legislation which will clarify the powers of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. We have ensured the Loran C project will not proceed unless new legislation is passed by both Houses which should please those concerned with this issue, who I understand, are happy with the way it is being handled.

I thank Senators on both sides for their contribution to an interesting debate. I assured Senator Ryan we are proceeding as urgently as possible with the new legislation. I will follow up the point raised about lighthouses generally and their future use and preservation.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Farrell

At 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 November 1997.

The Seanad adjourned at 12.15 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 November 1997.