Law of the Sea (Repression of Piracy) Bill, 2001: Second Stage.

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

Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Fahey)

The Bill before the House addresses the need for a legal framework to deal with cases of alleged harassment of Irish fishing vessels at sea, incidents which amount to piracy as defined under international law.

This legislation has been prepared in response to concerns about the harassment and intimidation of fishermen going about their business. The law regarding intervention, investigation and prosecution where incidents of harassment and intimidation are alleged to occur is uncertain. This Bill seeks to remove this uncertainty. The Bill will also act as a deterrent and facilitate legal action in certain cases.

The principal provisions of the Bill are to provide for the repression of acts of piracy committed by the crew or passengers on board ships within the territorial seas and internal waters of the State and, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, on the high seas; to define acts of piracy; to make it an offence to commit an act of piracy, as defined; to give authorised officers comprehensive powers to enable them take appropriate action; and to provide for the investigation and punishment of such acts of piracy and of infringements of the collision regulations under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.

We require this legislation to protect the lives and livelihoods of all fishermen and any other persons pursuing legitimate interests in our offshore area. It is unacceptable that fishermen are unlawfully impeded or have their safety put at risk by harassment and intimidation. Between 1994 and 1999 more than 50 such incidents were reported to my Department. A detailed review of these incidents showed that while there were some genuine cases of accidental collisions, the majority of incidents were not accidental. It has also been established that the majority of cases occurred outside our territorial waters where the jurisdiction of our laws has, to date, been uncertain.

To provide a legislative basis for intervention, investigation and prosecution in respect of incidents outside our territorial waters, my Department undertook an intensive legal and technical analysis of the likely basis for any such legislation over the past two years. This analysis included the commissioning of an independent report from a major authority in this field, detailed consideration by the Attorney General's office, the preparation of a technical report by my Department working with BIM and the Naval Service and consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The issues involved were found to be extremely complex. Following detailed analysis, the legal advice to me clearly indicated that to provide an effective legislative regime outside our territorial waters, the way to proceed was to give effect to the piracy provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. At present, the State only has jurisdiction inside the 12 mile limit. Outside this area the provisions of UNCLOS apply, including the rights of free passage, with the exception of alleged fisheries offences as defined by EU law and concerned with the conservation of fish stocks.

Under this Bill I intend to extend the very limited legal powers available to the Minister and to make it a domestic offence to commit an act of piracy on the high seas as well as on the territorial seas and internal waters of the State. In light of this fact, I have provided that the Bill, once enacted, should apply generally at sea, except within the territorial seas of another state, and in so far as acts of piracy involving incidents between sea-fishing boats are concerned, it should not apply within the exclusive fishery limits of another state.

In effect, the proposed legislation seeks to carry into domestic law the provisions of UNCLOS which apply to incidents of piracy between ships occurring on the high seas, with the exception of incidents between sea-fishing boats within the exclusive fishery waters or limits of another state. It would not be appropriate for this State to seek to enforce such legislation within the exclusive fishery waters or limits of another state, EU or otherwise. Where incidents involving Irish vessels occur within such areas they will fall to be addressed under the law of that state, where such laws exist.

The House will understand that the approach taken in drafting this legislation is the result of a detailed and searching analysis by the legal advisers to the State in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General's office. The House will also appreciate that there has been a long-standing need to put in place an appropriate framework to safeguard all fishermen on the high seas. In light of this need and the close scrutiny and thought which has been put into it, I am satisfied that the legislation, as drafted is the best and most appropriate way to proceed on this issue.

The provisions of the Bill will apply to all types of ships, commercial, fishing, merchant marine and pleasure. Acts of piracy are defined in the Bill in accordance with Article 101 of UNCLOS and certain examples of piracy are specified in the Bill, including the intentional ramming of another ship and the deliberate towing away of fishing gear belonging, and attached to, another ship.

Penalties under the Bill for piracy offences are, on summary conviction, a maximum fine of €3,000 – £2,362.69 – and/or up to six months imprisonment and, on conviction on indictment, an unlimited maximum fine and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years. Penalties for obstruction, failure to comply with a reasonable requirement of, or giving false information to, an authorised officer are, on summary conviction, a maximum fine of €3,000 – £2,362.69 – and/or up to three months imprisonment and, on conviction on indictment, a maximum fine of €6,000 – £4,725.38 – and/or up to two years imprisonment.

Section 5 of the Bill gives extensive powers of enforcement to authorised officers appointed by the Minister, including powers to board ships suspected of engaging in piracy or ships which are in contravention of the collision regulations, and powers of seizure and detention of the ship or anything on it. It also provides for the reasonable use of force by authorised officers.

The Bill also addresses the lack of powers to enforce the collision regulations within territorial waters under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Section 419 of this Act provides that all owners and masters of ships shall obey the collision regulations made under section 418 of the Act and creates an offence of infringement of these regulations. However, until now the Naval Service or other authorised officers did not have the power to arrest or detain any vessel suspected of an offence under section 419 of the 1894 Act. The Bill before the Seanad will provide, within the territorial waters of the State, for the boarding by authorised officers of ships on which offences against the collision regulations have been committed and the seizure and detention of such ships and anything on them as evidence. This will normally be undertaken by Naval Service personnel.

The Bill will give the authorities the necessary powers to deal with acts of piracy generally in accordance with the UN Law of the Sea Convention. There has been an increase in the number of acts of piracy being committed worldwide. The Government shares the concerns expressed at the meeting of the Maritime Safety Committee of the International Maritime Organisation held last June regarding this increase in piracy. A total of 471 acts of piracy had been reported to the IMO during 2000, representing an increase of 162 acts over the 1999 figure. Even worse was the finding that during the period under review, 72 crew members of the ships involved had been killed, 129 had been injured and five missing.

I advise the House that I propose to table three amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage. These amendments are mainly intended to tighten up on the wording of the text to ensure that it accords with the provisions of UNCLOS. Specifically, they propose to insert in page 7, subsection (6), line 38, a provision that it is the flag state to which the Minister would be liable for any loss or damage caused by seizure and detention of a ship on the high seas without adequate grounds for doing so – this is in accordance with Article 106 of UNCLOS; insert in page 7, between lines 39 and 40, a provision that it is only a State ship as defined in the Defence Act, 1954, which may carry out seizure and detention of a pirate ship on the high seas – this is in accordance with Article 107 of UNCLOS; and, for the avoidance of doubt, insert in page 7, subsection (7), line 43, a provision that it is only members of the Defence Forces or the Garda Síochána who are empowered to carry firearms or other weapons while exercising the powers of authorised officers.

The Bill is a very important legislative tool to enable us to deal effectively with acts of harassment and intimidation in our territorial waters and on the high seas. I am sure Senators from all parties share the view that such a framework is in the interest of all concerned and I look forward to hearing their comments. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Caffrey

I welcome the Minister to the House for this important legislation. Recent events have demonstrated what can happen in relation to piracy and hijacking. I intend to go through the important elements of this Bill, whether it takes me five, ten or 15 minutes. There are some matters the Minister needs to clarify. The Convention of the Law of the Sea states:

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) an act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

It goes on about warships and Government aircraft and crew, etc.

In his speech the Minister has not mentioned the word "aircraft". Would it be advisable to incorporate it into the legislation at this juncture given the importance aircraft play in modern piracy and hijacking? There is some ambiguity in relation to that aspect. I have not heard of an aircraft being at sea, unless it was ditched. I presume it is a conventional aircraft on land that the convention refers to, it did not say flying boat or any other type of marine aircraft. There is no mention of aircraft in the Bill or whether piracy on an aircraft is an offence. Maybe it should be included. Piracy is another word for hijacking and one cannot be half a hijacker or half a pirate no more than one can be half pregnant. The summary conviction should be eliminated and piracy should be deemed an indictable offence. We have shown too much tolerance for this type of offence in the past. That is evidenced by the Minister's speech where he quotes some alarming statistics. He stated:

A total of 471 acts of piracy had been reported to the IMO during 2000, representing an increase of 162 acts over the 1999 figure. Even worse was the finding that during the period under review, 72 crew members of the ships involved had been killed, 129 had been injured and five missing.

Those are alarming statistics and those types of offences should not be dealt with under summary conviction. I recommend that we delete summary conviction from the Bill and include indictable offence. We have been far too lenient and this type of leniency sends out the wrong signals to these people. It is time they were brought to heel and that enforcement was matched by proper levels of fines and imprisonment. Until we do that we will not stop piracy on the high seas.

I know that there are cases of small time harassment and of fishing boats at loggerheads with one another in a seaborne turf war. Summary convictions may be needed in that area but I certainly want to see more stringent enforcement and higher fines to provide a greater deterrent for this type of operation. In light of what happened on 11 September, we cannot have any more tolerance for pirates, half pirates, hijackers or whatever one wants to call them.

During the debate in this House yesterday on Sellafield and the MOX reprocessing facility there were many valuable contributions. I regret that during the Order of Business I had to raise the fact that it got no coverage whatsoever. There were many erudite contributions – in particular Senator Liam Fitzgerald produced a well researched document and it deserved more coverage than it got. In the course of the debate it became obvious that radiological weapons can now be transported by sea. It does not need to be a nuclear weapon. Sufficient radioactive material can shroud other material and be detonated. The high seas will now become an area which terrorists will highlight and watch more carefully. With more restrictions being put in place, use of the air seems to be cut off from them at present but despite all the restrictions it may be impossible to fully prevent acts of terrorism and hijacking of aircraft.

We are dealing primarily with the sea. In view of the capacity of ships nowadays for transporting dangerous material which, if released at sea, could have disastrous effects on the country and, in particular, its marine life, we need to look seriously at this legislation to ensure its provisions are capable of meeting the intelligence of these hijackers, pirates and terrorists. It is now a war of intelligence in which the best intelligence and the best preventive provisions will win.

I would like the Minister to address several issues, one of which, summary convictions, should be phased out or, perhaps, eliminated from the Bill. We cannot be serious enough about hijackings, piracy and harassment at sea. Sometimes a minor dispute among fishermen develops into a major one. These statistics on acts of piracy, deaths and injuries possibly reflect the escalation of minor disputes into major confrontations leading to death and injury. The Bill attempts to legislate for this type of activity at sea.

I ask the Minister to explain the position of aircraft in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Are they in conflict? Why is the word "aircraft" not in the Bill? We have busy airports in which the possibility of hijacking is ever present. We have no mechanism for preventing hijackings except the normal airport security systems which seem to be breached periodically. We certainly have no national defence mechanism and need one. The Government should be actively investigating some form of defence mechanism at this juncture. We are at the mercy of many people. When something happens we will have to look to outsiders for help because we do not have the resources to deal with a major hijacking or major event at sea.

This legislation is welcome at this time. It was obviously drafted before the events of 11 September which have changed our views on everything and radically altered our perception of this type of legislation. We have to look at it now from a wider perspective realising that anything is possible both on the high seas and in the air. We must look at enforcement procedures and examine more critically fines and imprisonment with a view to creating indictable offences. There are no half measures in these circumstances. There is no such thing as a half pirate or half hijacker. If one has criminal intent, one must be dealt with using the full rigours of the law. This legislation goes some way towards that. I hope it goes all the way once it has been amended in both Houses.

I know at heart the Minister is also anxious to ensure piracy at sea and the minor harassment that leads to these major confrontations and conflicts with resulting loss of life and limb are curtailed and eliminated. Clarification is needed on the relationship between the Convention on the Law of the Sea and this legislation. I ask the Minister to explain the fact that there is no reference – unless I missed it – to aircraft in the Bill.

This is technical legislation with comprehensive provisions. It is welcome at this juncture. I hope we can improve it through debate in both Houses and I am sure the Minister will not be slow to accept improvements. We will deal with aspects of it which were possibly overlooked today on Committee Stage. I look forward to the other contributions to find out which other areas of the legislation have been identified for improvements in the light of everything that has happened and is likely to happen in the foreseeable future, both on the high seas and in the air. It is not possible to legislate for everything. We will scrutinise this Bill and give it every chance of meeting the requirements the Minister envisages. It will go a long way towards preventing the type of harassment, piracy and hijacking about which we all read too frequently.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

I welcome the Minister. As somebody who spent a term in this House, he is welcome back, not as a Senator, but as a Minister. It is nice to see so many Senators progressing up the line and returning as Ministers. That applies across the board, to all parties. I also welcome the fact that this is yet another Bill initiated in this House. It provides further recognition of the qualities of the Upper House.

Senator Caffrey made a very serious contribution on this Bill. Like Senator Ross, I only gave it a cursory glance. On seeing the title, Law of the Sea (Repression of Piracy) Bill, I formed the impression that Bluebeard was still at large and was reminded of Long John Silver and Treasure Island. Mutiny on the Bounty comes to mind as a true and realistic takeover of a ship. However, this is far more serious than all the stories we heard growing up. This legislation may not have been so necessary in the past, but it is now. All of us, including the Minister and everyone connected with the fishing business, will know that until about ten years ago we only had an inshore fleet of boats which were no bigger than 50 feet in length and very rarely ventured outside the 12 mile limit. Boats now go tuna fishing 200 or 300 miles away from their home ports. They go from Killybegs, Dingle, Dunmore East and Castletownbere down to the Azores.

I saw a satellite image print recently of the number of boats fishing within our 200 mile limit. Each little dot on the image represented a boat; a red dot denoted a Spanish vessel and a blue dot a French boat. There was not much room for all the dots – there were about 300 or 400 boats fishing in that territory. These boats need about 20 or 30 miles space in which to trawl the seabed and they use up to five kilometres of nets for drift netting. Inevitably they will encroach on their neighbour's territory. We aim to protect the best fishing grounds but everybody wants to fish where the stocks are plentiful.

The activities of the foreign fleets have shown our fishermen how much fish there is in our 200 mile area. Young fishermen are acquiring bigger and better boats funded by the State. An unprecedented number of large new fishing vessels have been introduced into the national fleet in the past five years. I am often accused of being parochial but I must mention that just a year and a half ago, the Minister launched a £3 million boat for the Flannery family in Dingle. That boat is fishing successfully. Two months after that another new boat costing £1.25 million was launched.

There is a need for this legislation. Before the last decade the number of Irish fishing boats fishing outside the 12 mile limit was very small, only a handful. The opportunity for better fishing within the 200 mile limit has attracted perhaps up to 50 or 60 Irish boats currently fishing in that area. It is a reasonably lucrative business and legislation is now required to protect our fleet.

The Minister has instanced at 50 the number of complaints to his Department between 1994 and 1999. That figure could probably be doubled because many incidents go unreported, involving foreign vessels sailing through the fishing nets of others, of boats being threatened. I do not know of any very serious offence but there has been intimidation. This information was given to me by fishermen from Killybegs, Rossaveal, Castletownbere and Dunmore East. They all complain of intimidation happening in our own fishing area. I am aware that it is a shared EU area but we still regard it as our own. I doubt if the sort of blackguardism that is happening in our territorial waters would be tolerated in the territorial waters of Great Britain, Spain or any other country. My only regret is that this legislation was not in place earlier. I am sure it will be welcomed by all in the fishing community. They must be protected.

I am aware that some of our fishermen commit offences. When they are arrested, it is not uncommon for a bond of £40,000 to be demanded until the next court sitting. The next court will often confiscate their catch and fishing gear. The fines will often amount to £80,000 or £100,000. I disagree on this point with the Minister. The financial fines in this Bill are ludicrous. If a person damages a boat or injures or threatens someone, they should be fined. I cannot see the relationship between €3,000 and six months in prison. The fine should be in the region of €100,000 if the prison sentence is for six months. I presume I am correct in saying that the fine is €3,000, and that I did not misread it. The Minister should increase that fine.

The legislation deals with our territorial waters up to the 200 mile limit. International waters are beyond that 200 mile limit and are not in the ownership of any country in particular. What powers does the Naval Service have over any act committed in international waters? Tuna fishing is in international waters and there is a lot of intimidation involved. Drift netting for tuna finished last year, unless there is some change of mind on the part of the EU. No matter what net is used, tuna fishing has become established. What protection will our fleet have outside the 200 mile limit? This legislation deals with the issue of intimidation and offences committed against fishing vessels within our waters.

We should also keep in mind what Senator Caffrey has said. Despite the horrific tragedies in America recently and how they were committed, suggestions we might make about events which could happen here could be ridiculed. We do not know what the future holds. We hope that nothing will happen.

The Minister is a great advocate of and has made progress in the development of marina facilities around our coast. With these new marinas come more yachts. On the Continent, piracy occurs when fast boats pull up to yachts and simply commandeer them. A friend of mine took his boat to the Mediterranean, left it there for a few months because weather conditions were not suitable for bringing it back and on returning he found it had been stolen. We could flippantly say that an act of piracy would never happen here, but there is a large number of pleasure boats on our coast and they must be protected.

Senator O'Toole will discuss inland waterways. I do not know if the Minister knows that Senator O'Toole is the proud owner of a boat and now thinks he knows everything about boats and fishing.

Mr. O'Toole

He knows.

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

I forgive him for that, at least he started in the right place. I welcome this Bill and we will look at it again as it goes through the House. The only fault I find is that the fines are too low and are disproportionate to the prison sentences. They should be increased and, in the case of offences by fishing vessels, the confiscation of gear, catch and in serious cases the vessel itself should be considered. The law must be upheld.

Mr. O'Toole

I welcome this important legislation and we should be supportive of it. Any difficulties we have can be dealt with during the Bill's passage. As Senator Fitzgerald has done, it is useful to discuss general maritime issues. I ask the Minister to take responsibility for creating a better understanding of maritime culture which is being widely ignored. In any other country, people are proud of their maritime history but this is not the case in Ireland. There are some lighthouses such as the Hook which have been converted as showpieces, but by their nature they are remote and therefore often forgotten.

This is no time to discuss Aer Lingus but that issue has reminded me of the loss of Irish Shipping. It was a bad strategic decision for Ireland to allow that company to close. We have been lucky that, as exports have grown at an extraordinary rate, we have been able to sustain that growth without our own merchant navy. Part of the problem is that there is a lack of understanding of maritime issues by people who live more than 30 miles inland. This is perceived as an issue for those who live around the coastline but it should concern the nation as a whole. In other island nations there is an engagement with the sea, shipping and boats. Those of us who grew up in fishing towns remember long nights during storms, long before today's improved communications, wondering if a ship would come back. Senator Fitzgerald and I would remember those black mornings when fishing boats did not come back and lives had been lost. I recognise the contribution that these mariners have made.

Some months ago, when the LE Deirdre was being de-commissioned, I raised the point in this House that it was a serious error for the State not to maintain the ship as a museum for the benefit of tourists and schools. I know of no port of significant size in Europe where one cannot visit a museum ship. They are even present in smaller towns. There are museums in Southampton and on the south coast of England as well as in London. It is appalling that we recently sold the LE Deirdre for £200,000 when the scrap metal of the top deck would be worth that on its own. It is also a poor way to honour those people who served on that ship, turning it into a pleasure boat rather than utilising it for tourism and for education in order to reflect our maritime culture. I regret the fact that no local authority attempted to raise the £200,000, in order to buy the ship for those purposes.

I compliment the drafters of this Bill on their extraordinarily detailed definition of piracy in section 3 which includes a deliberate attempt by the crew or passengers of a private ship to disable another ship, the use of firearms by such members or passengers, the intentional ramming of another ship, and the deliberate towing away of fishing gear belonging to and attached to another ship which is a sea-fishing boat. However, I do not understand why, in section 2, the Bill omits to cover acts of piracy "in so far as the acts involve incidents between sea-fishing boats within Community fishing waters. . . being waters which are recognised by the State as being under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of another Member State". I do not understand the language here. Surely acts of piracy committed anywhere in the waters of the Community can be dealt with by us as members of the Community and, if not, by countries which are party to the many agreements, including that from which this Bill derives, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea done at Montego Bay. I ask the Minister to clarify this. I also do not understand why the Act would not apply to a ship owned or operated by another state and used only on the non-commercial service of its government. Members of the crew of such a ship could have mutinied and taken control but would not be deemed to have committed an act of piracy. I am sure there is an explanation for that in international terms but it leaves gaps in the Bill.

It is not clear whether outside EU waters, on the high seas, authorised officers can, in hot pursuit of alleged offenders, engage in the enforcement of the Act. Does this mean that a boat may go outside the appropriate territorial limit with its occupants secure in the knowledge that they are untouchable? The only reference to this in the Bill is that where a ship has been seized and detained other than in the territorial seas of the State, without adequate grounds for doing so, the Minister shall be liable. That is important but it does not deal with the possibility of, for example, one of our naval boats attempting to prevent or to respond to an act of piracy, which may require it to go beyond the territorial limits of the State. Where does that leave the authority of this legislation? An amendment should be added to allow the Act to apply outside territorial waters. On the high seas, no writ of any state runs, but the law of the sea is in effect.

Nobody in this House will accept the low fines. The idea that a person who has committed an act of piracy – which includes the use of firearms or weapons, the intentional ramming of another ship, the deliberate towing away of gear, unlawful acts of violence or detention or a deliberate attempt to take over or disable another ship – even on summary conviction, could be fined an amount not exceeding £2,300 is not acceptable. This would not pay for the radar arch or the aerials on a boat. Section 5(10) contains references to fines of up to £4,700 on summary conviction. Considering the cost of the equipment, these fines are laughable. They should be removed from the Bill, leaving the judge to decide the amount of the fine. There should be an entitlement for the authorised officers of the State to confiscate the equipment or the boat of persons guilty of piracy or of the other named offences in the Bill.

Piracy is not a crime that is widely understood on the mainland, but it is an appalling act, similar to stealing, setting fire to or driving a bulldozer through somebody's house, except that a boat or a ship is involved. The fine should reflect the severity of the incident. The figures quoted for summary conviction or indictment are not enough. Section 4(2)(b) provides that on conviction or indictment, a person may be liable to a fine, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years, or both. That is the only section where the Bill is silent concerning the amount of the fine. I would prefer to have it silent in all sections rather than to have a figure as low as £2,300. The Minister welcomed a large new fishing vessel to Ireland's territorial waters some months ago. I cannot remember how many million pounds that ship cost, but the idea that somebody could ram it, take it over, mutiny, or damage or steal it and be fined such small amounts on summary conviction is unacceptable.

I am sure that I reflect the Minister's own view on this. It would be preferable to declare these acts crimes, to retain the periods of imprisonment, six months for summary conviction and 20 years for indictment, but to increase the fines substantially or to remove them altogether. These figures bring the Bill into disrepute, and people may point to them as a weakness in the Bill.

Apart from these issues, I welcome this legislation and ask the Minister to bear in mind the matters I have raised. I will be listening to his reply at the end of the Second Stage. It is good to see us meeting our international requirements under the conventions of the laws of the sea, in this case the Montego Bay Convention.

Mr. Costello

This Bill is something of a mishmash, neither fish nor fowl. The preamble is concerned with old-style repression of acts of piracy. It refers to our implementation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea done at Montego Bay, Jamaica in 1982. We have waited almost 20 years for its implementation. That convention is concerned with repression of acts of piracy committed by the crew or passengers on board ships within the territorial seas and internal waters of the State. However, the Minister in his introductory speech states, "The Bill before the House today addresses the need for a legal framework to deal with cases of alleged harassment of Irish fishing vessels at sea, incidents which amount to piracy as defined under international law." This is a bad way to introduce legislation – to graft something which is relevant to this country to an international law of the sea, under the Montego Bay Convention.

The definitions of piracy are the weirdest that I have ever come across. The first half relates to the Montego Bay Convention, which is concerned with mutiny of crew members. This is not piracy – it is acts of depredation, unlawful acts using firearms or other means of taking control of the ship. The second half also has nothing to do with piracy, rather protection of the fishing fleet. My definition of piracy is concerned with people from a pirate ship boarding and taking possession of another ship. It is a hijacking. There is no reference here to this crucial issue.

The Minister may have listened to last night's numerous contributions concerning the threat of the new mixed oxide fuel plant at Sellafield. The plutonium and uranium that will be stockpiled there will be transported around the world, via the Irish Sea. If the Minister has chosen to present a mishmash Bill, dealing on the one hand with the Montego Bay international United Nations covenant in relation to the high seas "mutiny on the bounty" type of situation and on the other hand he wishes to graft on what he regards as appropriate in terms of our fishing fleet, why will he not look at the most pressing need in the context of piracy which is currently facing us?

It has taken successive Governments 20 years to deal with the first part of this Bill, having found that our legislation in relation to protection from intimidation and harassment of our fishing fleet is obscure and unclear. Now is the time to look at the real threat in relation to piracy in terms of attempts to board ships carrying nuclear part-fuels from which nuclear weapons could be created. This Bill is totally silent on anything of that nature and anything other than mutiny or harassment. What provision is there in relation to boarding or hijacking of a ship by pirates coming on board, as distinct from the crew mutinying, or as distinct from an Irish ship being rammed or having its fishing gear cut by a ship from a Spanish, Russian or other large fleet? I put it to the Minister that this is not a satisfactory Bill. It should deal with all major acts of piracy, otherwise the Minister should have presented it as the Law of the Sea (Protection of the Irish Fishing Fleet) Bill. I suggest the Minister take back this Bill and take a fresh look at it in light of the potential terrorist threats now facing this country.

The Government has said it will produce 11 Bills between now and Christmas to deal with terrorism on an international footing. The most likely area of terrorist threat to Ireland is in the context of Sellafield and the potential nuclear weapons which will be sailing past our shores once that plant is up and running, with materials being transported, largely by sea, to Germany, Japan and elsewhere. Will the Minister say if there is a single word in this Bill to protect a vessel in Irish territorial seas from hijacking by pirates boarding and taking possession of the ship and stealing from it? There is nothing in the Bill about the potential threat of a ship being seized and having plutonium or other nuclear materials removed from it by pirates. This is flawed legislation which does not respond to the particular needs of the time. The Minister should accept that the Bill requires too many changes. He should take it away, reflect on it and come back with a Bill which we can discuss in the context of very recent threats from sea piracy which was not in contemplation when this Bill was being drafted.

Senators referred to the penalties provided for in the Bill, which are unbelievable. The figure is not even £3,000, but €3,000 and €6,000. That is ridiculous. There is no reference to substantial fines or confiscation of fishing gear, or vessels involved in this form of piracy. The penalties provided for in the Bill, albeit in a summary fashion initially, are not a deterrent but rather a laughable effort at dealing with the repression of piracy within our territorial waters or on the high seas.

Our fishing fleet deserves protection, but it should be provided in a separate Bill not related to piracy, which is an entirely different concept from what the Minister is mainly trying to deal with in this Bill. This approach, in many ways, reflects the manner in which we have dealt with our fishing industry – it has never been taken seriously. Would our agriculture industry get a mishmash Bill like this, with something grafted on to deal with a totally extraneous matter? That just would not happen because agriculture is taken seriously. The Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources should ensure that the legislation which he brings forward will properly respect our fishing heritage.

Unfortunately, that industry has not been developed sufficiently. We sold off much of our birthright in that respect when Ireland joined the European Union. Nevertheless, substantial gains have been made in recent years in relation to the strength of our fishing industry and its ability to operate beyond a 12 mile limit and beyond our own territorial waters. As a smaller country with a smaller fleet, we have been bullied by the big boys, particularly the Russian and Spanish fleets which have caused substantial acts of vandalism against our fleet, such as cutting fishing gear and ramming our ships. That should be dealt with in the context of protection of the fishing fleet, with appropriate penalties.

We also need appropriate resources, but the Bill is very silent on providing the means, mechanisms and policing to make it effective. There is not a word about how this is to happen in general terms other than that the authorities to deal with it will be the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána. How are the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána to find the culprits? That will require considerable expenditure, but the Bill is silent on that.

I would welcome the Bill if I thought it would do any good or that it was pertinent to the problem which faces us. Our problems relate to our fishing fleet and the likely or possible boarding of vessels within our territorial waters. The Bill addresses one aspect in a very inadequate fashion but is totally silent on the other aspect.

Mr. Fahey

The Senator should read the Bill.

Mr. Costello

If this was such a major point in the Bill, the Minister should have referred to it in his opening contribution. It is not usual for a Minister to hide his light under a bushel, so to speak, with regard to the strength and richness of his contribution. I have not seen the matter in the Bill and the Minister has not referred to it in his speech. Unless he makes it clear how the matter will be dealt with, I would find little satisfaction in supporting this legislation. I advise the Minister to go back to the drawing board and come up with a substantial contribution in relation to the definition. Can the Minister show me where the definition of piracy refers to anything other than mutiny on a ship or ramming of a ship, or to the fishing fleet as such? I would like to see that definition, which is not now in the Bill. There is no emphasis on it in the Bill and no reference to relevant penalties. Until that is presented, I cannot give anything other than a very lukewarm welcome to this legislation.

Mr. Farrell

I welcome the Minister to the House. The Bill is very appropriate and timely and I congratulate the Minister on being one of the most hands on Ministers we have had in the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources for a long time. He has done much good work. From talking to fishermen and people in the business, I assure him that he is held in very high esteem.

What I like about this Bill is that it will protect what I refer to as sea tourism. Yachting is big business today. We have seen yachts being hijacked and this Bill will protect them and yacht racing enthusiasts who are bringing more tourism to our country.

I congratulate the Minister on making available to the north Sligo area, to Rosses Point, £1 million towards a marina. It is important there is a necklace of marinas around the country because this type of tourism can be very profitable, particularly at present when we must encourage sea tourism. I welcome the Bill and the fact that the Minister has taken into account the protection of those tourists and their yachts as well as other ships. He is doing a very good job and I congratulate him again.

Dr. Henry

I welcome the Minister to the House. The niceties of the Bill are beyond me, not being a great expert in either fishing or maritime matters. There is one area about which I am concerned. The word "hijacking" has to be used and it is not in the Bill. This is a serious problem nowadays. The problem of ships being boarded on the high seas will not be as great as the hijacking of near in vessels for use as goodness knows what against other vessels which may be transporting nuclear weapons or nuclear waste.

I am concerned that the definition of piracy in section 3(1)(a)(ii) is rather narrow –“the use of firearms or other weapons by such members or passengers” as described. With the recent hijacking of airplanes, we have seen that people do not use guns to disable the crew and passengers. Much more basic instruments are used such as box cutters and quite small knives, as in the case of the hijacking of the planes which were eventually flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York, the Pentagon in Washington and, sadly, into the ground in Pennsylvania. We should include agents which can disable because we might find that these are not always included under chemical weapons. The inclusion of this would be useful, given that chemical and biological weapons will become far more useful to terrorists hijacking boats, airplanes or whatever, and particularly agents which are not described as weapons that can disable a crew.

It is particularly important that we include this given that section 3(3) covers members of the crew of a ship referred to in section 2(3), that is, a warship of another state or a ship owned or operated by another state and used only on a non-commercial service of its government. If they mutiny and take control of such a ship, they will be deemed to have committed an act of piracy. They are in a very suitable position to use a disabling agent, such as I have suggested, to overpower those in control of the ship at a specific time. I suggest to the Minister that we should consider including this in that section. I will table an amendment on Committee Stage to this effect and I hope he will accept it.

Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Fahey)

I thank Senators for their contributions to the debate. Their comments demonstrate a recognition of the urgent need to put in place the necessary legislative framework to equip us to deal with harassment and intimidation of our fishermen. As I said in my opening speech, there is a need to protect the lives and livelihoods of Irish fishermen pursuing their legitimate interests in our off shore area. There is a need as well to deal with the other threats which may arise and which have been mentioned in the debate.

Senator Caffrey referred to the exclusion of aircraft from the Bill. Aircraft are included in the convention but it is outside the remit of the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources to legislate for acts of piracy on or against aircraft. The Senator also mentioned terrorism. If the conduct involved comes within the definition of "piracy" as set out under the UN law of the sea in the Bill, it would be covered by the provisions in this legislation. It would be a matter for the Attorney General as the prosecuting authority to decide whether to pursue a prosecution under the provisions of the Bill.

Senator Caffrey and other Senators referred to the question of summary conviction. A number of Senators said it was not sufficient and that all should be indictable offences. There is a range of incidents and some would not justify prosecution as an indictable offence. For this reason, there is a need to leave open the avenue of summary conviction. It will be a matter for the Attorney General's office as the prosecuting authority to decide whether a case is dealt with on a summary basis or on indictment. The existence of this legislation and the fact there is a summary offence will, in itself, be a very strong protection, particularly for our fishermen, against acts of piracy.

Senator Tom Fitzgerald referred to the fines being low –€3,000 on summary conviction. This was also mentioned by Senator O'Toole. As regards the penalties under the Bill versus those under the fishery Acts, it should be noted that this Bill is providing for custodial sentences both on summary conviction and on indictment, for offences including those relating to obstruction and failing to comply with the requirement of or giving false information to an authorised officer. Senator Tom Fitzgerald also inquired as to the jurisdiction outside the 200 mile limit. The Bill applies, as I already said, to the territorial seas, that is, to the 12 mile limit and inland waters and the high seas, including Ireland's fishery zone up to the jurisdictional areas of other states. The high seas is covered in that respect.

Senator O'Toole referred to the exclusion of war ships and government ships under section 2(3) except in the case of mutinies in accordance with Articles 95 and 96 of the convention. He also made the point that the Bill does not apply beyond the territorial seas. As I said in response to Senator Fitzgerald's contribution, the convention applies to the high seas only, that is, beyond the territorial seas. The Bill proposes to include the Irish territorial seas.

Senator O'Toole also asked the reason we exclude the fishery limits of other states. The Naval Service, as part of its fisheries protection function under the Common Fisheries Policy, confines its patrols to the Irish fisheries zone and does not have jurisdiction in the fisheries zones of other states. As I said, it would not be appropriate to enforce the provisions of this Bill in the waters of another state; where incidents involving Irish vessels occur within such areas they will fall to be addressed under the law of that state where such laws exist. I repeat that the approach taken in the drafting of this legislation is the result of very detailed and searching analysis by the legal advisers of the State.

Senator Costello stated it is not appropriate to use the Convention on the Law of the Sea for fishery incidents, but the legal advice to me is that carrying into domestic law the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea is the most appropriate mechanism under international law. As I said, the piracy provisions of UNCLOS allow Ireland and other states to exercise jurisdiction over such offences on the high seas. We are now availing of that right under international law and I reiterate that the framework was drafted after intensive analysis by the State's legal advisers.

Senator Costello raised the inadequacy of the definition of "piracy" in section 3, but that is not true. Section 3 refers to acts by one ship against another, which covers all the incidents he described. It is clearly set out in section 3.

Mr. Costello

It does not cover hijacking and boarding.

Mr. Fahey

It does. It relates to all acts of piracy by one ship against another.

Mr. Costello

There was one reference.

Mr. Fahey

That means the repression of acts committed by the crew or passengers on board ships.

Mr. Costello

On board ships.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Costello, the Minister is in possession.

Mr. Fahey

If the Senator reads it, he will see it relates to acts of piracy by one ship against another. That includes the crew and all those involved in one ship against another.

Senator Henry suggested a further amendment regarding the description of weapons. I am advised we are adequately covered by the term "other weapons" for all items that might be used in an aggressive way. However, I would be happy to look at this in the Dáil debate and discuss it with the Senator. If necessary, I am open to making the change suggested by her in the Dáil, but I am advised at this point that the term "other weapons" includes all kinds of pencils and box cutters as well as chemical or biological agents that could be used as weapons. If we were to start being definitive, we could cause problems, but I am happy to look at this with a view to introducing an amendment in the Dáil.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. T. Fitzgerald

We should not go on to another day with this Bill as there will not be much of a debate on Committee and Final Stages. I ask the House to help me out by completing it. If there are amendments, we can have a sos for ten minutes to prepare them or go straight on. I am anxious to finish this, but it is not my policy or that of this side to take all Stages in one day. However, it can sometimes be awkward when we return to Committee and Remaining Stages as they only last a quarter of an hour. I ask the House to continue.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Sitting suspended at 12.25 p.m. and resumed at 12.35 p.m.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 11 Oct 2001