This section states that the owner has a duty to remove a wreck that is likely to prove a threat to navigation or the marine environment and that should the owner fail to remove the wreck the appropriate authority may do so. Who is that appropriate authority?
SECTION 51.
Question proposed: "That section 51 stand part of the Bill".
The appropriate authority is the local authority or the harbour authority which ever one is involved. In several cases the Commissioners could be the appropriate authority.
This raises the old question, when finance is not available who steps in?
I told the Deputy what the authority responsible, the local authority, the harbour board or the harbour commissioners, can do.
Where do the Commissioners of Irish Lights come into this?
They are only involved if there is a navigation problem.
Many sunken wrecks are navigational problems. Have the Commissioners of Irish Lights any finance to deal with such eventualities?
I could not answer that. In all fairness I do not know whether they have funding or not but they would report if there was a danger to navigation. That is their function and to ensure that any wreck is lit up or marked on a map or a chart.
This is a long and complicated section and it is very hard to know how it will work out in practice. I can only hope that it has been drafted carefully because it has many implications.
Does the Minister wish to comment on section 51?
No, as Deputy Kemmy said it is a lengthy Bill but I think we have covered the provisions regarding local authorities adequately. The local authorities will be responsible.
It is a very lengthy section and we should have a minute or two to discuss it.
It is self explanatory and clarifies who is responsible and who is not responsible regarding boating and the services of the owner. This is the reason it was drafted in such a way that it would be clear to everybody.
This is a very open section but it does not copperfasten on whose shoulders the responsibility lies. It covers a huge list of people and authorities that could be irresponsible but in the event of none of those assuming responsibility do I take it that the Department of the Marine would in such circumstances, which would be very remote, act to remove those wrecks or take care of them?
That is what this section does. It essentially ensures that the owner is made responsible for the wreck. It states that very clearly.
If the owner goes into liquidation or he vanishes, that is cold comfort for the people concerned.
I appreciate Deputy Sheehan's point and I think there have been such instances but the Bill covers as much as possible such as the embassies of the countries involved. We have to try to pin-point the person who walks away from his responsibility. It would be grossly unfair if we incorporated in the Bill a provision that the State would take up the tab for the owners irresponsibility. That would be unfair to the taxpayers.
Subsection 4 (a) (iv) states:
where the address . . . of the owner cannot be ascertained after reasonable enquiry, by publication in one or more newspapers printed in the State and circulating in the area or contiguous to the area where either or both the wreck is situated or the appropriate authority serving the notice is situated which, in the case of the Commissioners, shall be the State.
Will the Minister elaborate on that provision?
It refers to the State serving the notice.
The State will be serving the notice?
That is right.
This section is an umbrella section, it is all embracing in its scope. It tries to pin down responsibility on the owner and in the event of the owner not being found, it sets out certain procedures to be carried out.
That is what it means.
It is convoluted, it is long but the essence of the Bill is contained in this section.
Question put and agreed to.