What will be the function of the Revenue Commissioners with regard to goods that are saved?
SECTION 58.
Question proposed: "That section 58 stand part of the Bill".
This section will enable the Revenue Commissioners to permit, subject to receiving satisfactory security, any goods recovered from a wreck to be returned either to the port from which they originated or to their intended destination.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 59 to 63, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are related and it is proposed to discuss them together.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 34, paragraph (b), line 10, to delete "two" and substitute "2".
This is a purely technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 64, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 34, paragraph (a) (ii), line 22, to delete "two" and substitute "2".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 65, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I want to refer to marine accidents. It will be quite easy to deal with the problem when the accident occurs within the 12 mile limit which we now have. We realise the jurisdiction of the State with regard to the seas. Outside the 12 mile limit, I had a most disturbing case in recent times where an Irish trawler was involved in a collision with a French ship in international waters off the Welsh coast. I do not know by whom it was decided that the inquiry would be held by the French authorities. The relatives of the two Irish trawler men who were lost in the collision found it impossible to get representation at that inquiry. I understand that the Minister has not jurisdiction outside the 12 mile limit but surely there should be some formula or agreement whereby relatives can be represented at an inquiry held in another country when the incident occurred in international waters?
I know the ongoing case the Deputy is referring to. There should be some facility available to relatives when an accident happens in international waters. I agree with his point.
In my view the French authorities have been most unreasonable and difficult. Certainly in this country, we would not adopt an attitude like that. It is a matter that should be taken up with the French Ambassador at least and/or the French Minister for the Marine by our Minister.
The matter was raised with the French Ambassador. I was involved at that time. Perhaps it is time to take it up with the Minister but we are waiting on the process in France. The Deputy is perfectly right. There seems to be an undue delay in the handling of that case. I take the point and we will make further representations.
It is very unsatisfactory and unreasonable not to allow the relatives of the two men who died in the incident to be represented at that inquiry.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 66.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16, in the name of Deputy Barrett, are related and it is proposed to take them together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 34, subsection (2), line 35, to delete "£500" and substitute "£1,000".
Amendment No. 16 states:
In page 34, subsection (2) lines 35 and 36, to delete "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months" and substitute " service under a Community Services Order made in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Community Services) Act, 1983".
Who wants to put people in prison? It boils down to the fact that £500 today is a cheap way of getting rid of a corpse. The cheapest funeral in Dublin now costs £1,000 at least and down the country it is not much less. I am afraid there could be dumping of corpses in the waters off our shores because it would be the cheapest way of getting rid of the body. That is why I would increase the fine to £1,000 and delete the imprisonment term and substitute it with community service.
I accept amendment No. 15 to increase the fine to £1,000. Regarding the other amendment, it is not necessary because the courts have the power already to impose community service instead of imprisonment. Consequently there is no need for this provision in the Bill.
We are talking about burials at sea.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 34, subsection (2), lines 35 and 36, to delete "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months" and substitute "service under a Community Services Order made in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act, 1983".
I appeal to the Minister to provide specially for community service.
I do not want to interfere with what the courts do. They have the power under the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act, 1983 Act to do that. If is not for me to tell the courts what to do.
If it is mandatory in the courts to do it, they will do it. Could the Minister provide for community service as an alternative?
We will look at it on Report Stage but it is probably superfluous.
The Minister is increasing the figure of £1,000. At least that will be a deterrent.
Does the legislation make a distinction between remains which have been cremated and remains which have not been cremated? It is common practice for remains which have been cremated to be thrown into the sea. Is that covered in the Bill? That would come under the ministerial regulations regarding cremation. The Bill gives the Minister permission to introduce regulations governing burial at sea and to increase the fine as Deputy Sheehan said.
I want to clarify that people could not be fined for throwing ashes into the sea.
No, that is perfectly acceptable.
In other words ashes would be exempted.
There is no problem with that, as I am sure the Deputy knows.
I do not want bodies washed up.
We had the floating assets and now we have the floating ashes. I accused Deputy Sheehan of being a little innocent and naive about other sections of the Bill but I must confess that I am innocent and naive in relation to this section. I was surprised that the Minister thought it necessary to include section 66 governing burials at sea. I did not realise there was such an abuse or potential abuse in this area until I heard my colleague, Deputy John Mulvihill from the Cork East constituency, speaking on Second Stage. He said there was an increase in burials at sea and I associated what Deputy Sheehan said about the cost of funerals in the modern world, and in cities especially, with the increase in burials at sea. I found it hard to believe but they live closer to the sea than I. I accept their word that one of the reasons for an increased number of burials at sea is the high cost of a funeral. That surprised me because I did not think people went to such lengths to avoid paying funeral costs.
Is there abuse or malpractice and has this section been designed to stop people taking refuge in this cheaper form of funeral by having burials at sea? I am not sure if that is so because I thought burials at sea only took place when somebody died at sea, away from home and far from a port. That was my understanding of the position, and I was surprised to learn of this practice from Deputies Mulvihill and Sheehan. Is this section of the Bill designed to stop that abuse?
On a point of clarification, my interpretation is that I did not want to make it attractive for people to dispose of bodies in the sea. In view of the cost of burials, the temptation may be there to opt for the cheaper way. At least, this will be a deterrent.
There is no appreciable increase in burials at sea but there have been a small number of inquiries about it. In view of the public health and the trauma to families concerned we felt it prudent to introduce legislation or regulations governing that activity. It is only right that we should be able to control it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 66, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 35, line 23, to delete "service" and substitute "services".
Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
I propose the following draft report:
The Select Committee, has considered the Bill and has made amendments thereto. The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil.
Is that agreed?
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
I would like to thank the Minister, his officials, and the Deputies, for their participation and interest in this debate.
I would like to thank you, Chairman, the Clerk of the Committee and the Deputies who contributed extensively to the debate. I would also like to thank my staff.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4.45 p.m.