In relation to a question raised during the briefing a few moments ago by Deputy Kemmy as to how far this measure would apply to inland waterways, the only reference I can find to inland waterways in any of the definitions is in section 2 (1) (b); the definition of a harbour. This defines a harbour as "any port, haven, estuary, tidal or other river or inland waterway to the extent that it is navigated or navigable by seagoing ships". Does this mean that the provisions of this Bill would not then apply to most of the canals coming into the River Shannon, for example, since "inland waterways" seem to be limited in its application to these constraints?
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
That is correct.
Does that mean the provisions of the Bill would not apply to a wreck, which would otherwise be contemplated by this Bill, found in a lake or a river not navigable by seagoing ships?
The Bill indicates it would not be covered, but it is broad in that sense. If Deputy Dukes reads the Act in fine detail, then perhaps he is right. However, I consider that all inland waterways are covered by the Act.
It may be fine for the Minister to consider this, but the definition which sets out the scope for the Bill speaks of "an inland waterway to the extent that it is navigated or navigable by seagoing ships." It seems to me that nobody has any leeway if an inland waterway is determined not to be navigable by seagoing ships — the provisions of the Bill simply do not apply. A wreck in Lough Ree, for example, would not qualify for treatment or consideration under this Bill, no matter how well disposed the Minister may be or what flexibility he may have in mind.
The Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal will be opened soon and if something of this nature occurred on that stretch of water, it is important to make provision for it. Cars damaged by potholes is our main problem in Cavan and Monaghan, but I am sure this Bill will not make provision for that.
The potholes there are so big they are inland waterways.
We are trying to link the Shannon and Erne rivers through the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal and this legislation would not cover that.
In relation to the areas convered under this Bill, we must also take tidal water, defined in line 19 of page 7, into account. It is defined as "any part of the sea or any part of a river within the ebb and flow of the tide at ordinary spring tides and not being a harbour." Does this mean the Minister would have to take the harbour in conjunction with the——
Are you referring to the correct section?
I am reading from section 2, page 7, line 19. The definition of tidal wave, which I will repeat, means "any part of the sea and any part of a river within the ebb and flow of a tide at ordinary spring tides and not being a harbour", it seems that this goes beyond the definition of a harbour to include tidal waters. Perhaps the Minister may give us a lay man's description of tidal waters.
I was not thinking of the potholes referred to by Deputy Crawford when I raised this point in the pre-meeting briefing — I am sure there are big potholes in the Deputy's constituency — but of Lough Derg, which is near the constituency of both myself and Deputy Clohessy. It is like an inland sea and on the way to Lough Derg one will see many wrecks of ships, boats and barges. It would be an advantage to have a register of wrecks, but also to try to salvage some their contents for museums, where freelance operators would be allowed to dive and get whatever items and artefacts they may contain.
The Bill should not be ambiguous on this point and I support Deputy Dukes's contention on that matter. It is important to define the Bill and every waterway precisely but the word "seagoing" would cause some difficulty. It should be taken out and "any ship, boat or craft" inserted in its place. That would be wide enough to cover all eventualities and types of waterways. This provision should not apply to any inland waterway.
Will the Minister quantify the definition of a seagoing ship? Would a river cruiser be called a seagoing ship because section 2 (1) (b) clearly refers to "any port, haven, estuary, tidal or other river or inland waterway." Therefore, the section covers rivers and inland waterways. The Bill is being read incorrectly in this context because of the words "what is navigated or navigable by seagoing ships." If the Minister could quantify the definition of a seagoing ship, it would solve the matter.
Deputy Sheehan more or less covered the area I intended referring to. Will the Minister state if this definition includes all forms of vessels on sea, including pleasure cruisers and sailing boats, or is it confined to merchant shipping and vessels involved in the transportation of merchandise?
I would like clarification on that because, with the increase in the numbers using the seas for recreational purposes, the likelihood is that there will be more problems at sea from pleasure cruisers, etc. It is important to clarify whether this Bill covers them or whether another Bill should cover this category.
Does the Bill cover boats or seagoing ships brought in to estuaries and abandoned — some of them for some time — and left as ugly eyesores in many estuaries and lakes which have an entry to the sea? My colleague, Deputy Kemmy, will be aware of this in Shannon and there was other areas around the country where boats have been abandoned. These have become an environmental as well as a shipping hazard in these areas. Does the Bill cover that type of craft?
First, this is a merchant shipping Bill. "Merchant shipping" is the key term in this Bill. Different legislation covers other aspects such as sea pollution.
With regard to the canals and the Shannon raised by Deputy Dukes, the Department of the Marine is not responsible for the canals as Deputies are aware. The Office of Public Works is directly responsible for the inland waterways. The definition of the type of vessel is in section 2 which reads:
"vessel" means any ship or other waterborne craft, whether self-propelled or not, or any structure capable of navigation and includes—
(a) hydrofoil boats, air-cushion vehicles, submersible, floating craft, and,
(b) subject to section 16, fixed or floating platforms and mobile drilling units.
That is a fairly large inclusion on the type of vessel covered in this Bill.
Regarding Deputy Kavanagh's question on abandoned vessels, it would be a matter of definition whether a ship, boat or vessel was abandoned on an estuary, for example. It will be up to the Department to decide whether it was abandoned or if it is a threat to the environment or navigation and it would act accordingly. It could be left there for a number of months and not be a wreck but it could be left for 12 months and would then become a wreck. However, it would be up to the Department to decide whether it is a wreck and to act according to its relevant powers.
Will the Minister of State enlighten me with regard to the section 2 definition of a "wreck"— which includes "jetsam, flotsam, lagan and derelict..."— what "lagan" is?
I was just going to query that myself.
Is a hovercraft covered by this definition?
Yes, it would be. "Lagan" is goods or wrecks lying on the bed of the sea.
Will the Minister be more definitive about a wreck in relation to what this section encompasses? We have asked a number of questions about pleasure cruisers, etc., and if they come within the scope of this Bill.
Any craft capable of going to sea comes under this Bill.
It does not necessarily have to be invoved in transporting merchandise.
No, not necessarily.
Would tugs come under this Bill?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.