I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, subsection (2), line 23, before "shall" to insert "that officer'.
SECTION 3.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I have concerns about this section in that there was a similar section in the Sea Pollution Bill, which went through the Dáil a year or so ago, dealing with the definition of an authorised officer. The Bill does not state how many authorised officers will be appointed, the area in which they will operate and whether they will have any specialist qualifications for the job.
In the Sea Pollution Bill we attempted to ensure that the person given this power under the Bill would at least have some qualification, perhaps a master's certificate, an officer in the Naval Service or hold the rank of inspector or above in the Garda Síochána. We feel that is necessary to give the extensive powers this person will have under section 7 where he can require assistance of any person he thinks fit, where he may "require a master of any vessel near at hand to give such aid with that vessel and the crew thereof as may be in that master's power" and may "demand the use of any vehicle, vessel or aircraft suitably equipped for the purpose required" that is near at hand. If an authorised officer is to have those extensive powers he should be a qualified person and that should be stated in the Bill.
The officer's area of operation should also be stated. In the Sea Pollution Bill certain areas are clearly defined in which the inspector will operate. Therefore, it would be wrong for somebody to arrive from Dublin to deal with a problem offshore Wicklow Head as they may not have knowledge of the type of sea waters and the tidal problems there. Somebody appointed locally — the launching officer of the RNLI or a harbour master in Wicklow town — would be able to instruct how best to carry out a salvage. As I said, this matter was considered in the Sea Pollution Bill and it was accepted that there should be basic qualifications for this officer. Will the Minister consider that before we include the section as it stands at present?
In the event of the captain of a ship not reporting that the vessel is in distress, but that it obviously is, who would decide that the vesel is in distress? If the owner of a vessel in distress shall be liable to pay the Minister "the expenses, including the expenses of hire or use of any vehicle, vessel or aircraft," as stated in section 7 (4), it would obviously be expensive for them. On those grounds could it transpire that the owner or the captain would be slow to report their vessel in distress? Who decides when a vessel is in distress if those in charge of the ship will not report it as being in distress.
It might have been more appropriate to raise this point on the earlier section, but it occurs in sections throughout the Bill. It is a term in fairly common usage that most of us think we understand but there can be cases where the restriction in the definition here could cause a problem, for example where vessels have been in difficulty at sea. There have been questions about the judgment of either the master or the vessel or the owners of the vessel in their approach.
We had one particularly bad case where an oil tanker in serious difficulty was blown on to our shores, a process which took some time. The master of the vessel, as far as I remember, was under instructions from the owners not to seek assistance at sea because they wanted to avoid expense. They thought on that particular occasion they might get away with it but they did not. It was a vessel in distress but it did not fall to be dealt with under the provisions of this Bill until it went to ground because the definition of distress here includes "a vessel in distress which is a wrecked or stranded vessel". Vessels can be in distress long before they are wrecked or stranded. Our concern should be to try to ensure that the distress does not go as far as wrecking or stranding. That is one point I wish the Minister to address.
I support Deputy Kavanagh on the question of the definition of authorised officers in section 3 and I share his fears in this regard. There is provision for officers to be authorised under section 7 and they have substantial duties to carry out there. Under section 8 the Minister may appoint a person as an authorised officer in the absence of a harbour master, for example, or if a harbour master is indisposed. He has to appoint that person in the context of dealing with a particular problem. The authorised officer in each case has substantial powers. Under section 9 the authorised officer has power to direct operations which include crossing land adjoining the coast with equipment of all kinds; we can discuss that when we come to section 9. This authorised officer could well be in charge of very complex and sensitive operations.
There is no definition in the Bill of what kind of person can become an authorised officer. There might be different questions in different circumstances. An officer of the Revenue Commissioners might well be suitable for appointment as an authorised officer to act as a receiver of a wreck because the incident has already happened then. Broadly speaking we know what will happen and it is a question of disposal.
An authorised officer appointed to carry out the functions set out in section 8 and to engage in the activities set out in section 9 needs different skills. As Deputy Kavanagh pointed out, there could well be cases where the most appropriate person to appoint is somebody who has either the local or technical knowledge or professional experience relevant to these matters. That is not provided for anywhere in the Bill. Will the Minister reconsider this question between now and Report Stage to see whether it would be appropriate to specify further who the authorised officers will be?
I wish to refer to the warrants of appointment. This is an ancient and hallowed procedure. As far as I am aware it goes back to the 13th or 14th century, when kings and local princes produced warrants of appointment for people to carry out certain functions on their behalf. In some cases they were appointing people in the kind of circumstances set out in this Bill either to prevent people from walking away with wrecks or to give people an incentive not to become wreckers themselves. There were some celebrated cases in parts of England where people who were appointed receivers of wrecks set false beacons in order to manufacture some wrecks so they made quite a business out of it. That is not what is happening today. Some members of the Labour Party seem to be behaving that way these days but that is another day's work.
The Deputy is taking an unfair advantage.
You will stand up there with a light on.
What is the point, Chairman, if one cannot abuse privilege now and again? We should look at the area of warrants of appointment. We had a long debate on the Animal Remedies Act passed earlier this year where people were given substantial powers. It was agreed in that case, and because of the sensitivity involved, that the warrants of appointment of officers should include such a simple things as a photograph of the officer appointed. It is important, in the appointment of any public officer who has the kind of powers set out in this Bill, that the officer can be identified by persons who might not otherwise know him or her as the case may be.
I ask the Minister to consider between now and Report Stage writing some of the specifications which we have put into other legislation into this section. I refer him to the Animal Remedies Act in relation to the identification of officers. For example, we now have our photographs on driving licences. I cannot use a driving licence belonging to somebody else approximately the same age to evade detection. We will apparently have electronic identification for tax and social welfare purposes. For the avoidance of confusion it might be worthwhile to go a little bit further with identification here.
I support the point made by my colleague, Deputy Kavanagh. It is important for us, as a maritime industry and an island country, to have the highest standards possible. Ministers appointed in the Department of the Marine should not be seen as less important than others in Cabinet. It is important for us to accord to our maritime industry the status it deserves. It should not be seen as a minor post. The authorised officer has an onerous responsibility. It is not good enough to appoint someone on grounds of services rendered elsewhere. We know how the ruler of the royal navy was appointed and we do not want a similar situation here. It is important that the person appointed to this job will carry out his or her duty and is somebody of the highest possible standard with a good background in maritime activities.
Over the years, people like Dr. John De Courcy Ireland and Des Branigan ploughed a lone furrow in raising consciousness about the need to place greater emphasis on our maritime industry. It is important that we come into the modern world and join our European partners in giving a higher priority to our maritime activities. The authorised officer will be a pivotal figure. No "time servers" should be appointed. I support what Deputy Kavanagh said and I hope the Minister will take it on board.
When does the authorised officer's authority become effective? At what point or at what distance from the shore does his authority come into operation on a stricken vessel? Will he have to wait until it comes within the waters of the State?
Deputy Kavanagh identified a serious problem in relation to the Bill, that is the description of the authorised officer and the fact that there is no reference to any qualification that that officer should have. It simply means "any person appointed by the Minister". That is the complete description of the authorised officer. The duties to be performed by the authorised officer are quite extensive. The Garda Síochána have duties under this Bill in relation to the seizure of goods. There are an enormous amount of duties. In the first instance the authorised officer has the same powers as a harbour master. In section 9 it seems he has greater powers. In the first instance, we see that the authorised officer has the same powers as a harbour-master, and in section 8 it seems that he has greater powers. In other words, the harbour-master can have the same powers as the authorised officer.
Section 11, which is more illuminating and where extensive powers are given, states:
Where any vessel is or has been in distress in the State, an authorised officer may question any person belonging to the ship or any other person who may be able to give an account of the vessel or its cargo or apparel.
Those powers are close to those which the Garda Síochána have in relation to a matter around which there could be a whole list of questions to be asked.
The section goes on to say that the officer can inquire further into: "such other matters as the authorised officer thinks necessary". In other words, the authorised officer has an enormous amount of freedom to take actions which he or she considers are appropriate. In that context, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that there is a more thorough description of the qualifications required, the criteria used for the appointment of such an authorised officer, the circumstances in which the appointment would take place, the period of time for which the officer in question would be allowed to operate.
I would ask the Minister to reconsider this section with a view to considerably broadening the description of the authorised officer in terms of the interpretation on page 6, and the authorised officer's role and functions in section 3 and in other sections.
I respectfully suggest to the Minister, in view of the concern expressed in relation to the definition of an authorised officer, that he should agree on Report Stage to amend the interpretation section so that an authorised officer would be a person from the Irish Marine Emergency Service, which is the obvious place to take such an officer from, except in exceptional circumstances which it would cover. If we are going to draw authorised officers from the Irish Marine Emergency Service, we should state this in the interpretation section of the Bill.
The authorised officers will be appointed from the IMES, the Marine Rescue and Emergency Service and the Marine Survey Office. This is the intention and if it has to be written into the legislation, that can be done on Report Stage. The point is that only experienced people will be appointed — ship's masters, ship's engineers and so forth — to deal with an emergency situation in our territorial waters. I have no problems with that description being written into the legislation, but the intention is that an authorised officer would be a person with the appropriate qualifications and experience.
Obviously, some flexibility would be needed to get an authorised person appointed by the Minister's Department in an emergency situation. That is one of the reasons why it was left somewhat open. Basically, I do not disagree with what any of the Members, such as Deputy Kavanagh or Deputy Dukes, said about this. It is experienced masters and engineers who would qualify as authorised officers in this instance. That little bit of flexibility is needed.
As regards Deputy Deenihan's point, the master of a ship has always decided if there is an emergency and if the ship is in distress, whatever distance he is out. It is also his decision as master of the vessel to take a ship out on a bad night, in force 10 or 12 winds, so he would have full responsibility of that instance.
Is there a penalty if the ship was obviously in distress and if he did not report it or call for help?
There is no penalty envisaged for that. It is solely the responsibility of the master. If his ship ends up on the rocks or on some headland, is obviously in distress and the master does not send out a signal, the Minister or the authorised officer would then act accordingly. The master is responsible at all times for his vessel while he is at sea. It is up to him to make the decision whether the ship is in distress. He is responsible for the cargo and for the passengers on board the vessel.
Now that the Minister of State has said that the people who would be appointed as authorised officers would be experienced, I have to point out respectfully that that is not mentioned in the Bill. We all have experience of good intentions in Bills which are not put into effect afterwards. Could I ask the Minister if he would have any objection on Report Stage to writing a provision or specification into the Bill to cover that, even in general terms?
The authorised officers are being based in Shannon. Will there be a regionally appointed authorised officer? I know that the numbers may be varied, depending on mishaps or whatever, but could one person be appointed to a region who would be familiar with the coastline and personnel on the ground in relation to safety and salvage? I assume that there would still be cooperation on a cross-Border basis. Would there be any formal link-up between the persons appointed by the Minister and the Department and those working in Derry, Belfast or wherever?
I thank the Minister for accepting the concerns we have about "authorised officer" as described in the Bill for acknowledging that the term is a little loose without a wider definition of the position and for his intention to bring forward an amendment — as I understand it from what he said — to either the interpretation section or this section. I take the point made by Deputy Dukes that the Bill as it stands is what would be quoted in litigation or elsewhere with regard to the authorised officer, and it is weak in that respect.
I would say — rather than what the Minister of State suggested to us, and probably a little hastily — that there should be a somewhat wider definition given of the qualifications etc., which an authorised officer would need. Most of us here would have little knowledge of what qualifications the able gentlemen of the IMES have. We would need to know that they are qualified for the position.
I also asked if the Minister of State could tell us the area of operation of each of these and whether they are restricted to a particular area. It is all very well to say that somebody will come from Shannon or Dublin in the case of an emergency in Donegal or Waterford. I know that helicopters can deliver people fairly quickly but I think they would not have the necessary knowledge of the coastline or whatever. I know they would take advice when they arrived on the scene but I think these matters should be tied up in a Bill.
We had a recent example in Dublin Port where apparently there was misdirection, or at least confusion as to who was responsible in a particular situation, whether it was the fire chief or somebody else. In exceptional cases, which unfortunately occur, there is confusion about responsibility, or particular knowledge of part of the coast line, and we should try to meet these concerns, if at all possible.
In centuries past the communities in the Blasket Islands had the impression that as problems grew, you wrecked a ship and were warmed for the whole winter. However, the nature of ships and cargo has changed in modern times.
On the section dealing with authorised officers, is there a provision to have a potential authorised officer on stand-by? In particular is there a provision where a permanent authorised officer could be in place to deal with the situation? The situation I am concerned about is the question of nuclear ships coming from Japan, or any other country bringing plutonium to the Sellafield plant. They must always, of their nature, cause a serious threat to the environment of this country and there would need to be monitoring of these ships coming into the Irish Sea and to the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant. Is there any provision in the Bill for the permanent monitoring of these ships due to the risk and threat they pose to this country and is there a role for an authorised officer to deal with that situation?
Does the Minister envisage that, in certain circumstances, there could be involved in a specific case a number of authorised officers who would have skills in different areas? Would it be envisaged that in the case of a large vessel in distress where maybe lives and cargo are at risk there could be two authorised officers, one specialising in one area and a second specialising in another? Is that permissible under the legislation as it stands because to try to get one person with all the necessary skills would be practically impossible. For that reason would the Minister envisage a number of authorised officers in exceptional cases where a major disaster was involved?
While Deputy Haughey was speaking I remembered an incident where there was a wreck off Mizen Head involving his father. The boat in question was salvaged by Deputy Sheehan's right hand men from Baltimore. It is appropriate that we should be debating a Bill like this on a Thursday morning when there are lots of wrecks around, some of whom are beyond salvation.
May I ask the Minister about the limit of the jurisdiction of these authorised persons. What is the jurisdiction? There is much confusion about the zones. There is a legal limit of three miles and it was supposed to be extended to 12 miles, but I am not sure if that ever happened. There are territorial water limits of 200 miles. Within what bounds does the authorised officer have jurisdiction? Is it three miles, 12 miles or does it go as far as 200 miles? If it went as far as 200 miles, it would meet Deputy Haughey's case about traffic up and down the Irish Sea; if it is only three miles, one is talking about traffic in international waters over which we have little or no control without the consent of other interested countries.
Will the legislation and the authority of the authorised person operate in retrospection? Our coast is littered with wrecks which have not been removed because of the indifference of the ships owners who abandoned them. The south, south-west and west coasts are littered with wrecks of ships which have come up on the rocks over the past 20 or 25 years, some in my own locality.
What facilities has the Department got for mapping the schedule of wrecks around our coast? Some years ago we had a research vessel or survey vessel called the Cú Feasa which was replaced — but I am not sure if its replacement is in commission at present. What facilities has the Minister for mapping wrecks, or are we almost totally dependent on old British maps dating back to the pre-1992 era? Many of the charts of the wrecks used by fishermen for gill net fishing predate the foundation of the State. Are we capable of carrying out these surveys ourselves? I ask this because, as with so much legislation, I suspect that we may enact legislation which we are totally incapable of bringing into operation.
Will the authorised person have the authority to stop a skipper from bringing a ship to sea in totally unsuitable weather conditions thereby prohibiting the likelihood of a wreck? Those of us who are interested and who are conservant with maritime affairs will know that a considerable proportion of wrecks in modern times have been created by skippers bringing their boats to sea against the advice of the harbour authorities from which the ship has sailed. That happens repeatedly. Recently we have cases where ships were taken to sea by people under the influence of drink or drugs. Will there be some way to monitor people bringing ships to sea in unsuitable conditions prior to the departure of that ship? Prevention is more desirable than any prosecution later. Is there any way to monitor the behaviour of people who might be doing something against the best available advice?
This is not an attempt to tie the Minister's hand but to ensure that the officer appointed has the necessary skill, ability and authority to do the job well. There is also a need for flexibility in this area because sometimes when the fire on a tanker is beyond control it is necessary to send to America for Mr. Red Adair and his team. I do not know if he is still working. He was an old man the last time he was sent for. It always struck me as strange that we have to send to America for someone to put out these fires. This is a very specialised area. We should have the flexibility to take that matter on board and we should have a properly qualified person in Ireland. As Deputy Clohessy will tell you, when Shannon air rescue was set up three or four years ago most of the personnel came from overseas because we did not have qualified people here. I am pleased to hear the Minister say we will have somebody of that calibre available. The important thing is that the person will do their job well and will have the ability and flexibility to do so. As Deputy Deasy said, there are many ramifications attached to this post. It is a measure of our backwardness that we are discussing this Bill now and that we have not brought this aspect of maritime industry and maritime affairs into the modern world long before now. If we are proceeding, let us proceed correctly.
Relevant points have been raised by many Deputies which I will consider closely. I would like to extend an opportunity to everyone here to visit IMES at our headquarters in Leeson Lane and see what we have on offer if there is an emergency. It would be worth everyone's while. A lot of money is spent on the emergency services we now have in place and many questions would be answered if Members accept my invitation. We provide a 24 hour service and members are on full alert at all times.
The Department of the Marine have been criticised from time to time but when it comes to this service, we can hold our heads high. We are proud that we have a first class emergency service. Recently we took a Seaking helicopter out of the sea when the RAF ditched off the south-west coast. As I said, that invitation is there because it will answer a number of questions that have been raised in relation to the 24 hour service. Authorised people are on stand-by so they can move quickly to be at a particular spot at a given time in the event of an emergency. That is first class cover and people are invited to come to the centre if they wish.
With regard to Deputy Deasy's point, the Bill covers existing wrecks. It is not retrospective legislation. There are a number of wrecks around our coasts and the Bill gives us the power to deal with them. We work from British Admiralty charts which are modified and have been brought up to date by our own authorities over the last number of years.
Have we a current survey ship?
No, we do not have a current survey ship; we have research vessels.
I share the Deputy's views on the master; there are times when I would consider it very foolish for a master to take a vessel out. However, the master has sole responsibility under present legislation. This legislation deals with wrecks. The Deputy is talking about a preventative measure but I must point out that a master still has sole responsibility for taking out a vessel whether he is drunk or sober. Perhaps it is time to look at that legislation to see if we can deter a master from taking out a vessel.
Another point was raised regarding regional appointments. We would consider regional appointments for people who are very familiar with their coastal areas. There is a good relationship and liaison with other authorities in the country, especially in an emergency and there is the same good relationship with the British Government. When an emergency occurs there are no barriers or boundaries.
Deputy Haughey mentioned nuclear ships. The officer we appoint would be able to act in any circumstances no matter what ship is in distress. There is no problem in the definition. With regard to nuclear vessels in the Irish Sea, they come under the IMO regulations and would be in international waters. We only become involved when a ship sends out a distress signal. However, although our territorial waters extend to 12 miles, that would have no bearing on that fact that we would respond to a distress signal from a ship 25 miles out. However, we are responsible within the 12 mile limit.
The Minister did not answer my question about the authorised officer. Could you have authorised officers in particular circumstances dealing in specialised areas?
Yes. Obviously there must be one officer in charge and then people who are expert in different fields — for example, if chemicals were on board — would be brought in.
Would they have the same power as an authorised officer?
They would act under the authorised officer of the Department who would be the senior officer in charge of the emergency.
I would like a response on my query about the limits. We have a three mile limit and a 200 mile fishery and economic zone. How far out does this authority go? How many authorised officers does the Minister intend to appoint?
I mentioned the fitness of a skipper to take a ship to sea. I recall two tragedies where it was clear that the skippers were under the influence of alcohol. If a person can be clasified as a criminal for driving a car under the influence of alcohol, surely sea captains should be subject to the same regulations. Would the Minister agree that there should be a system to monitor whether a skipper is fit to take a vessel out to sea?
I agree.
I recall two — maybe there were 22 — wrecks caused by skippers being incapable.
With regard to the seaworthiness of ships, it has become clear that, because of their structure, there is a question about the fitness of car ferries to put to sea at certain times. They may be suited to inland waterways and to waterways which are not subject to tremendous turbulence. However, as a result of what happened on the Irish Sea, off Holyhead and between Cork and Le Harve, the seaworthiness of a number of these ferries must be questioned. Has the Minister taken account of the fact that many mariners doubt the ability of these ships to ride out a severe gale or storm force winds? There have been three specific incidents in recent years and there could yet be a major tragedy resulting not only in a wreck but in major loss of life. Is the Minister satisfied with the seaworthiness of these ferries?
I support Deputy Deasy's comments. I am amazed that a skipper, drunk or sober, can take charge of a ship and put the lives of many people at risk. It may not be possible to deal with the matter under this Bill but it must be given serious consideration. I agree with the road traffic laws as they apply to drink but this is even more serious. The Minister should consider introducing regulations in that area. As Deputy Deasy stated, a number of accidents have occurred resulting in wreckages and we want to avoid that if possible.
The number of officers to be appointed must be judged according to the situations that arise but I assure Deputies that there will be sufficient personnel available in the Department for appointment. I am happy that we can call on anyone with the necessary experience and qualifications in any emergency that may arise.
We have a 12 mile limit but if an SOS came from further out to sea, we would be obliged to respond, as we have always responded. There would be no restrictions on the time but within our territorial waters we would take control.
The seaworthiness of car ferries has been a matter of considerable concern over the past number of years. There are strict international regulations laid down by the IMO in particular to ensure that every passenger ferry has a certificate of stability for construction and seaworthiness. Our officers carry out such inspections on a regular basis. I think the Deputy may have been referring to the suitability of certain car ferries which are built very high. I accept the Deputy's point and at times I share his concern. However, they would have certificates from the IMO to show they are capable of carrying passengers.
A hydrofoil was introduced on the Dublin-Liverpool route 15 years ago. It had a certificate of safety but it had to be withdrawn because it was proven to be unsafe and unsuitable, even in the middle of the summer, when the weather was rough. The Irish Sea, the Georges Channel and the North Atlantic are the roughest seas in the world when there is a gale or storm force wind. These ferries, which are built so high out of the water, are frightening. There have been incidents of freak waves, when the winds have not been so high, actually wrecking some of these ferries or wrecking the cars and cargo on board. If similar ferries continue to be used it will only be a matter of time before we have a major tragedy. If the hydrofoil could not be used on the Irish Sea in summer although it was certified as being safe in all seasons, how can car ferries be considered safe when we have had so many near misses?
Deputy Deenihan first raised the point that there is no duty on a ship owner to state that his vessel is in distress. Under section 21, the master owes certain duties to the salvor. It is unfortunate that the Bill does not at least put a moral if not a legal obligation — perhaps it be outside the terms of the legislation to make it a legal obligation — on a master or owner of a vessel to give an opinion as to whether his vessel is in distress. The provisions in the legislation only come into effect when the vessel is in distress.
Could the Minister indicate to us now, or on Report Stage, what progress has the Government made in relation to the EC discussion document on the common policy of safe seas? Many of the points raised in that document have a bearing on us as a maritime nation. They include shipbuilding standards, deficiency in ships, the standard of inspection, training of crews and the various safety standards which are operated by different classification agencies or governments. Ships of different countries, operating under flags of convenience, sail up and down our coastline at varying distances. Oil spillages are reported every year in all coastal constituencies, and flotsam and jetsam are found on our beaches. What progress have the Government and the European Community made on their common discussion document covering these matters which require a common European approach?
Some of the points raised are not relevant to the Bill before us. However, I take the points as they relate to precautionary measures as distinct from the wreck itself. I outlined at the start that it was the master's responsibility but there are times when a third party can also report a ship in distress. For example, someone on another ship or on a cliff could spot a ship in distress. There may be good reasons the master would not send out a signal; perhaps he would not be able to do so. It would then be up to the Department or the IMES to respond to that third party. Members will appreciate that many hoax calls are made and the follow up can cost a lot of money. However, if a report is received that a ship is in distress off the coast we are bound to respond, even though the report may not come from the ship itself. Until we are told, we cannot go on board or take charge of the situation. To some people it would be obvious that a ship is in distress if it was approaching rocks, although the ship may not put out a distress signal.
Deputy Deasy raised the question of safety standards. These are constantly being looked at and upgraded by the IMO which, in the light of their expertise and experience, would be concerned with ships' structures.
Question put and agreed to.
May I remind Deputies that we have 63 more sections to deal with? On this section we essentially had a Second Stage debate. May I ask you to keep to this section and get through it as efficiently as possible?