I move amendment No. 8:

In page 20, subsection (8) (b), line 35, to delete "of any" and substitute "to any".

This is just a technical amendment.

This section provides for the non-removal or detention of salvage vessels and cargo as security for payment. Does this mean that the vessel will be withheld until such time as all bills are paid by the owner or insurer?

Yes, it does.

On that point, section 34 (6) states that: "Nothing in this section shall interfere with the power of a harbour-master to give directions under any other provision of this or any other enactment". There are some very small harbours around the country. Is the Minister of State satisfied with the capabilities and quality of intelligence and experience of all our harbour-masters? This section of the Bill gives an important role to harbour-masters in that context and there should be uniform levels of ability, experience and intelligence among harbour-masters throughout the country in dealing with matters of this nature.

I take Deputy Kemmy's point about harbour-masters around the country but I am confident that, generally speaking, they are qualified for that role. In the event of a wreck where there was not a harbour-master, the authorised officer would be in control. I am happy, however, that the harbour-masters around the coast are qualified to take over any operation.

Does the Department maintain a regular check or monitoring service of the performance of harbour-masters?

I would not say that we keep a check. It is the harbour authority's function to make appointments, but we would be anxious that appointees be fully qualified.