I wish to share time with Deputy Dermot Ahern.
Dumping at Sea Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
I welcome the legislation. This is probably the last piece of the environmental legislation jigsaw started in the 1986-87 period. At various stages since we have dealt with air and water pollution. We set up the Environment Protection Agency in 1992 and the Waste Bill is currently before the House. This legislation must be considered in the context of a wider programme of environmental protection that underlines the increasing importance with which the environment is treated, not only here but in the European Union.
As this is the first opportunity I have had to do so, I offer belated congratulations to the Minister of State on his appointment. As I believe in giving credit where it is due, I compliment him on his actions in the past six or nine months. He has done great work in his Ministry.
The Bill will give effect to the OSPAR Convention. I am pleased restrictions on dumping will extend out 200 and in some cases 350 miles from baselines. While I have grave doubts about our effectiveness in controlling dumping at sea, I am sure all Members are pleased that in theory at least we will have control over such dumping. Most people nowadays welcome environmentally friendly measures. While I am not being critical of the Minister, I wonder who we are fooling about the alleged control we will have over the 200 or 350 mile limits.
The Bill will be meaningless unless its provisions can be enforced, a point made by Deputies from all sides. Have we the means to implement its provisions? I do not believe we have. By and large, it will fall to the Naval Service to implement them. During my time as Minister of State at the Department of Defence I had the privilege to work with that excellent organisation. It is a progressive and forward looking organisation that is open to change and innovation and I have no doubt that given the necessary resources it would adopt the correct approach to implementing this legislation. However, it is not capable of taking on this responsibility without greater commitment from the Government.
The Naval Service has been successful in carrying out the two main functions assigned to it under assistance to the civil powers. It has proved successful on numerous occasions in carrying out its onerous and difficult fishery protection duties. It has also proved successful in making a number of illegal drugs seizures as well as in controlling Irish waters to prevent the importation of such drugs. However, it lacks personnel and operational vessels. I have been told that two of its vessels are out of commission at any given time. From my information, only three are operational at any given time and four are not operational due to lack of manpower or the necessity to carry out repair works.
If the provisions of the legislation are to be properly enforced the Government must be more committed to the Naval Service, but the indications so far are not good. The Government appears to have shelved plans for expansion of the fleet as well as the recruitment commitment given this time last year by the outgoing Fianna Fáil minority administration. More than any branch of the armed forces, the Naval Service requires additional recruits each year. Due to the nature of the work involved there is a higher drop-out rate among personnel in that service than in any other branch of the armed forces. An ongoing recruitment programme should be implemented.
The Bill will give legislative effect to an international convention. Dumping at sea is an international problem and must be tackled on that basis. In so far as the Bill indicates our role in that international effort, it is welcome. However, while EU directives are implemented and conventions signed, national interests overrule international ones in the case of many environmental issues. Sellafield is proof of that.
The Bill does not deal with the dumping of weapons by the British Government in Irish waters in the past. Successive British Governments have used Irish waters as a dumping ground for chemical weapons. The British Ministry for Defence has admitted dumping potentially lethal nerve gas off the coast of Donegal in three ships in the late 1950s. These vessels contained 6,000 tonnes of gas packed aircraft bombs and approximately 3,500 tonnes of 21 lb artillery shells which contain nerve gas. Further records indicate that 145,000 tonnes of chemical weapons were dumped off the Irish and British coasts since World War II in addition to 25,000 tonnes of chemical weapons and 71,000 bombs located in the Beaufort Dyke dump off the coast of Antrim.
Three other dumps are located in the western approaches off the south coast of Ireland and areas west of the Hebrides in Scotland and 80 miles off the north coast of Ireland. The British Government has bequeathed a chemical time bomb to future Irish generations. I am not happy with its assurances that everything is all right particularly since, in one case, the Ministry indicated it has lost its records of where this potential lethal cargo is dumped. The British Government has failed to indicate that it will do anything to locate the records or check the safety of the dumps. There should be an immediate scientific investigation into the dumps to ascertain their level of safety. If they are found to be unsafe it is vital to retrieve the weapons. I accept that in some cases it is better to leave them where they are but if there is a doubt about it they should be moved and stored in their country of origin.
Deputy Gallagher raised this matter in the European Parliament and was told it could be raised with the Commission by either the Irish or British Governments. The Minister should indicate if the matter has been raised and, if so, the response he received.
A fine of £1,500 will not frighten anyone. Why is the amount so small when one considers the damage that could be caused?
I thank Deputy Dempsey for giving me an opportunity to speak on the Bill. I have raised a number of issues relating to the maritime environment, particularly in regard to Sellafield. It has often been said that the Irish Sea is the most polluted sea in the world. Quite apart from the nuclear installations on the west coast of Britain, numerous cities and towns discharge untreated sewage into the sea. We endeavoured to address this in Government by bringing forward a major plan, with EU funding, under which the towns and cities on the east coast, including Dundalk and Drogheda, will have sewage treatment plants. I hope the Government continues apace with that programme so that by the year 2000 we will not pollute the Irish Sea through sewage disposal.
I concur with the sentiments expressed by previous speakers on munitions dumping. It is another example of the cavalier way in which the British Government tends to treat this nation in matters to do with Sellafield and dumping munitions.
The transport of nuclear fuel is an issue close to my heart and I welcome the Minister's efforts in that regard. I am not sure if he will be successful in view of an incident I raised in the House previously. It relates to the transport of spent nuclear fuel from Dounreay to Sellafield one weekend, when weather conditions on the Irish Sea were horrendous, without the knowledge or consent of the State agencies. The ship left Dounreay under the cover of darkness with a flask of plutonium for reprocessing at Sellafield Thorp. I contacted the Department of Foreign Affairs over the weekend and that Department contacted the Department of the Marine. No apparent notice had been given to the authorities on this side of the Irish Sea.
I travelled to Sellafield with a number of Deputies and know the slick PR engaged in by their personnel. They say that if one of the flasks is dropped from an aeroplane it will not crack and that the ships cannot sink and are destruction proof. That is what was said about the Titanic. No one can say that about any ship. Our State agencies, particularly RPII, should be notified of such shipments. On that occasion the British Authorities stated they had informed the coastguard but they did not see fit to tell us. The Minister addressed this in the recent past and, in renewing his efforts in this regard, he will have the support of all sides of the House.
I note the setting up of the interdepartmental committee but when it comes to action taken by the committee the silence is deafening. Will the Minister indicate what the committee has achieved? As I am from the same country as the four litigants who succeeded in overcoming the first hurdle in their test case against BNFL, I am interested to know what action the committee proposes to take. Will it join in the action taken by the four litigants?
I very much support—as I did when we were in Government—the efforts they made. Perhaps the Minister will indicate that the Attorney General, under the new powers of that office, will come before a committee of the House —he attended a committee yesterday but perhaps that is not the appropriate forum to deal with that matter—to appraise us of the possibility of the Government taking up this case. The longer it goes on, the more difficult it will be for the people involved, particularly in terms of finances. I exhort the Minister to take on board the case taken by the four litigants from County Louth on behalf the the Irish people and to see it out to the bitter end. When Deputy Cowen was Minister for Transport Engery and Communications I said he should call BNFL's bluff and take an action against it. International pressure in that regard would be very significant.
The Minister stated that ratification of this Convention will present the possibility of initating arbitration between Ireland and the UK relating to increased discharges from Sellafield since the start of the THORP operation. Any pressure put on the British Government in that respect is welcome. Very often we encounter the age old problem that the British establishment will not allow an inspectorate into Sellafield. The whole operation takes place under a cloud of secrecy, as was evidenced by lack of notification of incidents in recent years.
I welcome the Bill. I accept that certain anomalies exist. I agree with Deputy Dempsey that the proposed fine for dumping at sea is minuscule. Perhaps the Minister will indicate that amendments will be accepted from this side of the House on Committee Stage.
I thank the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Deputy Gilmore, for his foresight in bringing forward this Bill which is long overdue. It is of paramount importance that we develop a strategy to protect our marine resource and environment which will have a major impact on the future of all citizens. The Bill will enable us to ratify the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North Atlantic Ocean. It will give the Government control over dumping up to a 200 mile limit — the present limit is 12 miles — and in some areas up to 350 miles off the Irish coast depending on the extent of the continental shelf.
When I became a Member of this House in 1981 I drew to the attention of the Government the necessity to curb indiscriminate dumping off our south-west coast, but I got little satisfaction on that occasion. This problem has existed for the last two, if not three decades, with the Atlantic Ocean used as a dumping ground by the industrial magnates of Europe, particularly Great Britain. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of contaminated material are dumped annually in the seas off our shores, and it is relatively easy to charter ships for that purpose. I am pleased to note that strict regulations will now apply to the types of substance that may be dumped at sea. The legislation will ban the dumping of radioactive waste and toxic, harmful, noxious substances. However, unless the Government provides enforcement powers and tougher penalties, the protection provided for will be null and void and the culprits will not be debarred from destroying our seas and oceans.
As one of the maritime nations in the EU and the only island nation, given that Great Britain is joined to mainland Europe by the Channel Tunnel, it is of paramount importance that Ireland plays its rightful role in ensuring the protection of our seas and oceans. We must make sure the world's extensive and complex marine resource is left for future generations in a sound, healthy state.
It is obvious that irregularities have occurred down the years. The lack of international interest in preventing people damaging vital elements of life is amazing. No country, particularly a coastal state can turn a blind eye to the stewardship of our oceans and seas. If we do so it could threaten the existence of future generations. It is evident that work begun is half done. The Minister, who is a busy man and whose task is an onerous one, must be congratulated on bringing forward this legislation. Let us hope it succeeds in curbing the indiscriminate dumping in our seas and oceans that has occurred for the last three decades. More than two-thirds of this planet is comprised of oceans, seas and rivers. It is vitally important that constant vigilance in this matter is maintained throughout the world. Immediate protective measures are necessary if we are to maintain the paramount important tag of clear, cool and clean waters. We must strive also to educate our people to understand the importance of the marine environment and the impact of man's activities on its condition. Turning a blind eye to events that have caused damage may cause irreversible damage in the future. It is evident that the waters and resources of our seas and oceans are fragile, complex and only partly understood.
Ireland, by its geographical position as an island in the North Atlantic Ocean, is particularly vulnerable to the effects of marine casualties such as oil spills and wilful disposals of waste in the North Atlantic Ocean. It is evident that for the past three decades or more the Fastnet Lighthouse and Mizen Head area, approximately 150 miles off the south west coast, have been used as a dumping ground for radioactive waste and other toxic and harmful deposits, despite numerous protests from our Government. Such indiscriminate dumping is still being carried out by other European nations.
We are part and parcel of the European Union and let nobody cod themselves that responsibility for the maintenance of the quality of the water in the North Atlantic Ocean is and should be as much a concern to other European states, including Germany, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Austria, They can all play their part to ensure that the condition of the waters in the Atlantic Ocean will be of paramount importance in planning for future generations.
The action of indiscriminate dumping 150 miles off the coastline of south west Cork must stop immediately if we are to prevent the Atlantic Ocean and the seas adjacent to our coastline being polluted by obnoxious substances. It is vital that this island, as a nation, should be in a position to monitor the busy shipping lanes off our coast and to ensure that no disposal of waste will be permitted in that area. We must strive to protect our coastline and seas from misuse and abuse.
It is vital for the survival of future generations that rigorous laws should be implemented to guarantee the protection of our marine environment and to implement effective policy which will require the provision of naval protection at its maximum strength. It is not satisfactory for this or any other Minister to put legislation before the House if we are not in a position to enact it and to carry it out to the letter of the law.
Previous Governments have sat idly by, allowed such dumping and have not planned for the future. This Government cannot strike a rock and produce a miracle. However, I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the Naval Service is used to its fullest strength to stamp out the threat of dumping around our coastline.
As Deputies are aware, we are close to major shipping lanes and some of the ships which cross them may be carrying radioactive products. If there were a shipping disaster it could affect the maritime environment for centuries to come.
Ireland, as a member of the OSPAR Convention, should advocate that the tankers which operate in our shipping lanes should have a certificate of seaworthiness. I do not want to see a repetition of the Betelgeuse disaster off Whiddy Island in Bantry Bay more than 15 years ago. That tanker which was in a dilapidated condition was allowed to enter the waters around Whiddy Island and deposit its cargo of oil when it was refused entry to several other ports in Europe. That disaster created havoc in my constitutency of south west Cork and many lives were lost as a result of that incompetence. Such disasters which cause grave distress should be prevented. Old tankers damaged by storms should not pose a threat in waters off our shoreline.
We have had other serious marine threats from ships such as the Kowloon Bridge which was allowed to drift for days off our south west shoreline and finally hit the graveyard of the seas off Stags Rock in south west Cork. Fortunately for that area that vessel's cargo caused only minor environmental damage to the seas around that coastline.
Will the Minister indicate if Ireland is a member of the International Laws of the Seas Convention and, if not, when it will become a member?
I note from the Minister's address that the Merchant Shipping Salvage and Wreck Act, 1993, gave effect to the International Convention of Salvage, 1989. It made an important further contribution to the procedures for dealing with maritime casualties. An orderly system for handling the three main phases of a casualty at sea was introduced, namely, vessels in distress, salvage operations and, where necessary, the removal or rendering harmless of wrecks.
The Minister states that this Bill will strengthen the role of the Department of the Marine's emergency service and its marine survey office. If that is the case why has the Bardini Reefer been allowed to lie at the entrance to Castletownbere harbour for the past decade or more with no effort being made by any Minister for the Marine to remove it? It is interfering with the navigational process at the entrance to and exit from that important fishery harbour. A local contractor is willing to give the Minister a quotation for the removal of the wreck of the Bardini Reefer which has foundered in the waters of Bere Haven Sound at the entrance to Castletownbere harbour. It would scarcely cost £50,000 to remove this wreck yet successive appeals by me in this House have fallen on deaf ears and no money has been allocated for its removal.
With the advent of the tall ships to Bantry Bay in 1996 and the designation of Castletownbere harbour as the main port to entertain those tall ships in 1996 surely it is not too much to ask the Minister to ensure that an allocation is provided for the removal of this wreck which has caused so much annoyance to the boats and skippers entering and leaving Castletownbere. There are other wrecks in that area lying off our coastline. One of the most well known incidents in south west Cork is the night the ex-Taoiseach's boat struck the rock at Mizen Head. Thanks to the crew and the skipper of the local lifeboat all were saved although the incident added a certain amount of pollution to the seas in that area for a short period. The area is now very popular among people who call to the Mizen vision signal station, all of whom ask the exact location of the incident involving Mr. Charles Haughey. It is the most popular seaside view in that area. Be that as it may we have other derelict wrecks lying off our shoreline that need to be removed immediately.
Is the Minister satisfied that the Irish Sea is monitored for radioactive content to the fullest extent? Is he satisfied that there is not an over radioactive content in the Irish Sea by virtue of Sellafield? I have been told by people that the radioactive content in that sea is much higher than in any other part of the world. If that is the case, no matter what answer Great Britain has for maintaining Sellafield we must ensure that the Irish and Celtic Seas are kept free of radioactive content.
What steps will the Minister take to monitor the movement of ships from the Far East laden with radioactive and nuclear waste en route to Great Britain through the Celtic and Irish Seas to ensure they are kept clear of Irish territorial waters? I compliment the Minister on the introduction of this legislation. If the legislation is not implemented it will have no effect on maintaining clear, cool waters in the North Atlantic Ocean.
Don dara huair laistigh de chúpla seachtain tá sé de mhí-ádh orm a bheith ag caint díreach i ndiaidh an Teachta Uí Shíocháin. Tuigfidh gach duine sa Teach go bhfuil sé deacair sin a dhéanamh.
Fáiltím roimh an mBille seo. Is léir ón méid atá ráite ag daoine eile agus ón méid a bhí le rá ag an Aire inné go bhfuil gá leis, cé go bhfuil cuid mhaith Achtanna againn a bhfuil baint acu le cúrsaí na farraige. B'fhéidir go bhfuil gá le Bille mór amháin chun cuid de na hAchtanna seo a chur le chéile. Ach tuigim go mbeadh se thar a bheith deacair é sin a dhéanamh os rud é go bhfuil an oiread sin ann.
It is widely accepted that legislation is required in this area and speakers on all sides have welcomed the legislation. It is advisable that its passage through the Oireachtas would enable Members in both Houses, particularly on Committee Stage, to have an input. It is clear from what the Minister said in regard to the list of legislation and conventions that there is a need for considerable consolidation of maritime law. In this context the Refugee Bill comes to mind. When the Oireachtas has an opportunity to consider matters at length and to bring to bear the various views put forward, legislation can be improved. It is particularly important in this area because our geographic location makes us extremely vulnerable to what happens in the sea. We have a long coastline and the onshore prevailing winds hit the west coast daily. We also have busy shipping lanes. Unfortunately, because of our size we fear we are not influential in world terms but we need to establish our own standards and to seek to have them implemented internationally for our own benefit.
Despite the fact that 70 per cent of the earth's surface is covered in oceans and water we do not have a particularly deep knowledge of exactly what goes on there and the effects of man's intervention. We have reason to be concerned about many of the activities mentioned by other speakers. It is significent even though Ireland and Britain became parties to the London and Olso conventions. The Dumping at Sea Act, 1981, led to Ireland implementing those conventions but they do not appear to have had a particularly great impact.
The British, who are also party to both conventions, excel in ignoring what was agreed in the conventions. It is clear that they were dumping dangerous substances off our coast at least ten to 15 years following their accession to the conventions. I welcome the fact that there will be a review of the London Convention. In many ways that is more important than what is contained in the Bill. How the Government will manage to do its business, in the conduct of that review, may well be much more important than what happens here.
If we are unable to deal with dumping by the British and others in Irish waters and in waters which give rise to concern and danger on the Irish coast we need some other body to which to appeal and which would have an input in relation to these matters, whether the EU or some other body. There is a perceived weakness in relation to implementation of many of these conventions which have already been agreed.
The Minister said that Ireland is also party to the Intervention on the High Seas Convention in case of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969, and its 1973 Protocol on intervention in cases of pollution by substances other than oil. The Sea Pollution Act, 1991, gives effect to this convention. Apparently the Minister already has power to intervene in cases where pollution danger arises even outside territorial waters where a ship is in danger. He is allowed to intervene and give instructions to the ship's master. How effective are these powers? Have they been used effectively in the past? Given all the conventions, Protocols and Acts, it is a wonder there has been sea pollution of any type over a long period. One would be forgiven for being surprised the Bill is required.
It is a worry that many of the provisions and regulations already implemented and the other measures included in the Bill will be ignored with impunity. For example, the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability) Compensation Act, 1988, the 1969 convention from which it arises and several Protocols could not be— and were not —invoked when a series of oil slicks washed up on the west coast in 1991 and 1992. As a result of what happened on that occasion, Clare County Council, among others on the west coast, had to undertake an expensive clean-up operation. Deputies who are members of a local authority are aware that the financial position of most councils does not allow them to expend huge sums on controlling maritime pollution.
One of the most frustrating aspects from Clare County Council's point of view, and this would be shared by any local authority, was that the Departments of the Marine, the Environment and others, which may have been called on for help, were reluctant to accept responsibility. Clare County Council initially picked up the tab for that specific episode, which included a series of incidents. After a frustrating series of meetings and negotiations, it finally received approximately 50 per cent of the cost jointly from the Departments of the Marine and the Environment.
It may be more appropriate to other legislation but it is a pity a clear delineation between the different agencies, Departments and local authorities is not laid down in the Bill regarding responsibility, particularly in terms of the cost of clean-ups. I understand there was strong evidence on that occasion that the damage occurred because a crude oil carrier, which was passing approximately 150 miles off the coast, took the opportunity to wash out its holds. Unfortunately, the relatively large slicks floating on the ocean hit the west coast and caused an enormous amount of environmental damage. Given some of the provisions that were in place and others outlined by the Minister, it should have been possible to go after those people and hold them responsible. However, this was not done.
In 1992, a ship ran aground in Ballyvaughan bay. This also involved a substantial clean-up operation, which was overseen by the Department of the Marine. Clare County Council had to bear a substantial element of the expense and despite some insurance provision, it was still liable for quite an amount of the costs of the clean-up operation on that occasion. To the best of my recollection, the Department of the Marine paid only approximately £24,000 in June 1994 and was effectively handing on the insurance money it received arising from the incident.
We must face the fact that there is a considerable weakness in how we deal with the cost of clean-up operations. We must realise that such operations are costly and responsibility should not be left almost entirely to the local authority. I ask the Minister to address this point either during the debate or at some date in the not too distant future.
As a result of those incidents, it emerged that the charts of Irish territorial and on-shore waters are not up to date. In some cases, I understand the charts are inaccurate and have contributed to some of the difficulties and accidents. If an owner or master of a ship is seeking refuge from a storm and the charts he is using in difficult weather conditions are inaccurate, it is difficult to expect him to berth his ship safely. It seems daft that the Oireachtas is considering legislation of this type while ignoring a real danger and cause of onshore pollution. Appropriate action to address that problem is not being taken and it would not be difficult or expensive to do so.
I welcome the Minister's announcement that plans are in train for accession to the 1990 Oil Pollution Preparedness Response and Co-operation Convention. Ireland has not adequately addressed the need to have the capability to deal with pollution in our waters. As many speakers said, we are on the front line of western Europe and given the law of averages, it is likely we will be involved in some relatively serious pollution cases.
While we have some capability, we do not have anything approaching an adequate amount of equipment. The Department, the harbour authorities and private operators in the marine area must, if they have not done so already, prepare a response document and, perhaps more importantly, put in place hardware and equipment for use when required. The Shannon estuary may be a suitable area to place such an emergency response team, if that is what is required. We should stress that the provision of this equipment should attract European and perhaps international aid on the basis of some of the conventions.
Many speakers referred to the Brent Spar oil rig incident. It is encouraging and in a sense educational that the power of public opinion was mobilised so effectively in such a short time to ensure Shell did not go ahead with its plans to dump the rig in the ocean. I am slightly worried about the apparent subsequent findings that some of the materials alleged to have been on the Brent Spar were not on it. It would be a great pity if an inaccuracy in what turned out to be a minor matter encouraged public opinion to be less vigilant in environmental terms when alarm bells sound in the future.
It is unfortunate that the fashion for environmental awareness about relatively large issues far away does not seem to be practised by many people in their areas. The amount of litter on some of our streets and the level of dumping, not just in remote places but sometimes at major beauty spots, is indicative of a lack of regard for the environment. This is most worrying and little effort is being made with regard to dumping at sea and dumping generally. There is little awareness of the need to reduce the amount of waste to ensure dumping becomes less of a problem.
Many speakers referred to the huge munitions dump at Beaufort Dyke, which is close to the north east coast. I understand the British authorities have admitted dumping approximately one million tonnes of munitions and other materials there, mainly in crates. This is most worrying and people may feel the concern is confined to coasts closest to the dump sites. However, there is deep concern throughout the country about the type of dumping in that area and off the County Donegal coast. There is also concern that so little information has been made available and that it has been minimal and misleading.
There is concern also that more dumping has taken place unknown to us. The British Government, and other governments which might be involved, have a moral responsibility to make safe the materials they have dumped. They have an initial responsibility to determine the state of these materials, whether they are dangerous, the length of time they can remain where they are and the action required to deal with them. The Minister referred to joint responsibility with the UK in the preparation of a report on the Irish Sea, and the coasts of Ireland and Scotland. That is important but, apart from a consultative role, I hope the Irish involvement will be sufficiently strong that we will be satisfied the level of information required is made available. The opportunity should not be lost whatever the cost to find out exactly what materials are there, the condition they are in and how we can deal with them effectively, as quickly as possible.
I understand the opportunity is being taken to initiate arbitration between Ireland and Britain in relation to THORP and that is to be welcomed. People living on the east coast are extremely concerned, and rightly so, but people in other parts of the country cannot afford to relax and take matters for granted. Living a further 100 miles to the west does not guarantee safety. We must be seen to campaign nationally to ensure that whatever action is required on THORP is taken. Successive Governments encountered difficulties in attempting to put this matter on the agenda; perhaps political considerations came into play. We must take the initiative on this matter and I hope we will in co-operation with the British Government.
The transportation of nuclear materials on the Irish Sea and other waters around the country is a matter of grave public concern. I understand the Department of the Marine has set up a a licence vetting committee. It will have an important job to ensure that the people can be confident that that job is being done properly and that there will not be any need for concern. However, in view of our experience with some other countries, provision should be made for observer status on the vetting committees of other countries even if we had to allow them the same right. Openness is not a quality that has been applied to dumping at sea and it is difficult to believe there has been an instant conversion. We must continue to be as vigilant as we have been in the past, if not more so.
Great concern has been expressed about enforcement and people wonder if these international conventions are being taken seriously. I understand the June meeting of OSPAR, for example, agreed by a majority to include in the provisions of the convention all vessels including those for which an indemnity had been sought. Perhaps the Minister, when replying, would indicate whether that agreement applies to the majority or to all those who are signatories to the OSPAR Convention. The Government has decided in the Bill not to exclude vessels and aircraft which would previously have been excluded under that provision. If it has been decided only by the Irish Government and not by the other governments, it will clearly have much less effect and, therefore, will be of less benefit. If this provision is not recognised by other countries it is important that in future meetings of OSPAR the Government continues to press for its inclusion.
I welcome the Bill and I hope the opportunity will be taken to strengthen it in some key areas.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is important legislation to protect the environment and extend the protection afforded to our marine environment in particular. I would not speak on this environmental issue without recalling what happened this week to a Nigerian man, Ken Saro-Wiwa, the internationally known playwright, fighter for democracy, activist and environmentalist, who was murdered by hanging last Friday along with eight fellow activists by a Nigerian dictatorship too fearful to give him a fair trial and too vicious to hear the pleas for clemency from an outraged world.
This man's life was taken because he stayed in Nigeria to fight the cause of his people and their homeland. I mention that in the context of this Bill because he fought against the environmental damage oil production had caused to his country, particularly to his people. This fight made him an even greater threat to the dictatorship in Nigeria. He was a danger because he complicated matters for the Government and for an international company seeking to make money within that country. His fight was about the struggle for democracy in Nigeria but it was also an environmental fight about the effects of the environmental rape of a country and its vulnerable people.
What Ken Saro-Wiwa had to say about oil and the rights of tribal people may seem far removed but it is relevant to what we are discussing today. There are real conflicts involved in protecting the environment. The rush of international companies to make money, whether by transporting materials across the seas or developing oil, is strong. They are the new decision makers. This battle has been raging for quite some time and we must not forget that. Underlying this legislation, on which I congratulate the Minister, these tensions continue to be felt and they are part of the struggle to save the environment.
In a country like Ireland, with high rates of unemployment decisions will always have to be taken to balance the environment and the economy. We must continue to have debates on these issues and we must not create a climate in which people are afraid to express their concerns about the environment. Those concerns are often less tangible than the arguments for economic growth. It is difficult to care for the environment our rivers, waterways, canals and the quality of our air when we are concerned about creating jobs. That has been evident in recent discussions but it is important that we have those discussions and ensure there is a fair balance. Ken Saro-Wiwa's sacrifice will only mean something if we keep it alive in our memories and if a strong message comes across about the environment and also his work for democracy.
The Dumping at Sea Bill is concerned with the healthy management of the marine resource and the protection of our environment, seas and oceans. The carelessness with which we treated our seas in the past is extraordinary. Despite international Conventions it is extraordinary also that the Minister has to go to an assembly to fight for an agreement between the UK and Irish Government on the proper management of ships carrying nuclear waste and how nuclear waste from Sellafield and THORP will be handled. The Minister is now getting support from other countries and it is agreed that the INF code on fuel will be extended because of his work. Is it not extraordinary that this is only now being done when so much concern has been expressed about THORP over a long period and the dangers being posed on a daily basis to our environment and seas?
About 70 per cent of the earth's surface is covered by oceans. I fully agree with the Minister of State when he said:
Our knowledge of the physical, chemical and biological processes of our seas and oceans is far from complete. We do know, however, that they are fragile; they are threatened every day by the effect of onshore and offshore activities; they are at risk of long-term damage from visible and invisible processes and actions, the impact of only some of which we fully understand. Other more insidious damage is inevitably occurring; we cannot await the luxury of the establishment of clear casual relationships in framing and implementing protective measures.
Thankfully, we are now more aware of the risk to the environment which has moved closer to centre stage. There cannot be slow movement in protecting it. That is the reason I made the point that the pace of progress has been slow in having the codes changed to ensure, at the very least, proper monitoring of the transportation of nuclear waste.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable Ireland to give effect to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, the 1992 Paris Convention and to update the Dumping at Sea Act, 1981. We owe it to future generations to pass on our inheritance enhanced and not diminished.
I welcome the restriction on dumping in the maritime area which is to be extended up to 200 miles from baselines and, in some cases, up to 350 miles whereby it will be an offence to dump or to load for the purposes of dumping substances or materials unless it is in accordance with the permit granted by the Minister. I also welcome the section which states that it will be an offence to cause the incineration of substances or materials in the maritime area.
Under section 4 it will be an offence to deliberately dump or to permit the dumping of an offshore installation or any substance or material from an offshore installation, particularly radioactive substances or materials in the maritime area. It will also be an offence to dump toxic, harmful or noxious substances.
It is depressing to think of how polluted our seas have become and that adequate protection has not been provided in recent years. In that context many Deputies highlighted the need for monitoring. While this is a complex issue it is an important aspect. I ask the Minister of State to give us some indication as to the level of resources required to properly monitor the implementation of this Bill given that people will continue to dump at sea if they believe they will get away with it. The fines provided for in the Bill are low. I would have thought that the savings to be gained by dumping at sea are large and that a fine of £1,500 is rather low, although I note a term of imprisonment may be imposed. I am not sure, however, if this will act as a deterrent.
The Government has gone a step further by including a reference to military vessels in the Bill. That is a welcome development.
About two-and-a-half years ago Fianna Fáil produced a report on the environment which was the subject of a good discussion. On the question of industrial development and the need to protect the environment, the report stated that it should be in the automatic self interest of producers and customers to cherish and conserve their environmental endowment. To achieve this means understanding the incentives which led them to do otherwise and then designing and implementing a combination of carrots — positive incentives — and sticks — negative incentives — to move behaviour in this direction. I share that view. I hope this issue will be addressed in the next budget as tax and grant provisions in an annual budget can be especially influential if we develop the concept of Green budgeting, lower taxes on environmentally positive behaviour and higher taxes on the converse. This should be an integral part of the budgetary process.
We are moving towards a more comprehensive approach to the environment, but, as in the case of equality issues, environmental issues cannot be hived off to any one Department; they must inform thinking at all levels in all Departments. I should like to give one example. In my constituency the planning application relating to the development of an incinerator is the source of major concern. It is clear from the discussions which have taken place that this issue is deeply linked with the question of Government policy on the disposal of hospital waste. We lag far behind other countries in developing appropriate plans to deal with this issue. It is more by luck than design that we are not facing the environmental problems being faced in Eastern Europe.
In recent days a member of the Court of Auditors said that in many ways it is pointless providing money for many developmental projects in Eastern Europe because of the damage already done to the environment. This is a vicious circle from which it is very hard to break free. We have to try to move from fire brigade mode on these issues as we are always trying to roll back the disasters which have occurred. While great progress has been made we have to move from the position where we always seem to be reactive rather than pro-active on environmental issues. This legislation is important in that regard in that it sets down a baseline in managing our seas.
As this is an international issue, I welcome the progress outlined by the Minister of State in relation to the various international initiatives under way. There are huge differences between East and West not only in economies, but also in the priorities set by governments in tackling the issue of environmental protection which goes hand in hand with economic growth.
While this is an important measure there is a need to monitor its implementation. The big issues have to be the discussions taking place with the UK Government in relation to THORP and the need for the UK authorities to provide more detailed information about the munitions that have been dumped off our coast. If anything goes wrong, the impact on the health and welfare of people living here could be disastrous. I urge the Minister of State to continue to exert pressure in this regard. What reaction did he receive this week when he tried to have the code extended to cover the issues I mentioned?
This is an important Bill for us as an island nation, all legislation in relation to the sea highlights the necessity for co-operation between nations, their serious common purpose to enact and enforce — so often the forgotten part of the equation — agreed measures through local, national and international law.
This Bill has been long awaited by the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, since the worldwide ban on dumping industrial and nuclear waste at sea, which had 37 signatories at the London Convention held at the headquarters of the International Maritime Organisation when, tragically, Britain, France, Belgium, China and Russia abstained.
In advance of the visit here by the President of the United States, Mr. Bill Clinton, it is important to remember that the United States backing of this ban was crucial to its requisite international clout against the dumping of such waste at sea.
The first issue of concern to my party is the relative damage done by dumping at sea within the overall context of marine pollution. The second is the need to tackle the scourge of land-based marine pollution in accordance with the contentions of STAD — the Stop THORP Alliance Dundalk — in their nongovernmental case against THORP. Our third concern is the legacy of marine legislation reverting to 1609 and the ambivalent role of Irish Governments over many years in promoting clean seas. Our fourth concern is in relation to the shortcomings of existing legislation in protecting the oceans as a common heritage. Even though an extension of the coastal limit under control is welcome, enforcement and international co-operation remain weak. Our fifth concern is the need to review the legislation to tackle the growing menace of plastic and latex pollution, particularly as it threatens wildlife at sea; sixth, the need to review the protection given a polluter who may argue that a given pollution incident was an accident — as provided for in the Bill. Our seventh concern is the need to tighten up the legislation relating to registration of ownership of a vessel, given that failure to prove ownership renders the authorities powerless to bring those responsible for hazardous wrecks to justice. Our final and eighth concern is the need to raise the limit of fines from the present £1,500 to a more realistic level. I shall explain my reasons for advocating this later.
In comparison with overall dumping of waste into the sea from land-based sources, other dumping of waste at sea represents a small proportion only of total marine pollution, but must be tackled also. I understand that 85 per cent of oceanic pollution worldwide arises from land-based sources, which is significant, and means that that type of pollution is concentrated in coastal areas from which coastal economies derive their greatest benefit in terms of fishing or other recourse to the seas surrounding them.
It has been brought to my attention that an estimated six million tonnes of oil is lost at sea each year, of which approximately two million tonnes emanates from land, particularly from cities; that, despite the fact that publicity surrounding discharges of oil at sea often is much weightier, being so much more destructive to wildlife than, say, a land-based pipe dripping into the sea. All Members living in coastal communities will be very familiar with the sight of oil floating in coastal waters.
Neither must this Bill distract us from marine pollution from radioactive sources such as Sellafield, repeatedly mentioned in this debate. The Minister referred to the adoption in 1993 of the International Maritime Organisation's Code on the Safe Carriage of Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High Level Radioactive Wastes in Flasks on Board Ships — the INF code. I regret he did not avail of the opportunity to apprise the House of the Government's response to the courageous stand by the STAD group. The establishment of an interdepartmental committee on Sellafield was welcomed, particularly by those of us who campaigned and, in my case, were arrested and detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. However, the initial momentum appears to have been lost. I know that the advocators of the STAD case would like the Minister to say whether the Government will practically support their case, including funding. That case should transcend any arguments I have yet heard on where the Irish Government stands and so on, it being much too important to be sidetracked.
The Irish Sea is subjected to more than radioactive discharges. As I prepared for this contribution I came across a report from the North West Water Authority in Cumbria in 1990 of a detergent company, detected by Green-peace, that had been dumping ten million gallons daily of waste, including heavy metals such as cadmium, zinc and chromium, under licence, and were also licensed to dump 93 tonnes of uranium annually. This clearly demonstrates there is a much wider agenda than merely tackling Sellafield which I hope will be borne in mind when people talk about pollution at sea.
With regard to our legacy of marine law, it is worth recalling that the earliest attempt I could trace to enact marine law was 1609 when a Dutchman, named Grotius, brought into being what was termed the "Mare Liberum" proclaiming "freedom of the sea" which limited territorial waters to three nautical miles. That legislation was enacted at a time when people's perception and understanding of the sea was one of an infinite expanse of water to be traversed, used and abused at will. Nowadays that view should have changed radically, and should now understand the finite nature of the oceans surrounding our continents. Despite the fact they comprise such a vast proportion of the earth's surface and represent our common heritage they do not readily respond to our traditional means of governing society, when we draw borders and lines on maps and decide which laws should apply on one side of that line and which on the other. The oceans must be regarded as a common heritage of mankind, thus presenting a challenge to our traditional views and methods of decision-making.
Yet, those oceans are too immense to be policed by any one country or group of countries. Therefore, it is vital that we honour our responsibility, in common with other nations, in enforcing the law of the sea, which probably leads to the greatest amount of disagreement among nations. Some of our laws in relation to the sea are quite good but have not been enforced. Sadly, Ireland has not always had an honourable record in protecting the seas around our coastline from pollution.
I recall a headline in a newspaper in 1990, at the time of the Government comprising the Fianna Fáil Party and the Progressive Democrats, stating that Ireland did not even voice an objection when informed of the UK plans to dump over 50,000 tonnes of chemicals, including epoxy, mercaptans, a chemical I had not heard of previously, and paracetamol, in the North Sea. Perhaps history will reveal why we chose not to object. It is still a mystery to me, given that we were clearly informed, under the international requirement, as to what would happen. Was it to avoid annoying the British?
This is a question that also needs to be asked when trying to understand fully why our motivation on the issue of Sellafield, in stopping short of taking legal action, has been so reticent. This kind of phoney opposition, where we are verbal about our position, yet stop short of taking any action, has a negative knock-on effect on other countries further away but affected by the transboundary nature of marine pollution. They are especially affected if the nearest neighbour does not take firm action, including legal action and action that will, perhaps, annoy a few people but nevertheless must be taken if we are responsible, as we say we are, for the safety and health of the nation. We must come off the fence when we speak of our opposition to plants like Sellafield.
Ironically, at the time of the North Sea incident, the Government launched a poster campaign to encourage non-dumping at sea. This highlights the different levels on which the Government can work, and the level of deception there can be as to how serious or sincere a Government is about following through on its stated aims.
My fourth point was to address some of the shortcomings in the Bill. I welcome the extension of the coastal zone in the legislation, but the threat of dumping in international waters is not addressed. A measure such as extending the coastal zone gives us a certain amount of comfort, but it does not help when serious crimes are committed in international waters and which are totally outside the boundary we have set ourselves.
I recently saw a cartoon in an American book entitled "A Citizen's Guide to Plastics in the Ocean" by the Centre for Marine Conservation in Washington DC. It shows two people stranded in a boat in the middle of the ocean. The caption reads: "Unfortunately these days, seeing thrash does not necessarily mean you are near land." This has a serious ring to it also, because, ultimately, it is the truth and it illustrates how serious matters have become.
I recall lobbying the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, in the early 1980s, who was the Minister responsible at the time, about UK dumping in Cork, in Deputy Sheehan's constituency. The USA stopped the dumping of radioactive material around 1970, having begun the process around 1949, but the UK was still continuing with the activity, which was taking place in international waters. Will the proposed legislation alter, in any significant way, our ability to tackle head on, and take decisive action on this matter? I am glad to say that the matter has now been resolved, but at the time it was the subject of immense frustration for all concerned.
The extent to which this is an international problem without any boundaries, no matter what is said in legislation, is clearly apparent from the reports that have been published on the levels of DDT in the penguins in Antarctica. The substance, which has not been used in Antarctica or anywhere near it, has been found in the fat tissues of animals in that part of the world. This must be kept in mind when we speak of our role in protecting the marine ocean. We must never be content that we have everything under control, simply because we have extended our own coastal zone, welcome as this is.
The issue of plastic latex does not receive attention in the Bill, perhaps because it is not known about widely enough and because the Bill tends to concentrate on chemicals and vessels. In this recpect, the Brent Spar episode provoked a great deal of public outcry which, I hope, has found expression and a response in the Bill. However, the matter of plastic, latex and other household rubbish is not often associated with the marine environment. For example, we often see on the news, because it is so colourful, a release of latex balloons, where people are either celebrating or marking an event. They disappear into the sky, become tiny specks and that is the end of anybody's concern. However, remembering that over 70 per cent of the earth's surface comprises water, it is not hard to understand that a great many of those items are likely to be dumped, to use the terminology in the Bill. I hope this point will be taken into account when we consider amendments to the Bill.
There is a clause in the Bill which deals with accidents and which makes clear that if a spillage or a dumping at sea is an accident it will not be treated so seriously. However, there have been some very severe accidents in marine history. In view of this, when we deal with compensation, insurance and so on, will the Minister consider a bond system of some kind? There is a certain amount of comfort if there is insurance, and there needs to be a realistic type of a bond to deal with this area. I recall a container being lost at sea between the UK and France. Fishing in the area had to be banned, perhaps as a precautionary measure. When accidents happen they have a serious knock-on effect. For example in the Exxon Valdez incident, only 4 per cent of the spillage was recovered.
On the issue of abandoned sea wrecks, which are largely moored in harbours, the Minister will be aware of my concern for the harbours at Balbriggan and Skerries from meeting harbour users and Fingal County Council with him. However, speaking to personnel in Dublin Port today, I was reminded that, currently, there is a huge legal loophole when it comes to vessels at sea. In the case of cars and vehicles on the road, one must declare when one is transferring ownership and the person is responsible until that transfer is registered in the name of the new owner. This is not the position in the case of ships. There is a wreck in Balbriggan Harbour traceable to an owner who claims that there have been five owners since he sold it, yet none of them can be held legally responsible for leaving such a wreck in a serious, dangerous and polluting condition. I ask the Minister to consider some of the measures I have addressed in the Bill, because they weaken it by default.
I welcome the Bill. The management of our marine environment is vital as the seas around us become more important and people take a greater interest in fishing and consume more fish in substitution for red meat. Anybody who eats a great deal of fish, as I do, will notice how the price of fish has rocketed in recent years. Many species of fish have become almost a luxury. That people are willing to spend huge amounts of money to buy fish is an indication of how important an industry fishing has become. Had we been more enlightened on our entry to the European Community many years ago, we would probably have adopted a very different approach to our resources in the seas around us; we might have put less emphasis on our agricultural industry and more on fishing. Agriculture is a very important industry for Ireland and has done extremely well, but if we had the chance again, we would probably put more emphasis on fishing than on agriculture.
In recent years we have taken a number of initiatives to try to stop the pollution of our seas. One initiative which is close to my heart is the development of the sewerage works at Ringsend. Everybody is disturbed by the idea of raw sewage spilling into the seas around our coast. I am delighted, therefore, that initiatives have been taken to try to treat the sewage entering the sea. The new plant at Ringsend will treat all the sewage from Dublin to secondary level and eventually to tertiary level. That would be to a very high standard with practically no pollution entering the seas in a few years. It is hoped that this will be extended to other places around the coast, taking on board the concerns of people and making a large contribution to cleaning the seas around our shores.
Over the years it seems to have been thought that one could just dump anything into the sea because it would not be seen; it was like the campaign run in America regarding nuclear testing which told the American troops, as they jumped out of their bunkers and ran towards nuclear explosions, that if they could not see it, could not smell it and could not taste it they need not worry about it. We have discovered that dumping items at the bottom of the ocean does not mean that they will not-re-emerge at a later date. British military establishment dumping of arms and chemicals in the seas off Donegal and other places has recently come to light. There is much genuine concern that these arms and chemicals might be moving and coming to the surface. Some of them have, and people now know that such dumping was very foolish. This is not the way to dispose of such substances. The British Army would not get away with it if it tried to do that today, although it probably would try if it got half a chance.
The Brent Spar incident received wide coverage when it was proposed to dump it into the sea. If ever there was an illustration of the outrage and power of the public, it was their success in having the decision to dump the rig overturned. I read subsequently that it may not have been as bad as we originally thought, but the incident highlighted the desire of people to protect the seas and the environment. We do not want people to dump items willy nilly, into the sea, and hope for the best. The overturning of the decision to do so in this case was an indication of people's concern about the marine environment.
A recent report, the Quality Status Report, which was prepared by scientists from eight different nations— Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Denamrk, Norway and Sweden—states that chemicals such as HCHs, PCBs and TBTs have reached alarming levels in the North Sea, and that discharges of pesticides, oils and poisonous metals such as cadmium have been unchecked and pose disturbing problems. It states that more stringent goals and measures are urgently needed and that only radical action will halt the decline that is turning the sea into the waste dump of northern Europe. It is quite an alarming report. Happily, our seas have not reached that level, but I will return later to the issue of the Irish Sea in the context of Sellafield.
Fishermen are usually reluctant to talk about the level of pollution for fear of losing their market. However, older fishermen say privately that they have seen a huge increase in pollution in the seas around Ireland. That is very unfortunate. Deputy Sargent mentioned plastics, and oil slicks which are the result of ships being cleaned as they move along.
This is dreadfully polluting. This Bill is aimed at stopping people just dumping items into the sea and moving on, because it is essential that we tackle all types of pollution.
The Bill enables Ireland to give effect to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine-Environment of the North-East Atlantic, generally known as the OSPAR Convention. It will extend the limit of Irish control in relation to dumping from 12 miles up to 200 miles and in some areas up to 350 miles off the Irish coast, depending on the extent of the Continental Shelf; it will set strict limits on the substances which can be disposed of at sea, and ban incineration at sea, the dumping of radioactive wastes, offshore installations and toxic, harmful or noxious substances. It will also introduce new enforcement powers and tougher penalties. This is a very important initiative and it will be welcomed generally.
When dealing with pollution of the sea one immediately thinks of Sellafield. Even though the level of dumping in the Irish Sea has decreased in recent years we still live with the threat of a nuclear explosion. As recently as ten-15 years ago a considerable amount of nuclear waste was dumped in the Irish Sea and, these radioactive substances are lying on the seabed; the unfortunate thing about nuclear pollution is that it remains active for hundreds of years. The British nuclear industry has not given a satisfactory explanation for dumping this material at sea and one no sooner proves scientifically that nuclear material has been dumped than it says this type of dumping is no longer going on. Unfortunately the horse has already bolted and the damage has been done.
The British nuclear industry has said that the level of dumping of radioactive materials into the Irish Sea has decreased considerably in recent years and obviously we welcome that. However, the Irish Sea still has the unenviable reputation of being the most radioactive sea in the world. This is not our fault; it is the fault of the British nuclear industry which is completely insensitive to the concerns of Irish people. Successive Governments have fought the British nuclear industry at every opportunity in an effort to curtail its activities and hopefully to close down Sellafield in the long-term.
The Irish Sea is an international marine corridor whose resources and amenities are shared by a number of countries. While its physical characteristics are quite distinctive the pressure and conflicts which can arise within it are common to all regional sea areas. This suggests that Ireland has much to gain from participation in international organisations whose existence reflects a common interest in protecting the oceans and their resources. The management of these is not confined to legal agreements and Protocols. The Bill will add to this by making further provision to control dumping at sea. It is very clear in what it seeks to do and must be welcomed.
It is extremely difficult to ascertain what materials are being dumped at sea as much of it is dumped by boats. It may be possible to use satellites and other modern technology to check from where the pollution is coming. I ask the Minister to address this point in his reply.
The one aspect of the Bill with which I find fault is the provision relating to fines. We correctly strongly criticised the miserable fines imposed on British Nuclear Fuels Limited when it broke its safety regulations. The proposed maximum fine of £1,500 or 12 months' imprisonment should be considerably increased and it should be left to the courts to decide the amount of the fine. I ask the Minister to give further consideration to this provision between now and Committee Stage.
I congratulate the Minister on introducing this good Bill which will go a long way towards minimising the level of pollution in the seas around our coasts.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I welcome this very important Bill which will have a major effect on all our lives. As an island state our shores will obviously be contaminated by dumping at sea and it is important for us to ensure that future generations can enjoy the same facilities enjoyed by us. For example, they should be able to swim in safe waters and catch fish which they know are not contaminated.
It is easy to understand how lakes can be polluted but it is difficult to understand how vast oceans can be polluted. However, there is much traffic on oceans and there has been much dumping and pollution over the years, for example, fuel from ships, oil spillages, etc. The Bill deals mainly with nuclear dumping at sea which is much more serious. It is proposed to extend the 12 mile limit to 200 miles which seems more of a myth than a reality. Do we have the necessary man, boat and air power to supervise what happens in this stretch of water and will we be able to control what happens in it?
The proposed fine of £1,500 or 12 months' imprisonment seems more appropriate to the storing of rotten apples in plastic bags than to dumping at sea. A fine of £1.5 million would show we were serious about controlling the sea. I might be exaggerating when I suggest a figure of that magnitude but a £1,500 fine is more appropriate to an offence such as careless or drink driving and people have been fined that much in court for crimes that would not be on a major scale.
This legislation will be difficult to enforce. We will have to supervise our seas. It will be difficult to prove that people have been dumping at sea but the proposed fine on conviction is derisory. I hope I am misreading the figures because I think it is belittling the importance of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will explain later how the level of fines was arrived at. The sum of £1,500 is chicken feed for somebody who is caught dumping at sea.
The British dump chemical and other weapons in the seas around us. Obviously we cannot do very much about what has been dumped already but we must try to safeguard against dangerous emissions from the dumped material. Such emissions would be affected by tidal flow and in some cases fish may be affected by pollution. It is grand to be surrounded by water on a glorious summer day if the sea is safe, but if not one is as well off away from it. The Atlantic Ocean because of its vastness can absorb a great deal but we should try to protect the purity of the water.
Possible emissions from the THORP installation at Sellafield are a greater danger to us than dumping 200 miles from shore. Our demands do not seem to have an impact. We are always in danger from something going wrong there and it is so close to us that it is always a worry. It is right to highlight this issue on all appropriate occasions. We are at the mercy of those who provide the reports. We may not be told about an accident in the plant immediately and it may take six months for a report of it to be leaked. There is no early warning system and we are not notified immediately there is an accident. Sellafield is so close that any disasters there could cause major difficulties for us. All that we can do is hope that nothing happens. I am sure, however, the Minister will continue to protest to the British Government about Sellafield/THORP. The less nuclear waste going there, the better for us. Legislation on the marine dates back to 1609. How does one control reckless people? On land it is not easy to control them but at sea there is a strong temptation to dump material in deep water and hope it will never be heard of again. We do not know how long it will take for this material to be carried on the tides. Perhaps the detritus that is coming in on the seashore began its journey further out at sea years ago. We have no idea how long it takes to come ashore.
One of the most important things we can do to protect our seas is to control dumping. We have to ensure that it is safe to eat our fish and that people may bathe in our waters. One would not want to have a question mark over the quality of our fish. When this Bill is enacted I hope we will be able to enforce the regulations. Having caught offenders I hope we will deal with them in a serious way to deter anyone else who might be tempted to commit a similar offence. I wish the Bill an easy passage and I hope when enacted it will be a protection.
A group of people came together in 1984 under the umbrella of the Irish Sea study group and in conjunction with the Royal Society of Arts in London they carried out a study on the Irish Sea. A questionnaire was circulated to a large number of governmental, academic, industrial and private representatives which led to a series of meetings convened and hosted at the university of Liverpool. Three years later agreement was reached to establish a number of subgroups in various areas near the Irish Sea to consider the impact of pollution on the sea. Both the Irish and the UK Governments agreed in 1987 to support the study on an informal basis. Concern about the level of pollution in our seas has only begun to develop in recent times. Only lately have we focused attention on trying to address some of the ills of our seas.
The Dumping at Sea Bill, 1995, is welcome, particularly the principal provision. Dublin Bay is at our doorstep and my concern and that of my constituents about Bull Island is that on one side large signs indicate that the waters are polluted in excess of EC and Irish levels and are not suitable for bathing, even though there are bathing shelters provided at that location.
On the other side of the wall, depending on the weather, people will swim in polluted or unpolluted waters. I am also a regular visitor to Sheep's Head in west Cork where, from childhood days, I recall heavy pollution from the many disasters at Whiddy Island.
The Bill is an attempt to address pollution of our waters, about which there is genuine concern. While public reaction prevented the disposal of the Brent Spar in the manner the proprietors felt appropriate, the public is more concerned about the regular dripping of pollution into the sea from industry, farmers, Sellafield and other nuclear plants. I am sure all Members are familiar with the proposals regarding the use of the Irish Sea for the transportation of nuclear fuels to and from the THORP reprocessing plant.
While I compliment the Minister on introducing the Bill, some questions need to be asked. When will regulations be put in place to enforce its provisions? What effect will the 200, and in some cases 350, mile limit have on the pollution of our waters? There is not a great problem on the Atlantic side but that is not true in the case of the Irish Sea. To what extent will the legislation address the difficulties we are experiencing with British Nuclear Fuels in respect of Sellafield? What control will we have regarding the transportation of nuclear fuels to and from the THORP plant by way of the Irish Sea corridor? As happened in the past, will we be told by the UK authorities to mind our own business? Will the Minister outline clearly the role of the Government in respect of the use by British Nuclear fuels of the Irish Sea corridor for that purpose? We can address the problem of pollution, whether from cargo vessels or farm waste, on the Atlantic side but the management and control of pollution in the Irish Sea can be successfully addressed only with the co-operation of international as well as the UK authorities. I would welcome a response from the Minister in that regard.
In the past few months I tabled a number of questions to various Ministers about dumping at sea. I tabled one to the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, about the increase in seabed levels in the Dublin Bay area. Will he clarify if this matter is covered under the Bill? In reply to my question he informed me that no evidence had been made available to the Department of the Marine about an increase in seabed levels in Dublin Bay. His former colleague, Pat McCartan, a keen yachtsman who frequently uses the bay, will give him first hand evidence in that regard. I would also be pleased to supply the Minister of State with information about the increase in seabed levels from any water sport enthusiasts who use the bay area.
The significant increase in such levels in recent years may have resulted from the development of the causeway to Bull Island. As the causeway is not breached, tidal flow is stopped and this results in the formation of sandbanks, mudflats and encourages the development and spread of spartina grass. This has created many problems for Clontarf Yacht & Boat Club, Kilbarrack Sailing Club and many other water sport enthusiasts who use the Dollymount-Clontarf Bay area. If Dublin Corporation, who developed the causeway, is responsible for an increase in seabed levels, action must be taken. I am sure the Minister is aware of the study being undertaken by the ESBI in regard to whether the cause way should be breached, part of which involves a reading of seabed levels. If the survey reveals that there has been an increase in such levels, could the provisions of the Bill be enforced in that regard.
I also tabled a number of questions about the Dumping at Sea Bill and the amount of sewage dumped at sea by Dublin Corporation, of which I am a member. I am totally opposed to dumping at sea either through the nosepipe off Howth or the Sir Basil that dumps a couple of miles outside the bay area. Section 5 gives the Minister power to grant a permit for the disposal of substances at sea. In reply to a question I tabled in June last I was informed that the only authorised dumping of sewage sludge at sea is that carried out by Dublin Corporation and the dump site is located some 14 miles south of Kish Lighthouse. The reply went on to deal with a number of regulations in respect of the permit.
To put it into perspective, the total estimated amount of sludge to be dumped in the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 is 340,000 tonnes each year. This Bill gives the Minister an opportunity to authorise dumping. I am concerned that Dublin Corporation is using its vessel to dump and is dumping untreated sewage into the sea at Howth. There is a population in excess of 1.3 million in the greater Dublin area and half the total sewage for the region goes into the sea through the nosepipe at Howth. Such dumping, just 14 miles outside Dublin Bay, is done with the approval of the Department.
My question on the environmental impact of such dumping elicited the reply that following extensive scientific studies the authorised sewage sludge dump site was relocated at a new site south east of the Kish Lighthouse ten to 14 miles offshore. This prompted further questions from me about what was found at the old site. I was told that a number of studies are being carried out and while there would continue to be monitoring, indications were that there would be a good recovery.
There are EC regulations governing the dumping of sewage. The public are concerned about the level of pollution and not once off incidents such as the Brent Spar. It is the continual drip of pollution — the 340,000 tonnes of sewage dumped each year by Dublin Corporation; the partially treated sewage going through the Ringsend sludge pipe; the untreated sewage going through the nosepipe at Howth and the proposal by British Nuclear Fuels to further develop THORP.
Is the Minister satisfied that the Bill will adequately deal with all the issues? He is not a fool and he knows public concern is not about technical aspects such as whether it is 350 miles out into the Atlantic or 70 miles across the sea. Is the Minister satisfied he will have power to redress the ills that exist so that we can enjoy water sports activities and eat fish and foodstuffs from the sea without being concerned? Will he be in a position to dispel the myth that the Irish Sea is the most radioactive in the world?
I do not expect the Minister to have the answers now. Will the regulations be enforced with the EU regulations? I am deeply concerned about the dumping of sewage, treated or untreated, into the sea.
Deputy Ryan referred to the maximum penalties. I suggest they should be revised upwards. A fine of £1,500 and five years imprisonment on conviction on indictment should be reviewed. I am glad the Minister has gone this far but I am not sure it is far enough.
I welcome this legislation. As an island nation it is particularly important that we control dumping at sea and ratify the 1982 Paris Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the north east Atlantic. Although we are an island nation we have made our living from the land and have traditionally ignored the riches of the sea. We have been slow to recognise the importance of the sea to the economy. It is a rich source of fish. Countries such as Spain, Russia and other continental countries are emphatic about harvesting the sea and use that resource to their benefit.
The sea is of tremendous value as a tourist attraction. Whether in terms of angling, swimming or bathing along the coast it provides a healthy means of exercise. It is essential that we preserve the seas around Ireland and that they are not abused by the dumping of dangerous wastes, munitions and other unacceptable material.
Before I came into the House I attended the Joint Committee on Sustainable Development. There is enormous potential for us to exploit our geographic position. While our location on the periphery of Europe is a disadvantage in terms of transporting goods to other markets, there is a certain attraction in marketing ourselves as an unpolluted island economy, which is of enormous benefit in selling our products. For that reason it is important that our seas remain unpolluted.
The main cause of coastal pollution is untreated sewage constantly spilling out of urban areas. That problem, while not covered by this legislation — it is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment and local authorities — was referred to in great detail by Deputy Callely. December 1998 is the deadline under European protocols for dealing with sewage treatment. Dublin Corporation is seriously considering this matter with a view to providing tertiary treatment, which would cost a little more than secondary treatment. EU grants will be provided for that purpose.
Slurry is discharged from farms into rivers, lakes and streams, eventually reaching the sea and other forms of land based waste leak into the sea or are dumped in it. In this legislation we are dealing with large scale dumping which has been taking place down the years. A great deal of dumping took place after World War II, particularly off the coast of Donegal where it is alleged large quantities of munitions, including mustard gas, were dumped creating a hazard for fish life in the area.
Offshore installations are another cause of concern in this regard. For example, in the case of the Brent Spar it was intended to dump the oil rig at sea. Objections were made on the basis of the amount of oil involved. Similar instances will occur in view of the increase in the number of installations that exist and we must take action to deal with these problems.
Likewise, it is unacceptable that radioactive wastes are dumped at sea as has occurred on a large scale in the past. Very often the waste is put in containers supposed to last for years, but as we know, radioactive material lasts much longer than any man-made material used to contain it. Because of its close proximity to Ireland, Sellafield is a cause of great concern to us. I would like the Minister to outline in greater detail the extent to which this legislation will deal with the immediate threat to our coast from Sellafield.
The Bill provides that the Government will have control over dumping up to 200 miles off our coast, and 350 miles in some areas depending on the extent of our Continental Shelf where dumping, particularly of radioactive material, took place in the past. It is important that the Minister has authority to issue permits for the disposal of waste and also for dredging which can be damaging to the sea. Ministerial permits will be required for dumping certain substances, vessels and aircraft — they will also be required in cases where such vehicles carry loads for dumping. In certain instances incineration will be an offence, as will the dumping of toxic, harmful or noxious substances.
A major question arises in regard to the policing of dumping. Our Navy encounters problems in adequately policing illegal fishing in our waters on a regular basis. It would be difficult for our Navy to adequately police dumping carried out surreptitiously by a vessel or corporate body which wished to dispose of material that would be expensive to dispose of otherwise. Will the Minister elaborate on what effective mechanism can be put in place in co-operation with other navies and what co-operation can be secured from the range of satellites at present circling the globe to assist in identifying aircraft or vessels at sea, which might be engaged in such activity?
Debate adjourned.