Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Michael Smith. I observe that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and suggest that we discuss all three together if that is satisfactory. Agreed.
Dumping at Sea Bill, 1995: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 20, to delete "in the maritime area and substitute "in the sea".
On Committee Stage I argued that the Oslo and Paris Conventions do not replace but are an addition to the London Convention, 1972, as amended in 1978. The Oslo and Paris Conventions deal with the maritime area of each contracting state in the North-East Atlantic while the London Convention deals with the sea as a whole. Therefore, while the Oslo and Paris Conventions have regional application the London Convention has global application so that, apart from some overlap, the parties to the conventions will be different. The Oslo and Paris Conventions will apply only in the maritime areas of the contracting states whereas the London Convention will apply to the whole area of the sea, including the maritime areas of the contracting states.
Dumping under the London Convention has already been defined in the Dumping at Sea Act, 1981, including the maritime areas, whereas the Oslo and Paris Conventions have a more extensive but not necessarily co-extensive definition.
Accordingly, it is necessary to continue that part of the regime of the Dumping at Sea Act, 1981, which derives from the London Convention, and amend that Act to include provisions from the Oslo and Paris Conventions. Under the Oslo and Paris Conventions any State could adopt more stringent measures but in the North-East Atlantic only. I commend the Minister on the more exacting provisions of this Bill, supported by Members of all sides of the House. My problem is to ensure that we extend those criteria on a more global basis, as failure to do so constitutes a serious omission. The Bill could be in breach and, in some cases, abandon elements of the Oslo and Paris Conventions. For example, it may well be the case that a loophole exists which would provide opportunity for ships of convenience. For instance, if a ship, not flying an Irish flag, comes into an Irish harbour, loads hazardous waste and proceeds to dump it outside our maritime area — waste generated in Ireland, loaded in an Irish harbour by a ship from another country and dumped outside our maritime area — what is the position? Will the provisions of this Bill prevent that occurrence?
It is crucial to ensure that the two regimes are properly amalgamated so that no escape route exists, unwittingly or otherwise. It is for that reason I tabled these amendments. We went over this argument on Committee Stage but I continue to maintain it is necessary to devise some method of ensuring that the provisions of the Dumping at Sea Act, 1981, are properly amalgamated with those of the Bill before us. I await the Minister's comments.
Deputy Michael Smith referred to the provisions of the London Convention and the Oslo and Paris Conventions. It may be of some help if I explain the position in relation to both conventions.
The Dumping at Sea Act, 1981, enabled Ireland to give effect to the London Convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter, commonly known as the London Convention, at the same time as the Oslo Convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping from ships and aircraft. The Oslo Convention is a regional convention applicable to the North-East Atlantic region only. The London Convention applies globally and has been adopted by the International Maritime Organisation.
The terms of the London Convention are very similar to those of the Oslo Convention. In general, environmental protection trends set under the Oslo Convention progressed to consideration and adoption by the London Convention. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic — generally known as the OSPAR Convention — replaces two separate conventions in which Ireland has participated. These are the Oslo Convention and the Paris Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources, 1974.
The Oslo Convention is administered by the Department of the Marine, the Paris Convention is the primary concern of the Department of the Environment but the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications also plays a role in controlling the discharge of radioactive substances, including wastes, from land-based sources. The Oslo and Paris Conventions have been merged with a view to a stricter, more updated environmental protection regime for the North-East Atlantic. The provisions of the OSPAR Convention relating to dumping at sea require that new domestic legislation be enacted to give full effect to that convention.
While the Bill before the House includes provisions of the London Convention, it incorporates the stricter provisions of the OSPAR Convention. I assure Deputy Michael Smith that Ireland will continue to participate in both the London and OSPAR Conventions. This Bill regulates dumping within our maritime area only. The maritime area defined in the Bill extends to 200 nautical miles and, in some cases, to 350 nautical miles off the Irish coast, depending on the extent of our Continental Shelf.
As Deputy Smith is aware, that jurisdiction is being increased substantially in this Bill. Under the Dumping at Sea Act, 1981, jurisdiction extended only to the 12 mile limit. This Bill increases substantially the jurisdiction of the Irish State in relation to dumping at sea from 12 miles to 200 miles minimum and, in some cases, to 350 miles depending on the extent of the Continental Shelf.
Under international law Ireland has no legal right to regulate dumping in other countries' jurisdictions. However, section 2 of the Bill regulates dumping anywhere in the sea outside the maritime area where such dumping is from an Irish vessel or aircraft. It also regulates loading on a vessel or aircraft in the State or in the maritime area for dumping.
Deputy Smith mentioned a specific example. This Bill provides that dumping cannot occur at all in the area of jurisdiction, that is, out to 200 or 350 miles. It cannot occur in any sea where the vessel is an Irish vessel. I would draw Deputy Smith's attention to section 2 (1) (c) which states that if any vessel or aircraft, substance or material is loaded on to a vessel or aircraft in the State or in the maritime area for dumping, dumping from such vessel is also prohibited. Deputy Smith's example was where a ship, which is not an Irish flagged ship, is loaded in an Irish port or anywhere within the 200 or 350 mile limit. That situation is covered.
For those reasons I cannot accept amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. There is no legal basis to regulate dumping outside our maritime area except in those circumstances which I have outlined and which cover Irish vessels or vessels loaded in the State or in our maritime area.
I thank the Minister for his explanation. As he will recall my first attempt on Committee Stage was to join the two Acts to give us the best of both worlds and that obviously failed. I had my doubts as to whether it would be feasible to accept the amendments because of the limits of our jurisdiction. However, I needed to be certain that the circumstances I outlined were adequately covered because I was afraid they were not. It is appropriate to have teased out the matter.
I accept that this Bill contains stricter conditions on which I commend the Minister. The extension of the maritime area is an extremely welcome development. Our amendments were proposed to ensure there are no loopholes. We will discuss an amendment presently where the Minister has taken account very properly of points made on Committee Stage. My fears were that, based on the 1981 Act and its relevance to the London Convention, we might have been creating a loophole. I am satisfied on the basis of the Minister's reply that this is not the case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, line 26, after "installation" to insert ", offshore pipeline or man made structure".
On Committee Stage we had a brief discussion as to whether the addition of the words "offshore pipeline or man made structure" were necessary. I am anxious to clarify two points. Would it be acceptable to abandon a pipeline? It would not seem acceptable to me but it is likely that certain companies might take this action and abandon the pipeline altogether. On the point of man made structures, could the Minister assure me that in future any parts, disused or overutilised equipment or anything else from the Sellafield plant could not be dumped successfully under the provisions of this legislation?
I support Deputy Smith's point. Everybody knows that dumping at sea from places like Sellafield is extremely dangerous and has ongoing consequences for future generations. I would like the Minister's assurance that every possible effort will be made, even if it is in waters outside our jurisdiction, to control this practice.
The definition of "offshore installation" includes its pipelines. Pipelines which are not associated with offshore installations may not be dumped at sea because they constitute industrial waste which is prohibited under the terms of this Bill. The definition of "offshore installation" also includes man made structures. The abandonment of offshore installations is covered by the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and is being specifically provided for in the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The procedure being provided for in that legislation requires consultation with the Department of the Marine about how that is to be achieved if it arises. It is covered in separate legislation.
The issues of Sellafield and the dumping of radioactive materials are specifically provided for in section 4 where the dumping of low, intermediate and high level radioactive substances or material is specifically prohibited.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, to delete lines 22 and 23 and substitute the following:
"(3) A permit under this section shall contain such conditions as the Minister thinks appropriate. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, a permit under this section shall include a condition that the person to whom it is granted shall indemnify the Minister against all reasonable costs incurred by him arising out of a breach of a condition of the said permit."
On Committee Stage Deputy Smith proposed an amendment that a condition be included in dumping at sea permits requiring the permit holder to indemnify the Minister against costs associated with tracing owners, salvage and so on. I have examined Deputy Smith's amendment in detail with the Attorney General's office who advised on this text for this amendment. This amendment will enable the Minister to seek indemnification against costs incurred arising out of any breach of a condition of a permit. I believe that the amendment takes account of Deputy Smith's concerns and I thank him for raising the matter on Committee Stage.
Needless to say, this side of the House has no difficulty accepting the Minister's amendment. I thank him for taking account of our fears. In the areas of dumping, monitoring and the problems that can follow over a long period of time, it is difficult to assess accurately what the cost might be or where it could eventually lead. It is therefore important to include a provision like this. It is also good sense in terms of how we do our business. Some Government Departments believe that the Opposition is always wrong and the Government is always right. It has been a feature of my own experience in ministerial office that we need the combined wisdom that is available. I thank the Minister for proposing this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, to delete lines 35 to 44 and substitute the following:
"(6) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, in a case where the Minister proposes to grant a permit to a person under this section, charge the person (in addition to any fee paid by the person under subsection (5) of this section) a fee of such amount as, in the opinion of the Minister, is appropriate having regard to the cost of any monitoring, surveys and examinations carried out or to be carried out for the purposes of enabling the Minister——
(a) to determine where dumping may take place,
(b) to assess the effects of the dumping to which the permit relates on the marine environment and the living resources which it supports, and
(c) to ensure that the dumping to which the permit relates is carried out in accordance with that permit.".
On Committee Stage, Deputy Smith proposed that specific provision be included in the Bill to provide for payment by the permit holder of a fee, having regard to the costs of any monitoring required, to ensure that dumping is carried out in accordance with the conditions of a permit. I undertook to examine Deputy Smith's amendment with the Attorney General's office and to return on Report Stage with a text for an amendment.
Under the provisions of section 5 (3) the Minister may include such conditions as he thinks appropriate in a dumping at sea permit. A standard condition of all dumping at sea permits is that the costs of any tests, sampling, analysis and monitoring, which the Minister for the Marine may require after or during dumping, must be borne by the permit holder. As section 5 (6) deals specifically with monitoring the effects of dumping, the Attorney General's office has advised that this is the most appropriate subsection in which to incorporate Deputy Smith's proposal. Section 5 (6) (c) takes on board Deputy Smith's amendment.
Far be it from me to question the Attorney General's advice on these matters. The Minister has taken account of what we said on Committee Stage. I thank the Minister for his efforts to ensure this provision is included.
I too wish to thank and congratulate the Minister for including this amendment. It is extremely important that those who dump at sea be controlled to a certain degree. The Minister is wise to include such a provision.
Amendment agreed to.
We come to amendment No. 7 which is a drafting amendment. Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 are cognate. It is proposed that amendments Nos. 7, 9, 10 and 11 be taken together by agreement. Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 10, line 21, to delete "Judge" and substitute "judge".
These are drafting amendments. Apparently a judge is not adjudged to merit the capital "J".
I do not think this is a matter which will delay the House. I do not think there will be long contributions about whether the word "judge" should be given a capital "J". We are not too bothered one way or the other. If it is to be changed we accept it. I hope the Minister will not be burdened in the future with problems of this kind.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 11, line 5, after "Forces" to insert "or a member of the Garda Síochána".
Section 6 (11) provides that an authorised officer, other than a member of the Defence Forces, shall be furnished with a certificate of his appointment. Section 6 (1) (c) provides that every member of the Garda Síochána shall be an authorised officer for the purposes of this Act. This amendment will enable gardaí to become authorised officers automatically on enactment of the Bill in the same way as members of the Defence Forces and, therefore, will not have to be furnished with certificates of appointments individually.
On a point of clarification, is this not automatic in terms of the primary law enforcement agency? Is this absolutely necessary?
It is necessary because the Bill as drafted exempts only members of the Defence Forces from being furnished with a certificate of appointment. For obvious reasons, the Garda are authorised officers under the provisions of this Bill and it would be nonsensical if individual gardaí had to be furnished with certificates of appointment. It is simply to provide that they would be automatically authorised officers.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 12, line 36, to delete "Judge" and substitute "judge".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 12, line 38, to delete "Judge" and substitute "judge".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 12, line 42, to delete "Judge" and substitute "judge".
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
We come to amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 13 is related and it is suggested that amendments Nos. 12 and 13 be taken together by agreement. Agreed.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 12, to delete lines 45 to 48 and substitute the following:
"and upon conviction under this subsection, the said defendant shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £2,500, or at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both the fine and imprisonment."
I was absent during the Committee Stage debate but it is my opinion that a fine not exceeding £2,500 is small when one is mostly dealing with multinationals. Is there a ceiling of £2,500 or can it be increased at a later date?
In the normal way I would be happy to support Deputy Clohessy's amendment. As he said he was not present on Committee Stage when the Minister explained the limitations placed on him, whereas indictable offences were catered for on conviction by way of fine. On the basis of what was said on Committee Stage I will not support the amendment.
Deputy Clohessy is seeking to increase the maximum fine on summary conviction from £1,500 to £2,500 and to increase the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction from one year to two years. As I explained on Committee Stage, I cannot accept these amendments on the advice of the Attorney General's office. The distinction between summary and indictable cases arises from the Constitution. Cases of a minor nature can be taken in the District Court. A case in 1937 established the upper limit to a fine that could be imposed by the District Court. It was £100 at the time and this has been updated over the years. The District Court maxima for summary penalties is deemed at present to be a sum not greater than £2,500 and we do not have discretion to increase it.
With regard to the proposal to increase prison sentences for summary offences from one to two years, I am advised by the Attorney General that in a High Court case in 1994 — Mallon v. the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry — Mr. Justice Costello ruled that a two year prison sentence on summary offence was unconstitutional. Therefore, I cannot accept that proposal either.
A number of speakers referred to the issue of penalties on Second and Committee Stages. There may have been some confusion as to what penalties are being provided for in this legislation. The Bill provides for unlimited fines in respect of serious or indictable offences and or prison terms of up to five years. It is hoped that the possibility of substantial penalties, on conviction, which could run to millions of pounds, will be an effective deterrent to would-be offenders. The penalties for indictable offences are unlimited. They are based on whatever the cost would be of cleaning up and undoing the damage caused by dumping and are supported by considerable powers available to authorised officers to seize and detain vessels which might be engaged in dumping. The penalties provided for are substantial and should act as a deterrent to any person contemplating dumping within our maritime area. Attention has been drawn only to the penalties provided for on summary conviction. We have no discretion in the matter and are bound by the Constitution and the courts' interpretation of what that means in modern terms.
Far be it from me to question the wisdom of the Attorney General on this subject. I am prepared to accept the Minister of State's explanation.
Does the Minister of State have any figures for the number of convictions for dumping in recent years?
There have been no convictions. Based on our assessment, the law is being complied with.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 form a composite proposal. Amendment No. 16 is consequential. It is proposed, therefore, to take them together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed. Recommittal is necessary in respect of these amendments as they do not arise out of committee proceedings.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 13, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
11. —(1) Section 3 of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974, shall not apply to the prosecution of an offence under this Act or to any functions in relation to that matter to which, but for this subsection, it would apply.
(2) References in Part II of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, and section 62 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, to the Director of Public Prosecutions shall, in so far as that Part and those sections apply in relation to an offence referred to in subsection (1) of this section or to any functions referred to in that subsection, be construed as references to the Attorney General.".
The purpose of these amendments is to enable the Attorney General prosecute offences committed under the Dumping at Sea Bill and the Sea Pollution Act, 1991. The Sea Pollution Act enables the Minister, following upon a maritime casualty, to give directions, for the purpose of preventing, mitigating or eliminating danger from pollution or threat of pollution by oil or any other harmful substance, to the owner or master of a ship outside our territorial waters. Where the response of the owner or master of such vessel to such directions is inadequate, the Minister may take such actions and do such things as he thinks necessary and reasonable to prevent, mitigate or eliminate the effects of pollution. This Act also prohibits or controls the operation discharge of marine pollutants from ships through the establishment of operational discharge criteria and vessel construction and equipment standards.
We make provision for the Attorney General to prosecute offences committed under the Dumping at Sea Bill and the Sea Pollution Act because of the international and diplomatic complications which can arise in cases of this kind. Offences under the Dumping at Sea Bill and the Sea Pollution Act are not like ordinary offences in our jurisdiction and may involve relations with other countries. It is important that the Attorney General should conduct the prosecution because he sits with the Government and is aware of the diplomatic and international perspectives involved in prosecuting such offences.
Maritime law is very specialised and is traditionally dealt with by the Attorney General's Office which is familiar with the relevant international conventions and legislation. This amendment will enable the Government to make use of this expertise when prosecuting offences under the Dumping at Sea Bill and the Sea Pollution Act. A similar provision is already in place in the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1978, and I am satisfied it is effective.
Amendment No. 16 is consequential on amendments Nos. 14 and 15 and I commend them to the House.
Am I correct in saying that we are dealing exclusively with acts committed outside our maritime area?
No, we are dealing with all offences committed both within and outside our maritime area involving Irish vessels or vessels loaded within our maritime area.
Is it not normal to have the Attorney General involved? Why is it necessary to be specific in this instance?
Under the 1981 Dumping at Sea Act and the 1991 Sea Pollution Act the Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible for prosecuting offences. The position is different under the Sea Fisheries Acts under which prosecutions for illegal fishing are brought by the Attorney General. Because of his expertise in the area of maritime law it would be more appropriate for the Attorney General to bring prosecutions under this Bill. The offences involved are not typical criminal offences prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I have the utmost confidence in the Attorney General as I had in previous Attorneys General over a long period despite the criticism levelled at some of them. I wanted to be certain the Bill would not be confined to offences committed outside our maritime area and to know the reason the Attorney General would prosecute offences. The Minister of State's explanation is satisfactory.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 13, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
"12. —(1) Section 3 of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974, shall not apply to the prosecution of an offence under the Sea Pollution Act, 1991, or to any functions in relation to that matter to which, but for this subsection, it would apply.
(2) References in Part II of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, and section 62 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, to the Director of Public Prosecutions shall, in so far as that Part and those sections apply in relation to an offence referred to in subsection (1) of this section or to any functions referred to in that subsection, be construed as references to the Attorney General.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 13, to delete line 43 and substitute the following:
"14. —(1) This Act may be cited as the Dumping at Sea Act, 1996.
(2) The Sea Pollution Act, 1991, and section 12 of this Act may be cited together as the Sea Pollution Acts, 1991 and 1996, and shall be construed together as one Act.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 reported.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank Deputies Smith and Clohessy for their contributions today and those Members who contributed on both Second and Committee Stages. This is significant marine environment legislation which extends the area over which this country will have jurisdiction from 12 miles to 350 miles in the north east Atlantic. We will be able to exercise a greater degree of control over what may be dumped within that area.
The Bill prohibits the dumping of a range of materials, including radioactive material and offshore installations. Members will recall that an attempt was made early last year to dump the "Brent Spar". A number of other installations have been lined up for disposal in the near future. They may not be dumped within our maritime area. The dumping of munitions is also prohibited. Much concern has recently been expressed about the dumping of substantial quantities of used munitions in areas off our coast at the end of the last World War. The dumping of industrial waste and sewage sludge at sea will be prohibited as and from 1 January 1999.
Effectively, this legislation will prevent the dumping of toxic or dangerous materials in our seas. People contemplating dumping material in our seas will be required to apply to the Minister for the Marine for a dumping licence. The legislation provides that strict conditions will apply to any such permit, including, as a result of today's amendments, conditions relating to charges imposed by the Minister for monitoring and controlling any such dumping. These provisions will move our environmental legislation a stage forward; we can no longer view the sea as an area of convenient disposal. Unfortunately, in the past it was believed that when something was dumped at sea it would break up and disperse and not cause environmental damage, but we now have a much more enlightened view in that regard. People are aware that the sea cannot be used as a big dumping ground and the steps taken in this legislation will bring into effect probably the tightest domestic legislation on marine pollution in the world. It will enable us ratify the OSPAR Convention and strengthen our position in seeking tighter environmental controls through various international bodies and conventions to which we are a party.
I thank Members, particularly those present, for their co-operation on this legislation.
I thank the Minister for his comments and for sharing the wisdom of Members from both sides in ensuring that we introduce the best possible legislation.
In recent years the public have become much more conscious of our natural environment. Legislation has been introduced on air and water pollution and on dumping at sea, we also established the Environmental Protection Agency. All parties have been involved in pursuing an environmental policy which would provide a stringent, tough and enlightened legislative code ensuring that people who breach the conditions are convicted and punished.
We must also develop the educational aspect of environmental management. It is not simply good enough to have a legislative code in place, public consciousness and their involvement in environmental protection is also crucial. There have been no convictions in this area in recent years, but that does not mean we do not have problems, particularly from land-based sources. We face a major task in terms of dealing with coastline pollution, particularly from untreated sewage. I accept that the matter cannot be dealt with under this legislation, but it must be addressed.
We are pleased the legislation has reached this stage. I hope other countries in the European Union and elsewhere use it as an instrument to update their domestic legislation. It is not good enough that stringent measures apply in only two or three countries, they should apply on a global level. I hope the legislation is effective in our maritime area.
I join Deputy Smith in thanking the Minister for his co-operation in dealing with this Bill. On Second Stage Members were anxious that the legislation should pass through the House as quickly as possible. It is important that as a sovereign nation we ensure as far as possible that our seas are clean. In carrying out research in respect of the legislation I discovered that a nuclear submarine, the property of the former USSR, is lying at the bottom of the North Sea and at some stage in the future will disintegrate and pollute the seas. We should be proud of our work on this legislation in recent weeks.
Question put and agreed to.