Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 15 form a composite proposal and amendment No. 14 is consequential on amendment No. 15. Is it agreed that we take amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14 and 15 together? Agreed.
Dumping at Sea Bill, 1995: From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
Acting Chairman
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
Section 1: In page 3, lines 25 and 26, paragraph (b) deleted and the following new paragraph substituted:
"(b) any deliberate disposal in the maritime area of vessels, aircraft or offshore installations,".
Section 1 is to be amended to extend the definition of dumping to include the dumping of offshore installations. Section 4 (1) (a) is to be amended to allow for the continuation of the complete ban on the disposal of offshore installations at sea subject to section 5. Sections 5 (1) (a) and 5 (2) are to be amended to enable the Minister, after consultation with other Government Ministers, to grant or refuse to grant a permit for the disposal of offshore installations.
Section 5 (1) (b) (ii) is to be amended to require the Minister, when deciding whether to grant or refuse a permit in respect of an offshore installation, to consider the exceptions to the prohibition of such dumping as set out in the new Part II of the Second Schedule to the Bill.
Part II of the Second Schedule sets out the exceptions to the prohibition on dumping of offshore installations in accordance with the provisions of the OSPAR Convention as follows — (a) permits may only be granted in accordance with the relevant applicable decisions, recommendations and all other agreements adopted under the convention and (b) permits may not be granted if the offshore installation contains substances which result, or are likely to result, in hazard to human health, harm to living resources and marine ecosystems, damage to amenities or interference with other legitimate uses of the sea.
Sections 5 (12) and 5 (13) are new subsections which provide that the granting of permits on a case-by-case basis in respect of offshore installations may only come into operation by way of a Government Order which must be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
The Government adopts a precautionary approach in the protection of the marine environment. In the absence of sound scientific evidence that the dumping of offshore installations do not impact on the marine environment, we must legislate for the complete ban of sea disposal of offshore installations. Contracting parties to OSPAR, with the exception of Norway and the UK, adopted an agreement on a moratorium on the disposal of offshore installations at sea. However, Norway and the UK agreed informally to be bound by the terms of the moratorium. We will press in OSPAR for a continuation of the current moratorium; indeed, we will seek to make the current ban obligatory on all OSPAR States by way of having it formally enshrined in the convention.
I would regard the situation, involving dumping unregulated by the international community, as inappropriate given the irrelevance of maritime borders on the impact of marine pollution. While the Bill extends 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, I would be very concerned about any future unregulated dumping of offshore installations by international communities in areas immediately outside our maritime area.
Since the introduction of the Bill matters have progressed somewhat within OSPAR. An internationally sound basis for selective dumping may emerge which allows for an authoritative risk categorisation of installations. This will determine which installations may or may not be dumped. It may well include regulatory controls, underpinned by an internationally agreed monitoring and policing regime, which would oversee the identification of offshore installations which could be considered for dumping, the identification of suitable dump sites, preparation of the installations for dumping and the dumping operations themselves. A special working group of OSPAR experts is currently studying this whole issue. The EU is also preparing a report in the matter. Thus, while it is our policy to maintain the ban, the alternative of a properly controlled international dumping regime may emerge in its stead.
On that basis, I propose these amendments to the Bill which will allow for this possible outcome following a review of the complete ban in the future. These amendments are being proposed to allow Ireland to adhere to future international conventions if it emerges that an internationally accepted regime is adopted for the disposal of offshore installations. However, I do not foresee such dumping in our maritime area.
The amendments now being proposed require that the commencement of the new provisions regulating the sea disposal of offshore installations must be debated and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. This will provide the Legislature an opportunity to revisit the whole issue in the light of the outcome of international scientific investigation. I can assure the House that a Government Order will only be proposed on the basis of total satisfaction that an internationally agreed and environmentally safe method of disposal is available. If it is not available, the ban under section 4 will remain.
I commend these amendments to the House.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss these Seanad amendments and additional ones agreed by the Minister since the passage of the Bill through this House.
First I shall refer to the developments under the aegis of the OSPAR Convention to which the Minister of State referred. On Second Stage I said I foresaw some difficulties in sorting out all our dumping problems bearing in mind the types of alternatives emerging, for example, the option of landfill. I said then more research was required on international fronts to allow us decide ultimately how we would dispose of certain types of installations. I am glad some progress has been made in the interim. I am also assured by what the Minister said that, in the event of such matters having to be dealt with at some future date, such dumping will not take place in Irish waters. Anything I have read of potential difficulties for communities in terms of suitable dumping sites leads me to the conclusion that it is an enormous international dilemma. There is clear public concern about dumping in our waters. Substances hidden by the sea can have extraordinary longevity and may well blow up in one's face in the future. The alternative landfill option is abhorrent to us.
We must examine this dilemma not only to ascertain the ultimate, most appropriate site for dumping but to ascertain to what extent such problems can be reduced from the outset, thus leading to a commensurate reduction in residual problems.
In regard to the inclusion of offshore installations in section 1, we engaged in some argument about this on Committee Stage. I believed the offence created in that section did not adequately provide for such contingency, that perhaps ours was to stream-lined a provision. Although the Minister did not accept my view at that time, I am glad a change has been effected which is probably more appropriate.
A number of other Seanad amendments are of a quite technical nature. Regardless of its being provided in legislation I assume the Minister can speak to any other Minister he wishes. It would be a peculiar type of country if he could not do so without that being enshrined in legislation. If considered necessary, we would have no objection to this.
In regard to the provisions of section 6, I take it the additional powers being vested in regional fisheries officers are of an exceptional nature, not for general usage. I look forward to the implementation of the stringent provisions of this Bill. I hope they will be effective.
Deputy Michael Smith is correct. When we last discussed this Bill he drew attention to the need for additional international investigation on the dumping prohibition and any options that might be available. No doubt he drew on his considerable experience in that area, with particular reference to international environmental protection.
What is in place is a moratorium which, for those signatory countries, is obligatory. Norway and the United Kingdom, the two countries in the eye of the storm — with specific reference to their imminence to the North Sea — are participating voluntarily. We are anxious to ensure an OSPAR agreement including all of the waters covered by that convention. We do not want to be confronted by circumstances in which we have domestic legislation in place covering our maritime area, but other sites immediately beyond our maritime area could be resorted to as dumping sites.
What we are doing here is anticipating what may emerge from current discussions within OSPAR. There is some consideration in progress on a categorisation system of different types of structures, for example, the possibility of a distinction being drawn between concrete and metal structures. It may be found more appropriate to dispose of some structures at sea rather than on land. Any such disposal will be done under the strictest of scientific conditions, after investigation and so on. We need to anticipate that contigency, first, to enable us to play a constructive role in the OSPAR discussions and, second, to have in place appropriate means to implement an agreement should one emerge from those discussions. However, triggering any conditions stipulated in such an agreement will require an Order to be debated and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas, thus ensuring transparency about the eventual outcome. This matter is currently under discussion at OSPAR and we need to make provision to anticipate the outcome.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
Section 4: In page 6, between lines 22 and 23, the following new subsection inserted:
"(1) Subject to section 5 of this Act, a person who deliberately disposes of, or permits the disposal of, in the maritime area, an offshore installation or any substance or material from any such installation, and the person in charge of, and the owner of, the offshore installation concerned, shall be guilty of an offence."
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:
Section 4: In page 6, lines 25 and 26, paragraph (a) deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:
Section 4: In page 6, subsection (1), line 31, "or the person in charge" deleted and "or the person in charge of" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:
Section 5: In page 6, lines 38 to 49, and in page 7, lines 1 to 3, paragraph (a) deleted and the following paragraph substituted:
"(a) The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and such other Minister of the Government as the Minister considers appropriate, grant, or refuse to grant, a permit to a person who applies to the Minister for a permit authorising the dumping of a specified vessel, aircraft or offshore installation, or a specified quantity of a specified substance or material in a specified place within a specified period of time or the loading onto the vessel or aircraft, of a specified quantity of a specified substance or material at a specified place within a specified period of time, which is intended to be dumped from the vessel or aircraft concerned.".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:
Section 5: In page 7, subsection (1) (b) (i), line 8, after "Act,", "and" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:
Section 5: In page 7, lines 9 to 14, subparagraph (ii) deleted and the following new subparagraph substituted:
"(ii) (I) the exceptions to the prohibition on dumping as contained in the extracts from Annex II to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic done at Paris on the 22nd day of September, 1992, which are set out in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to this Act, or
(II) the exceptions to the prohibition on dumping set out in Part 2 of the said Schedule and permitted under Annex III to the said Convention,
as may be appropriate.".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:
Section 5: In page 7, subsection (2), line 20, after "aircraft,""offshore installation," inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:
Section 5: In page 7, lines 28 to 32, subsection (4) deleted and the following new subsection substituted:
"(4) The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and such other Minister of the Government as the Minister considers appropriate, revoke or amend a permit under this section, whenever the Minister deems it appropriate."
Section 5 (1) (a) was amended in this House to provide for a consultation by the Minister with any Minister of the Government when assessing an application for a dumping at sea permits Legal advice at the time was that this amendment should be made to provide for broader consultation when applications for dumping at sea permits impinge on areas of responsibility of other Government Ministers. The amendment I am now proposing is consequential to section 5 (1) (a). Section 5 (4) as it stands provides for consultation by the Minister with Ministers for the Environment, Enterprise and Employment and Transport, Energy and Communications only when he is deciding to amend or revoke a permit. The proposed amendment provides that the Minister may consult with any Government Minister he considers appropriate. I recommend the amendment to the Dáil.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 10:
Section 5: In page 8, between lines 22 and 23, the following inserted:
"(c) The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the end of each year, cause to be published in Iris Oifigiúil, particulars of all permits granted under this section, in that year.”.
This amendment is based on an amendment originally proposed by Senator Daly. As I pointed out in the Seanad, I am satisfied that members of the public have open access to particulars of permits. Under section 5 (9) the Minister must keep a register of particulars of all dumping at sea permits. This register must be kept open for inspection by the public free of charge. It is normal practice for my Department to forward copies of permits to members of the public on request. However, in line with the Government's policy on access to information on the environment, I agreed with Senator Daly that details of permits should be made available to as wide an interested public as possible. For that reason I consider it appropriate to make provision in the Bill for the publishing of details of permits in Iris Oifigiúil.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11:
Section 5: In page 8, between lines 31 and 32, the following new subsections inserted:
"(12) This section shall not come into operation as respects offshore installations until such day as the Government may by order appoint.
(13) Whenever an order is proposed to be made under this section a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 12:
Section 6: In page 8, lines 35 to 38 deleted, and the following substituted:
"(b) The Minister may, in relation to the fisheries regions created under section 10 of the Fisheries Act, 1980, appoint an officer of the Central Fisheries Board established by the said Act, to be an authorised officer.
(c) The Minister may, in relation to a fisheries region created under the said section 10, appoint an officer of a regional fisheries board (within the meaning of that section) established in respect of that fisheries region, to be an authorised officer.
(d) An authorised officer appointed under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection shall, in the discharge of his functions under this section, have regard to such considerations of policy as the Minister may direct.".
On Committee Stage in the Seanad Senator Daly proposed an amendment to the Bill providing for the appointment of officers of the Central and Regional Fisheries Boards as authorised officers for the purpose of the Act. The Bill already provided for the appointment of a wide range of technical and scientific experts as authorised officers, including fishery experts from the Marine Institute. However, I accepted the points put forward by Senators Daly and Fitzgerald that in some cases members of the regional fisheries boards would be best placed to enforce provisions of the Bill in respect of their own regions. This amendment which was welcomed in the Seanad provides for appointment by the Minister of officers of the Central and Regional Fisheries Boards as authorised officers for the purpose of the Bill. Their authority for enforcement of the Bill will be in respect of their own regions only. The Bill as it stands requires that officers of the Marine Institute, who are appointed as authorised officers, must have regard to the considerations of policy as the Minister may direct. The amendment to section 6 (c) being proposed on the advice of the Attorney General is being extended to include officials of the Central and Regional Fisheries Boards who are appointed as authorised officers.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 13:
Section 10: In page 12, line 46, paragraph (b) deleted and the following new paragraph substituted:
"(b) the Attorney General consents, and".
An amendment was passed by this House — section 11 refers — to make provision for the Attorney General to prosecute offences committed under the Dumping at Sea Bill because of the international and diplomatic complications that can arise in cases of this kind. Up to now such offences would be prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Offences under the Dumping at Sea Bill are not like ordinary offences in our jurisdiction. They may involve relations with other countries. It is important that the Attorney General should be in on the prosecution because he sits with the Government and is aware of the diplomatic and international perspective involved in prosecuting such offences. Maritime law is a very specialised area of law which is traditionally dealt with by the Attorney General's office. Amendment No. 13 is consequential on section 11.
Section 10 (2) (b) as it stands provides that a judge of the District Court will have jurisdiction to try an offence summarily when the Director of Public Prosecutions consents.
Section 11 provides that the Attorney General will prosecute offences under this Bill. It follows that the Bill should be amended to provide for the District Court to have jurisdiction to try an offence summarily when the Attorney General consents. I recommend this amendment to the Dáil.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 14:
Second Schedule: In page 15, between lines 22 and 23, the following inserted:
"Part 1".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 15:
Second Schedule: In page 15, after line 35, the following Part inserted:
"Part 2"
THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION ON DUMPING PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANNEX III TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OF THE NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC DONE AT PARIS ON THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1992
Disused offshore installations dumped in accordance with a permit issued by the competent authority of the relevant Contracting Party on a case-by-case basis:
Provided that the Contracting Parties shall—
(a) ensure that their authorities, when granting permits, implement the relevant applicable decisions, recommendations and all other agreements adopted under the Convention, and
(b) refuse to issue a permit if the disused offshore installation contains substances which result, or are likely to result, in hazards to human health, harm to living resources and marine ecosystems, damage to amenities or interference with other legitimate uses of the sea.".
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments reported and agreed to.