Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 12 Dec 2003

Vol. 577 No. 2

Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2000 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I was not in the House when this Bill was discussed previously and as spokesperson for this area I am glad of the opportunity to speak on it now. It is important to note that this legislation has been awaiting enactment for three years and it is a poor reflection on the Minister and the Department that it takes that long to get legislation passed. The Bill which is only now coming under serious scrutiny should have come before the House long ago. However, it is here now and I will not delay it further.

The purpose of the Bill is to amend and improve previous legislation in this area. The parent Bill is the Dumping at Sea Act 1996. This new amending Bill improves that legislation and is quite well drafted. The legislation has four key aspects, the first of which is to update the definition of harbour authority. Many harbours are now controlled by a port authority so it is important to update the definition to include them.

The second purpose of the Bill is to include "the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands" in section 5 of the parent Bill. It requires that he or she be consulted in certain circumstances before a dumping at sea permit is granted. This recognises that the State attaches increased importance to the world underwater as a heritage and natural resource. While the inclusion of a Minister from another Department may be cumbersome or delay the permit assessment process, it is an appropriate and acceptable requirement.

The third element of this legislation is the requirement that all applicants for dumping at sea permits should publicly advertise their intentions. I support this. It is time we recognised that dumping at sea is similar to dumping on land where permission is required and there is no reason it should not be treated similarly in legislation. Dumping at sea has caused serious damage to the sea bed in some Irish waters. Just because we cannot physically see the damage does not mean we should ignore it. The sea bed has a valuable contribution to make and should be protected. A public advertisement of intention to dump will be required and 21 days will be allowed for stakeholders, interested parties or the public to express their concerns or support before the permit is granted. That process will be useful and must be supported.

The final purpose of the Bill is to require, in certain circumstances, an environmental assessment of natural and archaeological heritage of a sea bed area before dumping occurs. That is important. The theme of this amending legislation is that of the State making a necessary effort in attaching increased importance and value to the underwater, including its life and natural resources, although it is of relevance only to the sea and not inland waterways.

The Bill also allows the Minister to grant or refuse permits depending on conditions. It strengthens the enforcement aspect of current legislation by empowering the courts to impose monetary penalties and even a prison term of five years for illegal dumping. This is a welcome proposal.

I hope the days of the cowboy operations of dumping refuse or silt material at sea are gone and, if not, we must ensure that those involved do not get away lightly with committing actions that will now be against the law. We need to be tough in this area but also reasonable and open when someone applies for a dumping permit, although there is no room for any flexibility when imposing a fine for illegal dumping at sea.

I welcome the Government's significant investment in the national seabed survey. The new vessel, Celtic Explorer, contains fantastic machinery which will assist in recognising the potential of the country's coastline. After our people, our greatest natural resource is the sea that surrounds us. Our national waters comprise 11% of the EU total, yet we have no clue about what goes on there or what is happening on the seabed. I encourage the Government to continue to invest in the national seabed survey. It should be viewed as an opportunity rather than a cost.

The survey will map out the seabed area around the coastline. This will assist in finding natural resources, such as oil and gas, and will help in managing fish stocks in a more efficient manner. Suitable areas, depending on their depth, will be located for breeding fish stocks. If these must be set aside to ensure that fish stocks survive and grow, a seabed survey will offers a significant advantage.

The survey will also offer opportunities when addressing the problem of dumping at sea. Whether we like it or not, we need to dispose of materials at sea. It is a dirty process and it is important to locate the areas where it is suitable to dump waste, such as dredge materials. This can only be done in the context of having access to as much scientific information as possible.

One of the roles of the Celtic Explorer should be to map out suitable locations for dumping certain types of material at sea. Harbours such as those at Cork and Waterford need to be dredged for silt on a regular basis which then needs to be deposited elsewhere, usually at sea. As an example, there should be a scientific map of the seabed around the entrance to Cork Harbour and its environs, which would identify the quantity of material to be dumped before granting operates a dumping at sea permit. They would then be in a position to identify suitable locations to deposit the material.

It is important to deal with dumping in an educated rather than a haphazard way. In the past, a deep patch was sought outside a harbour which was filled with silt. The work of the Celtic Explorer should be linked with this legislation to ensure that the Minister takes a proactive role in sourcing suitable areas for dumping at sea. In this regard, the sensitivity to dumping at sea for some areas, such as those with high levels of aquaculture activity and fish farming, must also be taken into consideration. A combination of the work by the Celtic Explorer and the Marine Institute would be able to map the coastline. Targeting areas as suitable for dumping at sea will allow the opportunity to decide which should be used each year. In taking this approach, the Department should be looking for opportunity rather than counting the cost.

Many Members will have seen the "Prime Time" programme on fish farming and aquaculture. It offered only one perspective on the industry, was critical and negative in tone and did not consider the positive aspects of fish farming. However, it raised an important incident involving an individual who had dumped a significant amount of dead fish in a sea harbour. The dumping was not reported but was discovered by the Marine Institute. There is probably an explanation for why it happened. I understand the individual concerned was forced to make a difficult decision about the use of his equipment and nets which meant that in an effort to save some fish he was obliged to dump a significant quantity of dead fish. It had the potential to do much damage to the seabed and its marine environment, but fortunately, this did not happen. The situation was also monitored.

This incident highlighted a system that is not working. The Marine Institute has probably the best monitoring system in the world for aquaculture and fish farming in terms of covering life levels and fish populations in tanks and so on. However, there is no system for punishing those who regularly break the rules on dumping at sea. We have discussed this in the past and I hope the Department of Communications, the Marine and Natural Resources is examining an alternative to shutting down an operation. There should be different levels of fines for different breaches of the regulations covering fish farming.

We should study other models abroad while at the same time maintaining the excellent levels of industry monitoring by the Marine Institute. We could then sell aquaculture and fish farming in a positive light as it offers great possibilities and opportunities for this island. We have many suitable bays and inlets to allow the industry to flourish in parts of the country that desperately need investment and industry such as this.

Some weeks ago I was in Inishowen looking at fish farming operations in Lough Swilly. I was impressed by the levels of employment and the professionalism of those involved. Just as we need to assess areas suitable for dumping, we also need to assess bays, rivers and harbours for their capacity to take the pressures that fish farming applies to the environment in such enclosed areas of water.

I support the Bill, which has taken three years to reach this stage. Initially I thought I had misread its title given that it contains the year 2000. While the Bill will tighten up the legislation in necessary ways, I would like to see policy coming from this to maximise the use of natural assets such as the Celtic Explorer so that we can take a strategic approach to dumping at sea rather than just a legislative approach whereby permits are issued on an individual basis. The Department should have a map showing where those who want to dump at sea should go. I hope the Minister will do this.

I too welcome this necessary Bill. Like my colleague, Deputy Coveney, I wonder why we had to wait three years from initiation to Second Stage. As Second Stage will be completed today, I hope the Bill can be enacted as quickly as possible.

We have severe restrictions on dumping on land and, as our sea is a valuable resource, the same constraints and legal status should be afforded to dumping at sea. I welcome the extension of the limit from 12 to 350 miles and the requirement for a licence to dump at sea. As a licence is already required for a landfill dump, it makes sense for the same to apply to dumping at sea.

Our sea is a valuable resource that has been mistreated over the years. Sewage from Limerick city goes into the Shannon and down to the sea. This will end when the Limerick main drainage scheme comes on stream. In my village, Adare, the sewage goes directly into the Maigue river and from there to the sea without treatment. There are proposals for a sewerage scheme in Adare, which I hope will start next year. It is unacceptable to treat our waterways, rivers and coastline in such a fashion in 2003 when we know the damage that can be done to fish stocks, marine life and the eco-environment of our waterways.

An audit should be carried out immediately to identify clearly the villages, towns and even cities such as Limerick that dispose of sewage directly into our waterways and the sea. We should commence schemes to treat the sewage of such areas to ensure the sea is not polluted.

For centuries there has been a problem with shipwrecks. People have only become concerned about these in recent years. The sea was an almost automatic dumping ground where people felt that, if it was not visible, it did not exist. Clearly shipwrecks have caused serious problems. Following a serious accident, those involved in the marine area have a responsibility to ensure that pollution does not take place. There should be insurance to cover such eventualities on an international basis. Often we have no control over the owners of vessels that sink. The most renowned shipwreck, the Titanic, which has been lying in the ocean for more than 90 years, was visited within the past ten years. Three wrecks from the Spanish Armada are believed to be off the Mayo coast. However, in 2003 such behaviour is unacceptable. With the level of commercial activity in the sea, it becomes a more important issue.

As an island nation, the fishing industry is important to us. The Bill provides for the protection of fish life from damage by pollutants. We do not pay the attention we should to our marine and fishing industry. Over the centuries, even though we are an island nation with ample fish stocks available to us, we have never really developed the industry. It was strange that, during the Famine of the 1840s, people died of starvation while all around our coast there were stocks of fish. There is something in the Irish psyche that does not allow us to relate properly to and develop our fishing industry.

It is welcome that we are belatedly discussing dumping at sea. It is a feature of our approach to the sea that the Bill is only being discussed in the House in 2003 when we should have been responding to the enormous asset of our coastal waters since the foundation of the State. Even when we joined the EU we were prepared to sacrifice some control of our fishing rights. At the time our agriculture industry was rightly supported. We should have taken the same approach to our marine industry to ensure the same protections were put in place. The failure to do that in the early 1970s had repercussions some years later when we discovered we had less control over our marine stocks. Despite this, there is still enormous potential to develop our fishing industry.

I remember the passage of the 1996 Act through the Houses. I was a Member of the Seanad at the time and we conducted very long debates on the legislation. Its most controversial aspect was the establishment of semi-State bodies. I cannot evaluate how successful the change has been. I do not know if an evaluation of the changes has been made, but their introduction in my area was extremely controversial. Foynes Harbour lost its independence to what is now the Shannon Foynes Port Company. I would like to see a detailed report on the degree of success of that development. On the ground we have seen much less activity at Foynes, but we do not have hard evidence to present to the Minister of State.

While the headquarters of the estuary authority is at Foynes, the potential for development is still not being tapped. There is potential to increase the throughput of business at Foynes. There is a massive opportunity to develop marine industries and enterprises in the area. A new road to Foynes Harbour has made an enormous difference to Foynes village by taking heavy traffic away from it. Foynes is an extremely beautiful and very old village on the Shannon. Certainly, the new road has improved it. There is a marvellous opportunity to create employment in the marine sector by attracting industries to Foynes. The IDA should create incentives to encourage companies to recognise Foynes as an inland but deep harbour which can facilitate vessels up to 40,000 tonnes. Overseas investment by people involved in marine development, including vessel builders, repair companies and other off-shoot enterprises of the marine industry, should be attracted. At one point, a company examined the possibility of establishing a ship repair centre at Foynes. Such employment creation opportunities should be encouraged through incentives to bring much needed jobs to the area. Perhaps the Minister of State will consider greater investment in Foynes Harbour and bring it to the attention of the IDA which is responsible for creating incentives. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources may have views on how best to develop an asset such as Foynes.

The Bill before the House will ensure the control and containment of pollution. While no one can legislate for major accidents which may occur at sea, it is important to put in place legislation which makes provisions to address any possible unfortunate incidents. To be in a position to act immediately, we must put rules and regulations in place to address the kind of major accident which can happen off the coast of any island nation. This Bill will copperfasten existing legislation while safeguarding our coastal communities, harbours and coastlines.

Most Members who have spoken on this legislation referred to their concern at the Sellafield plant. People living on the east coast are concerned about the plant polluting the sea. Questions have been asked about Sellafield for decades. Unfortunately, the nuclear fuel industry in Britain is very coy and protective in terms of the information it provides. Obviously, it has a vested interest in the continued operation of Sellafield. One reads of the concerns of prominent professionals in this field regarding what will happen to people on the east coast and throughout Ireland if anything happens at Sellafield. The events in America on 11 September 2001 would pale by comparison. It is frightening to envisage the damage which could be done if a similar terrorist act were committed at the Sellafield plant. I do not have the expertise to outline the exact details of what would occur, but it must be of concern.

As the Minister of State is aware, attitudes have changed over the years. I remember as a very young person the heavy promotion of the idea that a nuclear plant should be located in the Minister of State's constituency.

That was before my time.

A significant body of opinion held that the construction of such a plant was the way to go. According to statements made at the time, the plant was seen as a life-saver. It was to be the saviour of the ESB by providing cheap energy generation in Wexford. Thankfully, the plan was not realised. If someone were to propose the establishment of such a plant in Wexford today, I am sure the Minister of State would be the first to object. His constituents would ensure that he did. Attitudes to nuclear power have changed and we must be concerned about Sellafield and use every opportunity to voice those concerns. The matter has been raised at EU level by every Government over the last 25 years, but there is little evidence that our concerns have been heard. No planned programme to close Sellafield over the next ten or even 30 years exists. Self interest on the part of the British Government and the nuclear fuel industry is involved.

We must ensure that no illegal dumping at sea is carried out. People who dump must have licences. I note the Bill's provisions to reprimand persons who dump illegally. We have seen the effects of illegal dumps in Wicklow and elsewhere. New regulations have been introduced in respect of the management of legal dumps. Activities in dumps up to ten years ago were unsatisfactory and regulations had to be introduced to control them. These regulations included requirements in respect of linings and the burning off of gases to minimise pollution levels. Many dumps throughout the country which were closed continue to cause severe damage to the environment. These problems may be related to the lack of knowledge and resources which existed at the time.

Before anyone accuses me of straying from discussion of the Bill, I describe these problems to make a comparison with the problems created by illegal dumping at sea. Regarding a 40 acre dump in my council area, we are told that ten years ago they did not have the resources to run it properly, but that they now have the resources to do so. Surely the same applies at sea. We must ensure that the conditions, controls and regulations are of the highest standard. I do not know what these regulations are, but I am sure there is expertise, either within the European Union or internationally, to identify the best practices of dumping at sea and ensure there are controls. In ten, 15, or 20 years' time, this issue will be raised and people will talk about the controls on dumping at sea. While it is licensed, the controls are not exercised because of lack of resources. It is not good enough that the resources will not be applied to ensure that the highest standards are observed. Before 1960 there was not even a proper planning act in Ireland, there was no control over building, but look at the controls there now. The same controls should apply to the managing of our seas and our waters and our very important fishing and marine industry.

I did not realise that aquaculture and fish waste were excluded from the 1996 Act and I find it hard to understand. I remember debating the Bill at Second Stage and in great detail at Committee Stage. I do not recall why the Minister justified the exclusion of these two areas from the 1996 Act. However, this Bill includes them in the controls of the 1996 Act, which is to be welcomed.

We hope that this Bill will pass through Committee Stage speedily and be back for Report Stage when we return after Christmas. I am sure the Minister of State would like to get it off his plate and put a notch on his gun.

We are concerned that this has taken three and a half years. We are now finishing Second Stage and we hope Committee and Report Stages will lead to the Bill being enacted and that the Minister will implement all the ministerial orders necessary to bring all sections into operation as quickly as possible.

I thank all the Deputies who have contributed to the Second Stage debate on this Bill. This is the third day it has been rehearsed in the Dáil Chamber and I have also spent a number of days in the Seanad. There is obviously a significant interest on all sides of the House in the marine environment generally. There has also been a commitment from all sides to ensuring that it is appropriately protected and conserved. I appreciate the general welcome given to the Bill. There has been some criticism about the delay, but as I have been in this Department for only 15 months or 16 months I cannot carry the can for all of the delay. It is certainly very important that there is agreement to proceed with the remaining Stages of the Bill at a very early stage.

The Dumping at Sea Act 1996, which, in fairness to different Governments, was an updating of the 1981 Act, is now being further updated with this Bill. There has been a strong commitment from various Governments over the years to ensure that dumping at sea is well regulated and that it involves strict enforcement.

The debate was very wide-ranging and covered matters that included a number of more general issues concerning the environment, some of them relevant to the responsibilities of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen. We will certainly pass on the comments made during the debate on this Bill, because most of them related to sewerage schemes and water schemes and generally issues that pertain to that Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

I fully agree with the Deputies who rightly emphasised the need for rigorous control of dumping at sea. We must ensure that dumping at sea is permitted only where there is no other appropriate means of disposing of the material in question. This means, for example, that alternatives such as the use of materials for beach nourishment or landfill must be addressed, which Deputy Coveney alluded to in his contribution. As a practical example, I am pleased to say that two thirds of the material dredged in the major harbour improvement works at Killybegs harbour fishery centre have been used for the purpose of land reclamation. It is essential, in addition, that we have systems and processes which ensure that only material adjudged suitable on scientific evidence is disposed of at sea. Our regulatory process must see to it that any disposal permitted takes place in an appropriate location and in an appropriate manner.

Deputy Coveney referred to the Celtic Explorer. I appreciate his comments on the national seabed survey. This major project will undoubtedly add significantly to the knowledge and understanding of Ireland's marine resources and help us, the scientists and the people involved, to ensure that they are managed and delivered sustainably and in an environmentally friendly way. It is very important that we continue to look at the updating and upgrading of the scientific evidence at all times.

Seanad Éireann amended the Bill by the inclusion of requirements for details of all applications for permits received after 1 January 2001, and of any submissions or observations received in respect of such applications, to be published electronically by putting the relevant details on the Department's website, which I am pleased to say is in line with the commitment to an open and transparent permission process

The Bill, being a technical measure, does not provide additional resources for enforcement purposes. However, Deputies will be aware that the Irish Coast Guard and my Department have highly trained staff and specialist equipment and are in the front line, with other relevant agencies, in continuous monitoring of the seas and in the quick response to any pollution threats or incidents arising from that. In addition, co-operative monitoring and assisted arrangements are in place with neighbouring states. We are working towards sharing satellite surveillance capability over a very wide area. Furthermore, the Irish Coast Guard is going to tender to acquire, early next year, a dedicated aircraft and experienced crew for remote area sensing to detect pollution at sea and to help in operations that deal with pollution incidents. They have already been carrying out aerial surveillance on a trial basis over the last two months.

A number of Deputies referred to the appeals process in respect of the decisions on applications for dumping at sea. It has not been considered necessary to establish appeals arrangements in respect of such permits. All ministerial decisions on applications for permits are based on independent expert advice covering all relevant disciplines. Moreover, the extent of public consultation arrangements and procedures for consultations with relevant Government Departments and statutory bodies means that there is every opportunity for all concerned to have their views taken into account before a decision is made.

Reference was made in the debate to a number of specific cases and events, including the proposals by the Dublin port company for reclamation in Dublin Bay. The position is that an application for a foreshore licence under the 1996 Act is with the Department. We hope to deal with that in due course. Perhaps it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on that today.

Deputy Coveney referred to the salmon mortalities in the Donegal bay area this year. He should be assured that we will not tolerate any wrongdoing or unacceptable practices by the fish farmers. I accept that there has been a lot of unwelcome media attention, but if wrongdoing took place, it is right that such wrongdoing should be highlighted. It is up to us in the Department to deal quickly and effectively with that.

As the Deputy is aware, the Marine Institute is carrying out the investigation on an ongoing basis. I have asked the Department to conduct a comprehensive review of enforcement and control. I expect the review which is under way to be completed by early January. We will implement immediately any changes required. We will look at possible ways of dealing with monitoring and enforcement, perhaps involving independent bodies, as soon as the Department has produced its report. If changes are required, we will deal with them very quickly.

Several Deputies referred to the effects of sewage discharges on the marine environment. I inform Deputy Neville who referred to the matter a few moments ago that the Government is committed to the provision of appropriate wastewater treatment facilities. Some €2.7 billion will be spent on wastewater projects under the national development plan in the next few years. I am sure the places mentioned by the Deputy will be included in the programme.

A substantial amount of legislation is in place to deal with shipwrecks, a matter also mentioned by Deputy Neville. We will continue to update the legislative provisions in this regard and deal with the associated matters in an effective manner.

Deputy Neville and others referred to the Sellafield plant, in respect of which the Government has taken unprecedented legal action against the United Kingdom. The action is motivated by a desire to ensure Ireland's environment, especially the Irish Sea, is protected from radioactive discharges from the plant at Sellafield. I am sure the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will be heartened by the fact that Deputies on all sides have encouraged him to take the strongest possible action.

Deputy Neville also referred to the proposal made some years ago to build a nuclear power plant in County Wexford. The project was suggested by a Minister who was a member of Fianna Fáil at the time. I am glad to inform the Deputy that wind turbines are now in place at the location in question, Carnsore Point, to provide green energy.

Not many new wind turbines are being linked to the grid.

Not only does this very welcome development provide energy, it also acts as a major tourist attraction.

Some wind turbines can move mountains.

Deputy Neville spoke about Foynes Port. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has in its possession a report which contains ideas about the development of the port. Deputy Coveney is aware that many ports face serious financial problems – some are on the verge of bankruptcy. The Minister and I have been in discussions with representatives of some of them. We will have to examine how they can make progress. The ports at Waterford and New Ross have substantial debts but the nearby Rosslare Port which is in the hands of CIE is making money. We will have to assess whether we should continue to operate the ports in the current manner if they continue to lose money. Perhaps we will have to consider amalgamations or other ways of operating them. We will have to examine their future operation and viability in a serious manner in the new year.

I have signalled that I will bring forward certain amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage. They will be tabled as soon as possible after Second Stage has been agreed. Explanatory notes will be supplied to the Select Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. I expect amendments to be submitted by Deputy Coveney and others. I will consider any good and practical amendments brought forward in an open manner. The Government does not have a monopoly of wisdom on how to deal with sea dumping.

The Minister of State is reassuring us.

If we work together, we can ensure a proper and relevant Bill can be constructed to deal with dumping at sea.

I thank Deputies from all sides of the House who contributed to this debate. I also thank my officials who kept me informed and briefed on all aspects of the Bill in their usual efficient manner.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share