Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Jun 2004

Vol. 587 No. 1

Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

In Part 4 I welcome the amendment to Part III of the Merchant Shipping Act 1992 regarding passenger boats, especially the power to revoke or suspend the certificate or licence of any vessel where a holder has already offended in one boat or ship. That is an important reform and the Minister is to be commended on it. I also welcome the increase in fines in section 38. The Minister has made the Irish Coastguard the co-ordinating agency and the results in the Princess Eva case are encouraging.

I also note that a decision has been made to base the headquarters of the Irish Coastguard in Drogheda. There are still grave concerns about the ability of the coastguard to co-ordinate and manage pollution incidents and dangers to shipping after the decision to close the Dublin marine emergency co-ordination centre and refer the monitoring of all Irish seas to the facilities in Valentia and Malin alone. The Minister should look at the issue surrounding the marine emergency co-ordination centre in the radio-communications centre on the east coast. There may be an announcement in that regard at some stage due to the arrangements being made to locate the coastguard at Drogheda. Given the busy nature of the Irish Sea, it is critical that we have a radio co-ordination centre on the east coast.

I note the provisions of the bunker oil convention in the Schedule and the simple language in which it is couched. It is another important initiative in dealing with marine pollution. The maritime safety directorate in the Department is to be commended, as is the Minister. Despite the caveats I mentioned, I hope the Bill is passed quickly.

I welcome the Bill and compliment the Minister on the manner in which he presented it. The Labour Party has concerns about certain aspects of the Bill and, as Deputy Broughan said, it will put forward considered amendments on Committee Stage. I hope the Minister will consider them positively. I compliment him on accepting certain amendments proposed in the Seanad, particularly those put down by Labour Party Senators. He incorporated those amendments in the Bill and I believe they will strengthen it.

With regard to any legislation and the debate that takes place in the Oireachtas, one must ask if the general principle and spirit of a Bill is implemented. That is my concern with this Bill. Will its provisions be implemented? I ask this because I have been at three public meetings in the last three days about the Harbours Act 1996, which is under the remit of the Minister and his Department. These were well attended meetings and one of them was held outside Leinster House yesterday. At the meetings the main concern of the public was why the general aim of a Bill, particularly the Harbours Act 1996, was not implemented. That particular Bill envisaged the transfer of Balbriggan and Skerries harbours to local authorities, followed by Bullock Harbour. The current situation is that the Dublin Port company has now advertised and is in the process of finalising the transfer of Skerries and Balbriggan harbours into private ownership. As I already stated on the Adjournment Debate, this is a scandal and must be resisted and stopped.

The special amenity value of the two harbours must be protected. Those facilities and amenities are not only enjoyed by the ever-increasing number of people who reside in the growth areas of Balbriggan and Skerries but also by people from the Dublin catchment areas and holiday makers from abroad who utilise them, yet the port company proposes to sell it.

We must also acknowledge the potential of our harbours. We may have a declining fishing industry in north Dublin but Balbriggan, for example, is a working harbour. If the Department and the Government allow these harbours to go into private ownership, we do not know what will happen in the future. Access to the harbours by the public will be affected. In terms of their being working harbours, we do not know what will be the implications if they go into private ownership. I have no doubt that if Irish and multinational interests get their hands on these harbours, planning applications will be made and we will see high density apartments being provided and marinas suggested at inappropriate locations.

The members of the public who attended the public meeting in Balbriggan and Skerries, and a protest outside the Dáil yesterday organised by the Labour Party, have stated clearly that they will not accept this particular direction. They want the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to deal with this issue and prevent it going ahead. That can be done. I am satisfied that Fingal County Council would be willing to take over the operation of these harbours, subject to certain conditions. Those conditions can be met and agreement reached, but it will entail the two Ministers involved taking a proactive line and getting together with the Dublin Port Company and Fingal County Council to put together a package to ensure these harbours are retained in public ownership.

While the public meeting to which I referred was initiated to a major degree by the Labour Party, it was attended by representatives of all the political parties in Dublin North. The unanimous agreement at the meeting was that the proposed sales be cancelled, the harbours retained in public ownership, and adequate consultation take place with the relevant interested groups, including Fingal County Council, the Department, the harbours authority, the sailing clubs and the people who utilise those facilities. That must take place.

This process has a number of knock-on effects. I understand where the Minister is coming from in that it was envisaged under the Bill that other harbours would be taken over by the local authorities but we must get agreement and a commitment in regard to this issue. As far as I am concerned, I will leave no stone unturned to ensure that these harbours are not handed over to private interests whose only interest is profit at the expense of the ordinary people of Fingal and other parts of the country. I ask the Minister to intervene and ensure these harbours are retained in public ownership.

I wish to share time with Deputy Eamon Ryan.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the general thrust of this legislation which will strengthen the powers to deal with maritime vessels that present a threat to our waters and coastlines. Other speakers have referred to particular instances in our own waters and European waters and we are all well aware of the damage that can be done when incidents such as that involving the Prestige take place. It must also be welcomed as a further step to ensuring that the types of vessel most often responsible for marine environmental disasters are made obsolete. I am thinking in particular of single hull oil tankers which are the most vulnerable to accidents, and I am conscious that the Minister commented on that in his opening remarks. Unfortunately, I did not hear the detail of that as I was at a meeting but I heard some of it and I look forward to reading those comments.

I am concerned, as are others, that this legislation will not be effective against shipping which operates under flags of convenience. A large proportion of the world's tonnage operates under flags of convenience as they appear to be immune from most standards of international governance in all areas. When debating the Bill in the Seanad, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, pointed out that with the accession of the new states, approximately 40% of the world's tonnage will be within the European Union and that this will extend the remit of the relevant marine legislation. That, too, will be progress if it brings more of the world's shipping under proper control and supervision. Not all ships that operate under flags of convenience are rogues but a substantial minority of them are and it is obviously one of the attractions of that form of registration. That applies not only to pollution and safety issues but also to issues concerning the rights of people employed on board such ships.

Two weeks ago, while discussing the Maritime Security Bill which is under this Department's remit, I raised the possibility of the legislation impinging on industrial relations issues. My colleague, Deputy Ferris, is pursuing this issue by means of a number of amendments that will be debated on Committee Stage. In that context, I was thinking of the manner in which unscrupulous ship owners and captains can either avoid the strictures of law designed to prevent abuses at sea or, in this case, use existing legislation to justify their treatment of crew.

In the context of this Bill, the danger is that ships under a flag of convenience will remain free of the obligations placed on others because it will be impossible in some instances to take action against them if they are found to be in breach of anti-pollution measures, for example.

There are other powers following on this legislation that it is hoped will reduce, and ultimately eradicate, the use of particular pollutants. For example, I welcome the ban on organically based anti-fouling agents. These have been found to be harmful to the marine environment and any action that helps to prevent their use will be to good effect.

I also welcome the new powers to take action against previous offenders who may have acquired a new vessel and to revoke passenger boat licences held by such individuals. That will help to tackle situations where rogue operators can simply move on after being caught committing an offence on one vessel and acquire a licence for a second or even a third vessel.

In the overall context of the protection of our waters, I regret the decision by the marine enforcement protection committee to refuse the request made by this State, along with Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain and Britain, to designate part of the north-western waters as a particularly sensitive sea area. That would require single hull tankers, for example, and others to give 48 hours advance warning before crossing through these seas. Following on that refusal, the Irish Government must act on its own initiative to protect those parts of that sea which are in our territorial waters. Perhaps that is something that could be examined in the context of this legislation and addressed by way of amendments at a later stage.

This Bill, as with all other marine legislation covering such a massive area, raises the question of surveillance and enforcement. Is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient resources available and, if not, how does he envisage that any such deficit might be addressed? I am aware of the excellent work carried out by the Irish Coastguard and its role in tackling several incidents of late. It would be fair to say, however, that it does not have the capacity to cover all of the sea area under its responsibility.

Questions have been raised regarding the future funding and organisation of the service. I am aware the service liaises with the Irish Coastguard and other services in the EU member states and that it has lent assistance to other states, for example, during the Prestige incident. However, it is of vital importance that the service is maintained and expanded, if necessary, to meet the increased responsibilities placed upon it by legislation such as this.

I reiterate my support for the objectives of the Bill. There does not appear to be anything contentious in it. Nevertheless, I will examine it more closely with my colleague, Deputy Ferris, before it comes to Committee Stage to see if there are issues to be addressed by way of amendment. One of the key elements which cannot be addressed at this stage is the implementation of the legislation. That will be a matter for the Minister and his Department when the legislation is passed, as I expect it will be, given the comments of all Members this afternoon. It is all very well to prepare and pass legislation but it will be worthless if it is not implemented.

I commend the Minister and his Department for bringing forward this and other recent legislation aimed at tightening up the law in this area. The coastal zone management Bill has been promised and is long overdue. I hope it will be brought before the House soon.

I too welcome the chance to speak on this Bill.

I welcome the attention given by the Minister of State to the issue of TBTs. If we can add a small percentage of the world's population to the movement to address a serious issue and push the numbers up to a stage where we will see a global ban on the use of certain anti-fouling agents which have serious long-term environmental effects, we will have done a good day's work. I am proud to add my voice to the debate on this issue.

The Bill goes to the core of what my party is about. It promotes an ecosystem approach to managing our resources and balanced management of the natural resources we share and use, where a range of different species interact with each other and with the physical and meteorological climate in a way which is complex, self-regulating and self-balancing. As one of the species in that chain, human beings must be careful how we affect and disrupt that ecosystem and its balance because our actions may come back to affect us in ways we had not considered, and do us real harm.

Had I spoken here in the 1960s, 1970s or even in the early 1980s about the problem of TBTs, I might have been laughed at and told I was exaggerating. Members might have wondered what possible damage a lick of paint on a boat could do. They would not have known about my recent meeting with officials of the Minister of State's Department regarding dredging, which is also the responsibility of his Department. When the problem of dredging the harbour in Castletownbere was raised, the officials told me that because the harbour had a high concentration of TBT nothing could be done in the area without spending incredible amounts of money extracting highly toxic pollutants from the water. This is a small example of how the misuse of a substance can come back to affect the development of our society, infrastructure and economy in practical and real ways.

The Bill is an example of the introduction of ecological thinking into world and national governance. That cannot come quickly enough.

The Minister mentioned recent meetings which occurred, fortuitously, in Wexford. The latest edition of The Irish Skipper contains several articles in which the scientific community draw attention to the need to take an environmental and ecological approach to our industry. The Minister of State referred to the recent conference in Wexford. The EurOCEAN 2004 conference was recently held in Galway although, unfortunately, I was not aware of it until it had finished. At the conference, 500 scientists looked at how we affect the marine ecosystem. I am informed by The Irish Skipper that a conference was held in Dublin Castle, as part of the European Presidency. I did not receive notice of this conference. One of the regrettable features of the Presidency has been that Irish people and legislators have not been invited to the many excellent conferences which have been held throughout the country and where we might have listened to some of the world’s leading scientists. The Presidency has been run behind closed doors. It has not been an open process. I managed to attend one of two conferences but I found it remarkably difficult to find out where they were being held, how I could get to them and what their agenda would be. These conferences should have been open. I would love to have attended the 13th international dialogue meeting of ISES on the advancement of scientific advice for an ecosystem approach to management and many people in the Irish fishing industry and environmental movement should also have attended the conference to listen to the leading scientists in the world discussing this new ecosystem and ecological approach to managing our resources.

This need for an ecological management of our natural resources has been presented to us for 30 or 40 years. As a child I watched Jacques Cousteau on television give the same message we are receiving now. It is almost as if we have continued to sit in front of our television sets and hear people telling us we are destroying our environment. The message about the effect on the marine environment had a particularly strong effect on me. People were telling me we were destroying our marine environment and we must be careful about how we operate our fishing industries and allow pollution because they have a serious long-term effect. However, still we have not addressed this problem. It is as though we are still sitting in front of our television sets and watching it happen. If this legislation is one small part of our response to this problem and a small example of how we are getting up from our lounge seats and doing something, I am very happy to approve it.

At the EurOCEAN 2004 conference in Galway, Professor Carlo Heip said that our knowledge of marine biodiversity is minute. We have little knowledge, for example, of the number of species existing. We are beginning to see the huge medical, economic and pharmacological potential of newly discovered species, particularly in deeper waters of which we have very little knowledge. Professor Heip says we need a greater knowledge and scientific analysis of that ecosystem. The first step in treating the ecosystem carefully is to gain knowledge of what is going on. Unfortunately, that knowledge is still very scant. While I commend the Irish Government's recent analysis we have a long way to go. The sea-bed survey is a good example of a start in the right direction.

Professor Heip went on to say that marine biodiversity is under continuing serious global threat. It is undermined by fishing, pollution, the introduction and transfer of exotic species to new environment and global climate change, something which will soon affect our own environment, and we are not properly addressing those threats. An example in that regard is our treatment of the environment in a manner which suggests we do not know what we are doing. One of the strongest examples recently is the move by a number of European fleets, including ours, into deep sea trawling to catch fish with a long life without knowledge of the effect of such actions on populations in terms of taking out an adult population which will not be replaced and its effects on deep sea waters which we do not understand. Our initial reaction may be that because the Atlantic is a large ocean, it does not matter that we take a certain number of fish from it. However, it does matter if it has implications for how the ecosystem works.

The current situation regarding ballast waters is also an issue of sea pollution. Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify if this legislation will apply to pollution that might occur from the discharge of ballast waters, an issue causing serious concerns? It is interesting to note from the magazine before me an example of where a mistreatment of the ecosystem or the introduction of a new species can have a serious affect. The Corrib system is under threat from the possible spread of the zebra sea mussel. That is an example of how a small change could have massive effects on our local marine environment.

Another example is our management of the aquaculture industry in terms of the effects of sea lice on fin-fish farming. Perhaps the idea to develop the salmon fishing industry was a brilliant one in terms of developing a valuable food resource. However, those involved did not, perhaps, take on board the ecological understanding of how we develop those resources. What we are now witnessing is ecology biting back. Fin-fish farming is an incredibly difficult area in which to make money. All the scientists involved now agree that the effect of the high pest population living on the farmed one is affecting our indigenous wildlife resources.

Following the "Prime Time" revelations last year regarding activities in the Irish fish-farming industry, members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, were able to obtain agreement from all the industries and Government scientists that this was an area in which the management in a particular manner of one species or another was having an effect on the ecosystem and our wildlife species. We had to take that point on board. It is also another example of where we have not taken an ecological approach to the management of our resources.

I was pleased the Minister of State was able to encourage the European Maritime Safety Agency out of Brussels. The trip did it the world of good. What fortuitous coincidence that, of all the countries and counties in the world, it picked north County Wexford to visit. It could not have picked a better location than Gorey to hold its meeting. I commend the Minister on his achievement in that regard.

Another article in my recent edition of The Irish Skipper referred to the location of the new Irish Coastguard development agency in, as luck would have it, County Louth, the Minister’s home county, a remarkable coincidence in which I have no doubt the officials were deeply involved. While I welcome and can understand the politics of holding the meeting in Gorey, there is a question to be answered regarding the manner in which civil servants are to be relocated throughout the country in terms of whether it will benefit joined-up thinking in the governance of the country. I do not yet know where officials from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will be located. I am not sure if they will be decentralised to Cavan, Clonakilty or elsewhere. I am not sure it is wise to do this to many different arms of State which must interact with each other. I presume the coastguard section will have to have regular meetings with officials in the Department. I am not sure if we will get required joined-up thinking by relocating Departments at opposite ends of the country. I am not sure either if the process is being handled in a manner which is fair to civil servants and which will provide us with the best use of resources in the remarkable people that are the civil servants of this State.

I regret the location of sections of Departments to Ministers' counties. Sustainable Energy Ireland is being relocated to the Minister's home county along with the Irish Coastguard development agency. That may well be the best location given it is close to Dublin. Thankfully, it is close to the sea and we are not in the embarrassing Cavan factor in this regard. If I were a civil servant, I would be carefully following ministerial reshuffles more keenly than those on the Fianna Fáil back benches. That is not appropriate.

Having addressed my concerns regarding the relocation of the coastguard service, it is good we are considering a centralised management and, hopefully, reaction system to oil spillages or other natural disasters that may occur particularly close to our sensitive shores. I regret what the Minister had to say about the proposal Ireland, along with many other countries, put to the IMO for a restriction in certain categories of shipping. I understood Ireland was originally seeking its own north and western shores. However, I understand the Portuguese and Spanish may also wish the restriction extended to their waters. I regret also to learn from the content of the Minister's speech that the IMO has ruled out that proposal. The Minister of State said the special committee established to investigate the navigational consequences in that regard will return. Perhaps he will clarify that matter in his response.

The Minister of State said the IMO did not accede to the request to ban tankers as proposed. However, he also said the expert navigation committee is expected to report to the MEPC later this year. I am interested to hear the Minister of State's view on whether the IMO is ruling out such a ban. We were fortunate last year in that the incident in Donegal involving the Princess Eva did not lead to serious pollution. That incident should strengthen the case for the protection of the sensitive ecosystems of which those on the west coast are fortunate to be the managers and carers. It would have been an international and national tragedy had some 55,000 tonnes of crude oil washed up on the beaches of Donegal which are unique in the whole of western Europe. I have never visited anywhere with such attractive and dramatic local ecosystems. Had those beaches been polluted for many years by a discharge of 55,000 tonnes of oil, not only our wildlife but our tourism industry would have been devastated. I would have thought the close call regarding the Princess Eva made our case of the IMO all the more compelling. I am interested to hear if the Minister of State believes the IMO will be willing to accede to our request in that regard.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. However, I hope I will not be back here in future years saying we warned of the necessity to purchase a towing vessel to help cope with potential future accidents. I hope I am proved wrong. One of the first reports into which I had to delve on taking up my position as Opposition spokesperson on the marine dealt with the need for a maritime towing vessel. It was a remarkably well produced document which contained scientific analysis as to the likelihood of marine accidents involving discharges of pollution in Irish waters. That research was undertaken in a clear and accurate manner. What was disturbing was its ability to predict reasonably accurately the likely consequences of 1.5 serious incidents a year within our waters, possibly involving quite significant discharges. If one considers the years during which the study was carried out one will note there was a series of incidents that would have corroborated that statistic. Given the volume of maritime traffic passing through our waters, it seems almost certain that we will have a serious incident at some stage. It is remarkable that we are not abiding by the recommendations of the report and spending €10 million to €15 million — I cannot remember the exact figure — on a towing vessel, which could possibly be operated in co-operation with the UK Government. It is a poor investment decision on the part of this State because if there is a problem, we may well look back and claim that the saving of this small amount of money was not wise in the long run.

I commend the officials I have mentioned, who are no doubt busy packing their bags or scanning the State for the Department to which they want to relocate to suit their children's educational needs or the other needs that unfortunately govern our lives. They are to be commended for the work they have put into this Bill which is remarkably detailed and serves as an excellent example of the important legislation we require. It is an example of our getting up off our TV seats — I will put it that way — and starting to legislate for an ecological approach to protecting our natural resources.

In my two years as an Opposition Member, I noted that we considered a series of Bills addressing similar issues in this area, and in most cases addressing international protocols which we were to implement. I am sure this legislative process, which is complex and drawn out, has been difficult for the Minister of State and his officials. I regret that some of the Bills were not consolidated into one so we could have addressed some of the more international implications in a more holistic, co-ordinated manner. I differ from the Minister in terms of how I would manage this issue. Bearing in mind the intent of this Bill, I very much commend it to the House and commend the Government for bringing it forward.

Let me return to the topic of TBT. I understand from the Minister of State's presentation and the content of the Bill that we must address the banning of such substances ourselves within the European Union. We are now involved in the long and difficult clean-up associated with their use in the past.

Perhaps the Bill may not have an immediate effect. It might have an effect in some very distant port where regulations are not as strong and where concern for the environment tussles with concern for people's survival in many cases. Such ports may not be able to apply the standards we are now demanding of them. However, one of the lessons one learns from taking an ecological approach to politics is that we live in one world that is in itself an integrated, complex and, in a sense, breathing ecosystem, and that we have responsibility as legislators to adopt a global approach to all our work. "Think globally and act locally" has been a slogan of the Green Party for a long time. I very much welcome the chance to take such an approach in praising this legislation.

I welcome the Bill. I listened with great interest to Deputy Eamon Ryan's speech, from which I learned a lot. It was very thoughtful and constructive. I do not know very much about sea pollution other than that I live in a place called Drogheda about four or five miles from the sea.

I will be delighted to welcome the new Irish Coastguard agency when it locates to Drogheda. We will be very happy to have any other bodies the Minister locates there because the town has been ignored for so long by this Government. In the knowledge that the elections were coming up, it decided to pull those few jobs out of the hat. We are very happy to have them.

Having spoken in recent weeks to a number of civil servants who live in Drogheda, I note there is great concern about decentralisation generally, particularly if employees have to relocate to a place far from where they now live. If they had to move to Munster or Connacht, for example, it would create serious and significant problems for them, particularly those who have special knowledge and those who are professionals in their field. It does not make sense to move somebody from the Ordnance Survey office in the Phoenix Park to Dungarvan if his kids are in college and his wife is teaching in the local school. There are already regional offices throughout the country.

The sea and marine environment are important to us and any legislation that will co-ordinate and improve how we reflect international agreements and conventions can only be welcome. The fishing industry in particular is obviously a very significant player in employment around our coast. Clogherhead in County Louth has a community of fishermen who will benefit greatly, including financially, from any improvement in the marine environment.

Will the Minister of State inquire into pollution in the Irish Sea on the part of the British nuclear industry, particularly the nuclear submarines the British navy has positioned off the west coast of Scotland. Pollution is caused by the discharge from their quench tanks. The vessels have many pollutants and the quench tanks are supposed to be emptied in a proper and transparent procedure at port. I have been informed this does not happen in every case and that there have been instances of the discharging of quench tanks off the coast of Ireland. Will the Minister of State investigate this immediately? If my information is correct, as I believe it is, it is serious and we should insist that the practice cease forthwith. This Bill deals specifically with pollution from ships but the issue of pollutants from submarines needs immediate attention.

Other issues that need to be addressed in this area concern the quality of marine life and people's enjoyment of the coast, our shipping fleet and all our ports. I am happy the Bill is before the House and that it will make things better rather than worse.

I have a question for the Minister of State that could be regarded as rhetorical. Has the bunkers convention anything to do with the Fianna Fáil meeting of directors of elections which will be held on 13 June 2004 to find out why the party did so badly in the local elections? I will interpret the Minister of State's lack of an answer as affirmative in this case.

I welcome the Bill and wish it every success.

I am happy to speak on this very important Bill. We are an island nation and those of us who live beside the sea have always been very aware of its value. In my area, one can see the Famine ridges all along the coast, but some people who lived beside the sea survived the famine because of the fish the sea provided. It is obvious that the sea is of great benefit to us. It provides so much but it can also be a source of bad things.

I mentioned before that, because of GPS technology, one can deposit anything anywhere in the sea and have it picked up by somebody else who knows the co-ordinates. This is particularly useful for drug smuggling and an example of a negative aspect of the sea. Of course GPS technology is ideal for fishermen and for improving safety at sea. The sea makes us very vulnerable but it has also been a great asset.

EU membership opened up a whole new vista in terms of exploitation of the sea. When we entered the EU we did not have the means or ability to maximise exploitation of the sea and I suppose we lost out as a result.

The sea is also important to us from the point of view of tourism. Having tourists who would be able to build on the wonderful asset that is the sea would represent a solution to many of our problems. The sea is not a limitless resource and there are things we should have done differently. I am talking about the fact that many of our assets were given away due to our EU membership.

We can see how waste affects us. The accident in Chernobyl affected people and livestock in the west of Ireland, and continues to affect us. We live in a small pond that is the sea. The Irish Sea contains the most contaminated fish available because of radiation. This brings home the point that we live in a small world and have a big obligation to do the right thing. In many ways the EU has been good for us but it has been a double-edged sword. EU equality legislation has driven up our minimum wage, the cost of employment, the cost of competition and the cost of trying to create the type of country in which people will stay.

However, there have been two sides to the EU equation. Many of our resources have been exploited by other countries whose super-trawlers come in and sweep up what is there. We had a wonderful opportunity, particularly in the west, to have a proper fishing policy, which has been neglected. This could have translated into income and infrastructure thus allowing the area to be more competitive. However, the lack of balanced regional development is to be regretted, as it would have meant so much. There was little development of western harbours, which would have made so much difference to us.

I greatly welcome the Bill, which should improve problems with pollution. We are all aware of the many tragedies and accidents that have occurred at sea, many of which could have been prevented. The Bill will go a long way to introducing proper procedures and standards to control commercial interests that know no bounds when it comes to taking chances. We all remember the Kowloon Bridge disaster and there have been many such incidents in Ireland and elsewhere. Single-hull vessels are permitted and because of commercialism they will not be phased out in the short term. The EU has already adopted measures on this matter. While single-hull oil tankers are to be banned, that will be in the future. It is a pity that action is not being taken, as those accidents are preventable.

Another problem is raw sewage seeping into the rivers and bays. In my constituency we can see examples of pollution continuing due to inadequate investment. This is not pollution from the much-maligned septic tanks, but from large centres of population. I would be in favour of people staying west of such centres of population if the potential existed. Pollution is regrettable as it interferes with fish life. Sewage has a very negative effect on fish life particularly with the siting of mussel and oyster farms along the west coast. As these are very important matters, I welcome the Bill.

Those living on the islands are very dependent on the sea and deserve every consideration. The sea is a massive resource that we have not fully exploited. I welcome steps to reduce dumping at sea. The 1996 Act rightly extended our jurisdiction for dumping at sea from 12 miles to 250 miles, consistent with the continental shelf. However, that Act gave us additional responsibility. In my area a landslide in Pollatomish resulted in a mountain ending up in the sea, which had a major effect on the area. Even the few remaining driftnet fishermen are suffering from overregulation and the disaster in Pollatomish worsened their plight.

Many who work in sea angling were put out of business because of new regulations, which I accept were introduced on safety grounds. While we are all in favour of safety at sea, those regulations should have been introduced on a phased basis. The result was a plethora of angling festivals were put out of action in my village, Belmullet and all along the coast, which made no sense. We appeared to be chasing a few small people catching salmon, while at the same time super-trawlers are hoovering up the fish. I do not believe the Bill will do anything for those living in north-west Mayo who are affected by these problems even though there is an urgent need for action to be taken for them.

We thought the EU was great but when the landslide occurred at Pollatomish, we got nothing from the EU because the damage was less than €3 billion. It is people's heritage and right to be able to farm the land and stay in their own area. Since I became a Deputy I have sought a tax incentive scheme for the area which is the poorest in the State based on the last census. If the trend continues, nobody will be left there in 100 years, which is a major problem. While it is important to preserve fish life, etc., homo sapiens also matter and when homo sapiens are threatened it is time to take notice. A tax incentive scheme would help the west and north of Mayo.

The sea is very vulnerable and is constantly under threat. It is said that of the 25 bays regularly monitored by the EPA and local authorities, 12 were eutrophic or enriched. Algal blooms caused by pollution occur in our area during good weather, as the algae multiply in their millions. While it can look very nice from an aeroplane or from the shore, it is not very nice when entire areas are destroyed by algal bloom. Our waters contain 446 different species of fish, a large proportion of which are seriously threatened by pollution, particularly lampreys and shellfish. This serious problem must be addressed.

There is much we can do about pollution from areas of large population without having to seek funding from Europe. It is claimed that development at Killybegs could have been the cause of the fish deaths in two bays in south Donegal. While I do not know whether this is so, we must recognise the interaction between action taken on the land and what happens in the sea. We have many riches and have an obligation to mind them. Our seas contain natural gas, which is a very valuable resource worth billions of euro to us. We would all be anxious to see this gas being piped ashore in Mayo. Tragically the resource, which is worth billions of euro, has already been given away before reaching the shore. We should have made use of this natural resource, as did Norway.

Super-trawlers suck up large quantities of fish while poor driftnet and draftnet fishermen are being hounded. To police the foreign trawlers ruining our waters and those who are dumping also requires resources. I hope the resources will be provided to facilitate the implementation of whatever legislative provisions are enacted. There is no point in having GPS technology and policing methods if the resources are not provided.

Disasters at sea are very tragic and always capture the public imagination as does the destruction of marine life. "The Poseidon Adventure" was the most successful disaster adventure ever made. With single-hulled vessels we see how people put commerce before the environment which is very regrettable. If small-scale operators were acting in the same way, they would certainly be incarcerated for life. Greed leads the large companies to take short-cuts and to fail to supply cargo ships with double hulls. Ships to be disposed of are brought across busy shipping lanes which entails taking great chances in the interests of commerce. Any Bill to control these activities is very welcome.

It is impossible to tell when an accident will occur or what sort of damage will be caused along our coast or the coast of France. It is a positive step to designate sensitive areas in the context of large ships and oil tankers voyaging near our coast. There must be a means of planning to deal with emergencies or oil spills like those which affected Galway and Connemara. The proper steps must be taken to ensure that hazards are dealt with quickly and effectively. We all remember the tragic sight of swans at the Claddagh covered in oil. It is important to have the means to prevent incidents of this nature. Legislation like this can help to achieve that. Prevention is better than trying to deal with the tragic consequences of accidents. We did not think the events of 11 September 2001 would happen, but they did. We must be aware that tragedies occur to be ready to deal with them.

The EU has had a positive legislative impact in areas such as equality. Legislation is part of living in the modern world. It is certain that we have responsibilities beyond our borders as a member state of the EU. The major problem with EU money has been that while it came into the country, it did not come to the west. In the mid-term review of the national development plan it is obvious that money which should have been invested in the west was not. It is tragic that we do not have the roads and infrastructure we need to ensure that balanced regional development takes place to allow our youth to stay at home. On balance, the EU has been positive for us. Living in an area which is socio-economically deprived and in which it is predicted that no one will live west of a line from Killala to Newport by the end of the century, one begins to worry. Every district electoral division west of the line has shown a decline except for a blip where St. Brendan's village in Mulrany has shown a population increase.

The key is to put local infrastructure and services in place to prevent decline but we are seeing a loss of services. The orthopaedic unit which was supposed to open at Mayo General Hospital will not go ahead due to the Government embargo on staff recruitment. This is a major problem for us. More than 1,000 people are waiting locally for urology services. They must travel to Galway to see a consultant with whom it takes five years to get an appointment. The same is true for rheumatology patients. It is as far from the farthest part of Mayo to Galway as it is from Galway to Dublin. As Dublin people would not travel to Galway for an operation on a broken leg, why should we put up with it. The Hanly report and the report on radiotherapy services recommend more of the same. Health boards will no longer make decisions on staff. It will all be done centrally. It is not at all acceptable that the Minister for Finance should be the Minister for Health and Children which is how it appears at the moment.

Knock Airport was a wonderful catalyst for change but the special tax designation we sought for it was refused on the grounds that EU rules prevented it. Knock Airport is a powerful catalyst through which the Government could provide balanced regional development. Preservation orders like those in the Bill before us should apply not only to fish and the environment but to homo sapiens. It is the Government not the EU which is blocking a tax incentive scheme for Knock Airport.

The people in the mid-Atlantic sea board area most affected by regulations are the drift-net fishermen working on larger vessels at sea and the drag-net fishermen who are small operators in the channels and estuaries. They usually have large families and are doing their best to survive. This is not a case of super-trawlers which end up fishing the seabed, it involves people who have to count what they have to survive from week to week. The majority would prefer to work than to sit at home doing nothing. In recent years, their quota has been reduced gradually. This year, it has been reduced even further. While this is based on scientific evidence to ensure the survival of fish stocks, we should also consider the survival of homo sapiens.

A set aside scheme to conserve fish stocks was proposed under which fishermen would be compensated for fishing less. The Government said it would only introduce the scheme if some means to measure it was available. The criteria for measuring the scheme and for counting fish stocks in rivers were met and there is no reason the scheme should not go ahead. It was promised to fishermen in 2002 and received the backing of private owners of fisheries who promised money to support it. I hope the Minister will reconsider the scheme. I am happy to speak to this important Bill. I hope we also consider the survival of homo sapiens in the west.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important and long overdue Bill. The gestation of the legislation goes back to actions taken in 1973 and subsequently in 1999. Eventually, we are pulling ourselves into line with international requirements. There have been countless greater and lesser disasters at sea over the past ten to 15 years which should have brought to our attention the necessity of introducing the Sea Pollution (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I cannot understand why it took so long to get where we are now. While there must be some reason, we have not yet been told it.

The Bill takes the first necessary step of identifying the various sources of marine pollution. Pollution at sea can emanate from disasters at sea, dumping of hazardous or noxious waste or nuclear waste or dumping of waste from the shore on to the sea front. There is a classic example provided by a multi-million-euro sewage treatment system very close to Dublin city, which only a year after being commissioned and less than six months from its official opening is pouring sewage into the sea. Considering all the assistance of modern technology, all the available research and the availability of consultants who are willing to give their opinion at a price, I cannot understand how that could have happened. The Minister of State must have views on the matter, but since he was a member of a local authority, a very good member, he must feel as I do that it is unbelievable and unacceptable that a short time after the commissioning of a treatment plant it should fail to function, for whatever reason. When something like that happens at such a stage there is no acceptable excuse.

In recent years we have all made representations to this House about various incidents of pollution from Galway to the south and south-east, and right around our coasts, pollution coming from the land into the sea. It could be industrial, domestic or some other sort of pollution. Some changes have been made and some action has been taken but there are still quite a number of instances where sewage causes sea pollution. Such pollution is not covered by the legislation before us because in this instance we are talking about pollution originating in the sea, but it needs to be covered. It is a serious matter and such pollution continues. Despite our best efforts, all the action we have so far taken does not seem to work. I cannot understand how a newly commissioned treatment plant could fail to function in the shortest possible time. If there ever were a criticism of modern technology, that is surely it. It is necessary and advisable to comment on what has happened regarding a newly commissioned plant which cost so much. I hope that all other electronic methods work better than the treatment plant adjacent to this city which is currently polluting our seas.

Let us move on to what is specifically catered for in the Bill, the pollution in the sea by traffic in the sea. We cannot go far without considering the issue of oil tankers. There have been several major sea disasters in the past ten years and apparently nothing was done to address the issue until the next disaster. The Erica and the Prestige were mentioned by the Minister of State. Many people put the blame on single hull tankers, but many of the problems involved the failure to observe proper safety standards at sea and to have adequately qualified crew members on the tankers. In the case of a number of disasters, the crew were afterwards found to be badly trained or not trained at all, vessels were vastly under-crewed, normal maritime chart requirements had not been followed and when a storm or gale occurred which ordinarily would have been well within a tanker’s capacity to withstand, the vessel was off course to such an extent that before it could correct itself it was on the rocks, with dire consequences from the country’s point of view.

I do not understand why it took so long for someone to take action. It is not so long since the last disaster involving the Prestige. That was catastrophic and damaged an entire shoreline, along with seabirds and fish. It damaged the tourism industry. The capacities of the defensive operations and rescue services were seriously undermined. They could not cope with the situation. Have we adequate resources here to deal with such a spillage? I think not. If not, it is important to ensure that all such vessels traversing the seas close to our shores are sufficiently far away so as not to present a serious threat of pollution in the event of a disaster. If we did that, it would be one preventive measure of benefit to us.

Not long ago a vessel overturned on the seas and within a couple of days another vessel got hung up on its hull. Given modern technology and GPS, why was it not possible to quickly isolate the disaster area and ensure that matters did not get worse, that the threat was not increased as a result of something like that happening? There should be no excuse because all the modern technology is there. It is quite simple to mark on the sea chart where the danger area is and it is well known what one should do in a dangerous situation. Why was action not taken quickly enough?

Regarding the prevention of disasters, the identification of routes is essential, along with ensuring that these tankers do not come so close to our shores as to present a threat. That is the safest bet. The next thing to be done is to ensure through international statutes that the crews of the vessels concerned are adequately trained and the vessels are fully staffed, not operating with half staff or reserve staff. Proper navigational equipment must be on board and international rules must be observed. Other speakers referred to the single hull issue and it is now recognised that single hull tankers are being phased out. We should also consider another type of pollution, namely, that caused by vessels deliberately dumping at sea. While this has not occurred so much in recent times, there were several incidences of such dumping, including of nuclear waste which was allegedly in indestructible containers. Whether this was so is not the issue. Once dumped, the waste is irrecoverable and, at some stage in the distant future, will end up as somebody else's problem.

The dumping of other noxious waste is also a problem. A number of countries, including Ireland, do not have facilities to cater for some types of hazardous waste. This must be transported over the high seas to locations where it can be dealt with. This is of great concern because of the potential for a disaster at sea and also because of the possibility that some of the material could be dumped at sea, inadvertently or otherwise, which could cause long-term problems.

The Bill refers to the type of paint used on the hulls of ships. This is an interesting issue but it is not the most serious threat of pollution at sea. I accept that the use of the same type of paint on all shipping for a particular purpose — to discourage barnacles and algae on the hulls — represents some threat. However, other pollution threats are more serious for the environment.

The Minister of State referred to the threat posed in January last by the Panamanian registered tanker, the Princess Eva. According to the Minister of State, the vessel was carrying 55,000 tonnes of heavy oil from Copenhagen to the USA when heavy weather was experienced and two crew members were killed. This experience presented in a graphic way the possibility of a major disaster, not on the high seas, but very close to our shores. Such a disaster has the potential to do irreparable damage to a country which depends heavily on the tourism industry. The only way to deal with this threat is to use modern technology to keep such vessels as far as possible from our shores. Given prevailing Irish winds, what might be thought a safe distance from our west coast might not be.

There are two ways pollution can occur in the context of sea transportation: by way of deliberate dumping and by way of accident. The Minister should assure the House he is working to eliminate these possibilities. I accept it is impossible to legislate for those who deliberately dump and intend to break the regulations and laws — the Minister of State can do nothing about this. However, it is important to eliminate accidental dumping. Accidents happen all the time, with tragic consequences. One need only consider the accidents on ferries in recent years to realise how serious the problem is. While it was known that accidents could occur, little was done until tragedies occurred. It would have been just as easy to anticipate accidents and take the necessary preventive measures. The Minister of State might refer to this in his reply.

This is good legislation. Its need was obvious for at least 20 years and its origins date back that far. For some unknown reason, it took a very long time to bring this legislation ashore. I hope the lessons of the past ensure that we take the necessary steps in future. While I did not have time to consider disasters off the south coast of Ireland, I hope to have the opportunity to discuss them at another time and hope we have learned something from them. To sum up, a number of vessels travelling the high seas, particularly oil tankers but also those carrying other substances, present a real threat of pollution. Notwithstanding the availability of modern satellite technology, they are not adequately policed with a view to ensuring against pollution.

I hope the Minister of State will also comment on my reference to a newly-constructed sewage treatment plant, which is worthy of a debate in itself. I am amazed that so little attention has been given to this issue, which should have required a full-scale inquiry for reasons I have stated.

I am happy to have the opportunity to speak on the Bill. The Government's legislative programme in the 29th Dáil made a very slow start. While it picked up in the second year, many of the Bills have been short or even emergency legislation. However, to be fair, this is the third Bill on the marine environment the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has introduced in the lifetime of this Dáil. Any strengthening of legislation in this area is welcomed by my party.

When implementing much of this legislation, it must be acknowledged that we are doing so because of our obligations to international treaties and protocols.

This legislation is important for Ireland as an island nation that conducts trade through marine traffic. We have been negligent in this area in the past. Threats that have caused damage previously and that still exist have not been properly addressed. As a Member for Cork South Central, where there is one of the finest natural harbours in the world, a busy port company and a busy fishing port in Crosshaven, I take legislation of this type seriously, as do my constituents.

There are two threats to the marine environment in the Cork harbour area, one impending and one persistent, that this Bill should go some way to addressing. I hope I am not stretching the definition of sea pollution by including Cork harbour because a river estuary is tidal, contains salt water and is the connection point for much of the passing marine traffic. The proposal, therefore, for a national toxic waste incinerator in Ringaskiddy raises genuine fears. The planning process accompanying consideration of this did not refer at all to the marine environment. There is a worry that toxic waste created in Ireland will not justify this facility economically and that toxic waste will be moved in and out of Cork harbour, magnifying the risks of incidents of the type that are meant to be avoided through this legislation. That demonstrates the lack of joined up thinking by the Government and State agencies. While we are promoting legislation that is forward thinking and necessary, the implementation policies are counteracting the effect of the legislation.

Even if the promoters of this project state that they will not import waste, the incineration of toxic materials will create a highly concentrated toxic ash which they intend to export. That creates a dual risk for Cork harbour because, to make a national toxic waste incinerator viable, large amounts of toxic waste may be imported into the State, with a risk of accident that will harm the marine environment, or the ash that is created by the incineration process — concentrated toxic material — will be exported from the same installation.

The incineration process only reduces the waste that is incinerated to 30% of its original mass, resulting in a huge amount of toxic material. No State agency has addressed potential damage to the marine environment in this proposal and I have no confidence that it will be addressed in the remainder of the process. That the Department of Communications, the Marine and Natural Resources has chosen not to participate in the process is something I view with grave disappointment. Ironically, located 100 metres from the proposed site of the incinerator is a state of the art national maritime college where those who will take care of the marine environment in future will learn best practice and become aware of international and national law to avoid marine pollution. The contradiction is unacceptable.

The second threat posed to the Cork harbour area is posed by the metal contamination left by what was originally a State company, Irish Steel, and, subsequently, a private company, Irish ISPAT, on Haulbowline. The contamination remains on Haulbowline Island causing marine pollution in Cork harbour every day. There is an impending court action to decide if the State or the last owners are responsible for cleaning it up but the cost of the operation is estimated at €30 million. Any capital expenditure out of the public purse to deal with an environmental problem of that scale should set alarm bells ringing for the Government but as a TD for the area I sense only indifference. As someone elected on an environmental platform, I am disappointed that this issue is not being addressed.

Most marine traffic is held in containers, helping to restrict the risk of pollution, but a considerable amount of traffic is still unloaded at small docks outside the main ports. This happens at Passage West, where cargo unloaded for Haulbowline Industries is loose and, as a result, the loading and unloading of material into ships carries a greater risk of pollution. Machinery aiming at a general area is used and the product can fall into the harbour area resulting in contamination.

Better standards on the part of the port companies have reduced the magnitude of the risk but it has been allowed to develop as a sideline where marine commercial traffic is bringing in such goods with little or no regulation. That is not directly addressed in the Bill but this traffic travels on the high seas and as a result of the way in which the cargo is carried, the potential for pollution is increased. We must encourage the transit of cargo in containers within ships as far as possible.

The legislation addresses the problem of single and double hull vessels. As a local authority member, I drew attention to a number of incidents on the south coast, including the Kowloon Bridge and the Betelgeuse, that involved single hull ships. I received correspondence from the harbour master of the Cork Harbour Commissioners chastising me for expressing my fears about single hull vessels and stating that talking about their safety risks discouraged trade and commerce. Unfortunately it has been our attitude for too long in economic matters in general and the marine environment in particular, that if we do not cause ruffles and do not raise questions, we carry on business regardless and the country will ultimately benefit. We must stop thinking like that and I am pleased to see this legislation moving in that direction.

The final issue I wish to address regarding this legislation is the question of the role Ireland plays as a country that registers vessels. We now have no real Irish shipping industry. However, in the past number of years ship owners have increasingly registered their vessels as Irish vessels. I greatly fear that the standard of vessels does not seem to be measured appropriately in terms of safety and the risk to the marine environment. It would be unfortunate if Ireland were to acquire the type of reputation countries such as Liberia and Panama have, and the attitude was that if we take the money for the registration and tax benefits, whatever happened in the wider world was somehow irrelevant and was a matter for insurance companies or the owners of the ships to handle. Ultimately, however, it is our reputation that will be affected. The Bill highlights the need to be aware of the damage to the marine environment from the ships themselves which are made of metal and contain toxic materials. These are the points I wanted to place on record. Let me enumerate them briefly: the threat from the national toxic waste incinerator; the continuing threat from the Irish Steel-Irish ISPAT platforms in terms of marine pollution; loose cargoes at smaller dock operations; the welcome I gave to the move towards double-hull vessels; and the concern we need to address, that is not addressed in this legislation, regarding registering substandard vessels that will damage this country's reputation internationally.

The amount of involvement I have with the sea is well-known, given that I live in the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan. I will not, therefore, speak for very long on this Bill, but I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on it.

Given that the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will be located in Cavan town, I will have a very definite interest in the Department, its staff and everything to do with it.

I was in Cavan recently.

The Fine Gael Party and I welcome the decentralisation of the Department to Cavan. We are entitled to raise questions about the technicalities of the programme at national and at local level. In principle we welcome decentralisation and we want to make sure the people in the Department and others who come to the constituency are well looked after and will make a commitment and a home for themselves in an area which desperately needs the extra impetus towards employment and viability.

This Bill is part of an EU structure. The problem of sea pollution is widespread. There are many countries involved in the movement of oil, which seems to be the main issue. Only two years ago, in 2002, the Prestige broke up with 77,000 tonnes of oil on board, causing enormous damage and distress and giving rise to very significant expense. For this reason the Bill is extremely important to ensure that people who use vessels that prove to be unseaworthy bear the cost and pick up the pieces if they cause damage.

I welcome the amendment to Part 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1992 which provides that the Minister may revoke all passenger boat licences held by an owner who has been convicted of an offence or who has refused to comply with the conditions of a licence. No matter how far removed one is from the sea, one could not but be touched by the fact that three generations of one family lost their lives in a boat that seems now to have been clearly unfit to go to sea. Legal proceedings are under way regarding the incident, so I will not say any more on the issue. However, it brings home to anyone who cares about human life the need for strict laws to ensure that private or hired boats meet the highest possible standards. We demand it on our roads. Cars must be tested every two years. It is vital that the law be enhanced to ensure that any boat that goes out on the open sea is fully compliant and that the skipper or whoever is in charge of it is aware of the safety needs of the passengers.

I heard the county manager in Waterford speak on the issue of raw sewage being pumped into the sea. While it is not relevant to this Bill, it is relevant to the issue of controlling environmental pollution. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister for Agriculture and Food are currently dealing very harshly with the agricultural community, which is being blamed for everything. Although an agreement was made at European level in 1991 introducing restrictions on nitrates, it is only now that the gun is to its head that the Government is dealing with the issue in a very clumsy and ineffective way. That is part of the overall pollution problem that needs to be addressed. I came across a case the other day where an ordinary farmer who, although he paid the cost of addressing any problems that resulted from some type of pollution, also loses income because the regulations are such that payments owing to him are taken from him by the Department. I hope similar provisions in this Bill will ensure that whoever pollutes will lose benefits, because this is a much more serious issue and much more damaging.

The Minister mentioned the Erika incident off the coast of France that led to the reassessment at EU and international level of many aspects of maritime law and regulatory arrangements. It is unfortunate that it is only in the wake of incidents such as this that we in this House or in most other parliaments take action.

The question of compensation for victims was mentioned. That is very important because victims of such incidents feel very vulnerable and it is important that they are looked after. The accelerated phasing out of single-hull oil tankers is welcome. While I do not know much about that, I have heard previous speakers outline about how dangerous they are. A contributory factor in the Prestige incident was that it did not have a second hull. The European Maritime Safety Agency was established in August 2002 for the purpose of ensuring a high, uniform and effective level of maritime safety. That also is very important. The agency will enable the Commission to offer the full range of professional services needed to discharge its duties in this connection.

This Bill is welcome. I do not intend to spend more time discussing it because I have not studied it in detail. However, not only must pollution at sea be controlled but, at a time when the State appears to have more millions of euros available to it than ever before, the situation at Tramore, Galway Bay and other coastal sites that are tourist attractions must be tackled.

I appreciate the positive approach adopted by the Deputies. It reaffirms the commitment of all parties to the protection of the marine environment.

The emergency towing vessel was raised by Deputy Kehoe and Deputy Eamon Ryan. In May 1998, an emergency towing vessel study was commissioned and it was published in May 1999. In May 2000, the Government agreed in principle to the recommendation of the study to provide an emergency towing vessel. A memorandum is currently being prepared for Government with a view to recommending the procurement of emergency towing vessels for the south west approaches and for the Irish Sea.

A number of Deputies raised the double hull regulations. Since the regulations came into force on 21 October 2003, single hull tankers are no longer able to transport heavy petroleum products when entering or leaving Community ports. However, small single hull tankers of 600 to 5,000 tonnes will be able to transport heavy oil products until 2008 and all single hull oil tankers carrying heavy oil products are not allowed to continue doing so when navigating exclusively in internal waters.

Deputies also mentioned the PSSAs. The proposals are aimed at preventing pollution of seas and coasts in a zone which is particularly exposed to risks generated by international shipping. It was originally envisaged that there would be a ban on the carriage of heavy fuel through the PSSAs except in double hull tankers or single hull tankers aged less than 15 years, which would be obliged to comply with a reporting obligation within a 48 hour notice period. Having obtained approval in principle, the matter is to be examined at the NAV sub-committee at the IMO in July 2004. Officials from the six member states are working together on documents for submission to this committee. The matter will then be referred back to the MEPC.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

On a point of order, I would like to make a suggestion. It is bad for the public to see no Opposition Members in the House. Could we perhaps establish a rule that when somebody calls a quorum, he or she must stay in the House? If no one else from the Opposition is to be present, at least that person should be there.

That is not a point of order.

It is a suggestion for the future. The person who calls the quorum should remain in the House.

That is not a point of order. The Minister of State will continue.

Deputy Broughan mentioned the possibility of sanctions for ships which cause pollution. This is a difficult and sensitive proposal involving issues of constitutional and international law. Among members of the Commission, although all agree with the objective, Ireland has given priority to advancing this matter during its EU Presidency. However, several points of disagreement remain.

Deputy Seán Ryan mentioned the harbours at Skerries and Balbriggan. Dublin Port Company is entitled to put them up for sale under the Harbours Act 1996, as advised by the Office of the Attorney General. The intention had been to transfer the harbours to Fingal County Council, but I understand the council was not interested and was dragging its heels. It remains to be seen whether they will be transferred. I listened with interest to the suggestions put forward by the Deputy and I will consult with my officials on these matters.

Deputy Eamon Ryan mentioned the ecosystem and biodiversity. Ireland is a party to the OSPAR Convention which aims to prevent pollution in the north-east Atlantic. We will host a meeting of the OSPAR commission in June 2005. Deputy Ryan also mentioned ballast water. An international convention dealing with ballast water management was adopted in February 2004. This issue will need to be examined and the necessary legislation prepared. Deputies Broughan and Morgan mentioned flags of convenience. Our sea pollution legislation applies to all ships in our waters. Pollution from nuclear ships was raised by Deputy O'Dowd. I will investigate this issue and pass the information to him.

Deputy Durkan mentioned pollution generally. Overall responsibility for marine pollution prevention, preparedness, response and management is assigned to the Irish Coast Guard. This includes responsibility for supervising the planning and implementation by local and harbour authorities of arrangements for the protection of the coastal, amenity, fishery and wildlife areas; the removal of oil from the coastline; and, in the event of a major pollution incident, the direction and co-ordination of the offshore response. The Deputy also said this legislation was delayed. He mentioned a 20-year delay. In fact, all instruments being given effect have been adopted in recent years, from 1997 to 2001, and legislation has been prepared as quickly as possible.

Deputy Durkan also mentioned problems with sewage from new plants. This is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and we will pass on his concerns to that Department. He also mentioned transport of dangerous substances. All shipments are required to be notified by the ship in advance and contingency plans are always in place. The international TBT convention was raised by a number of Deputies. The IMO held a diplomatic conference on the control of harmful anti-fouling systems on ships from 1 to 5 October 2001, at which the international convention was adopted. This convention provides rules to ban the use of organotin-based anti-fouling systems, which are harmful to the marine environment. It also provides a mechanism through which other harmful anti-fouling systems may be banned or regulated in the future on a global basis.

The Haulbowline pollution threat was raised by Deputy Boyle. I will communicate with him on this issue at a later stage. He also mentioned the proposed toxic waste incinerator at Ringaskiddy which, as all Deputies know, has been subject to planning regulations through An Bord Pleanála and court decisions. We are committed to ensuring that all ships flying Irish flags comply with the highest standards. Deputy Crawford mentioned penalties. The Bill provides for fines of up to €1.5 million and up to five years' imprisonment for offences.

I thank Deputies for raising these issues and will take into account the suggestions they have made. I look forward to having a detailed debate on the Bill on Committee Stage. I also thank my officials from the Department for preparing the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share