Amendment No. 1 is consequential on alternative amendments Nos. 1a and 2 and all three may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill, 2000: Committee and Remaining Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I do not have a copy of amendment No. 1a.
It is being circulated now. It is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, line 5, to delete "and".
Are we discussing amendments Nos. 1 and 1a?
We are discussing amendments Nos. 1, 1a and 2. The Government has also tabled amendment No. 1.
I presume it will accept that amendment. However, I am sorry the Government felt it had to table an amendment of its own to cover the point. The Government amendments have taken on board the problems Senator Quinn and I considered could arise with regard to the Bill in that electronic means of communication would not be covered. Amendment No. 2 includes "the Departmental website" but I am prepared to admit that publication by electronic means may be wiser because the website may not exist in a few years and there may be another means. I hope the Government will accept amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 2 relates to our concern that modern methods of communication were not being considered in the Bill. I am glad we drew the Government's attention to this matter because, on the basis of the amendment it tabled, it has decided that this is an important part of the Bill and the changes should be made.
We were happy to accommodate the Senators' views, albeit in a different way. The Government's amendment incorporates the spirit of the Senators' amendment.
Amendment No. 1a states:
In page 4, line 8, to delete "Islands,'." and substitute the following:
"Islands,'
and
(e) in subsection (9), paragraph (b), by the insertion after ‘reasonable times.' of the following:
‘The Minister shall cause the register to be published by electronic means.'."
As the Senator said, this incorporates the intention in her and Senator Quinn's amendments. I do not suggest the Government amendment is better but it addresses the issue of electronic communication in the future.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 1a:
In page 4, line 8, to delete "Islands,'." and substitute the following:
"Islands,'
and
(e) in subsection (9), paragraph (b), by the insertion after ‘reasonable times.' of the following:
‘The Minister shall cause the register to be published by electronic means.'."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 3a is an alternative to amendment No. 3 and both may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, line 29, to delete "considered.'." and substitute the following:
"considered.
(7) The Minister shall publish as soon as may be on the Departmental website–
(a) each application for a permit under section 5; and
(b) any submission or observation under subsection (3).'.”.
Given that Senator Quinn and I are at the forefront of electronic communication, we felt it would be wise if the Department also had all its information available. I and Senator Quinn are happy with the wording brought forward by the Department in amendment No. 3a.
Mr. Ryan
Why was the date 1 January 2001 picked? Is it a convenient round figure or is there a reason for it? Does the Government expect to have the Bill enacted by then or from where did the date 1 January 2001 come? I am concerned that if the Bill passed through the other House quickly, there could be a hiatus in which people might feel they could do certain things.
The website is a most accessible way of checking matters and it is a wonderful medium in that regard. The Internet is one of the most over-rated media, but as a source of getting this sort of information the website is good. It is a pity they did not leave themselves the flexibility to introduce it earlier. Perhaps the Minister will say he is compelled to do so by 1 January, but if the Bill is enacted sooner he could do it before he is legally compelled. In that way, all of what is covered here would be published once the Bill is passed.
We are anxious to have this on a website as soon as possible. The first of January 2001 is the best practical date we can find at the moment. It is our intention to include the dumping at sea aspects on the website first. If possible, we will have the website operational before 1 January 2001, but we do not want to bite off more than we can chew. We want to give a reasonable date which at this stage is 1 January.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 3a:
In page 5, line 29, to delete "considered.'." and substitute the following:
"considered.
(7) The Minister shall cause to be published by electronic means–
(a) all applications received for permits on or after 1 January, 2001,
and
(b) all submissions or observations under subsection (3) in relation to such applications.'.”.
Amendment No. 3a has already been discussed with amendment No. 3. I would point out that this amendment is in substitution for amendment No. 4.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I congratulate the Minister on bringing the Bill before the House. The possibilities arising from the – I hate to use the term exploitation – propagation of our seas are incredible. Without this sort of protection it would be impossible to realise them. Yesterday, I attended the launch of a book on the cell culture of aquatic invertebrates. There are worlds out there which are, as yet, unexplored and this sort of legislation is essential to ensure that we will be able to profit from them.
While I welcome the Bill and appreciate the need for it, I have seen many delays in dredging and associating works due to EPA and departmental licences. While I also welcome the participation of the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, I am concerned that it would not become over enthusiastic when examining such matters. The west and particularly the Gaeltacht areas are now receiving substantial funding both from that Department and the Minister of State's Department for improvement works. We like to see these things being done quickly so hopefully we will not become too bureaucratic.
I thank Senators for their contributions on the Bill which was an eye-opener for me. As most people will know, I live on the sea coast near the beautiful Hook Head lighthouse.
By hook or by crook.
It is my intention that the next generation will be able to enjoy the seas as my generation has. Whatever it takes to protect them, so be it. As regards what Senator Bonner said, of course there will be delays in licences of various sorts. However, what I would suggest to the Senator—
Start in time.
—or indeed to anyone else, that when applications are being made we want to see a balance. Most of the work that causes delay at a later stage can be done before the application is made.
We are sending out a clear signal to everyone that the seas are very important to us. We want to ensure they continue to be important in the generations to come. The sea is a great source of revenue for people living in coastal communities. Somewhere in the middle there is a balance and I am anxious for it to be struck. I suggest to anyone who intends to apply for any licence that they should complete the necessary work beforehand. They should treat Dúchas and the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands as friends, and we will go the distance.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 5.55 p.m. and resumed at 6 o'clock.