Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 8 Oct 2003

Vol. 572 No. 1

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

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

Cecilia Keaveney

I welcome the chance to contribute to the debate on this Bill. It is often only those of us who come from a coastal community who stand up to express our thoughts on such an issue. That should not be the case because, as an island, what happens to the sea affects us all and we can all play a role in product development and make a contribution to issues covered by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources – dumping at sea in this case. The Bill was first introduced in 2000 and refers back to the 1996 Act. It is a pity it has taken so long to make its way through the House but if it has been improved in that time that is an acceptable excuse.

The Bill is an important regulatory measure and will ensure that only material judged by experts to be suitable will be disposed in the sea. That mainly relates to port dredging and it is important that anything that is allowed to be dumped will be disposed of in an appropriate location and in an appropriate manner. That sounds simple but such locations may not be easily found. People see the ports and port dredging coming to the fore and many think they are in for a windfall to develop dredging. I can give a list of those who would be interested to the Department if it is inclined to accept it.

I am glad Government Departments are now involved in the licensing process. It is an indication of the slow pace of the Bill that the Department for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands has been replaced by the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism and the heritage portfolio has been taken on by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government since its publication. The sooner we bring this Bill to a conclusion, before having to start again, the better it will be.

It makes sense that there is now a Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Department was already responsible for water quality and now covers natural and archaeological heritage and radiological protection. Those dealing with the various areas must co-ordinate their work because although issues under the remit of one Department can be interrelated, that does not always mean there is co-ordination at all levels. From what I have heard about this Bill, that level of co-ordination can and should exist. The fact that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is incorporated to address the implications for industry is also to be welcomed.

It is important that people come forward as soon as they intend to make an application to dump for whatever reason. In terms of rivers and lakes, people sometimes underestimate the reaction an action can cause. Sometimes people fail to realise that putting something in one part of a river can have a knock-on effect in another part of it. If people plan to dredge or dump, it is very important that they avail of the expertise of the Department's heritage and planning division as early as possible. I agree wholeheartedly with the provisions in this regard.

Electronic publishing of permits is provided for under section 2. As public representatives, we often hear from people who have only discovered that something was planned after it has happened. People may not know where certain applications stand. In the interests of the openness, transparency and accountability to which we aspire, it is very important that the Department's website has been up and running since 1 January 2001. I am glad that those who are not electronically minded will have the facility to acquire information free of charge. This is an issue in terms of many freedom of information requests. This means that those who are not computer orientated or electronically literate are not excluded.

The fact that there is a statutory obligation to advertise applications is also important. When I read the provision that the advertisement must be made in a local newspaper, I think of my area. When things are advertised in a local paper, people often remark that the paper chosen is not particularly local to them. It might be local to the county, but not to the particular area in question. I would like to see the provision amended to refer to the "relevant" local newspaper which should be ascertained on a geographical basis. The best selling papers in a particular area should be determined as those are the local newspapers. People have come to me in respect of advertisements, not necessarily for permits but other things, which have appeared in local papers with limited sales in the most relevant geographical areas.

It is important that people have the chance to say what they think about applications. The 21 day period provided for in the Bill is necessary to provide everyone with the right to have his or her say. A person's opinion should be considered and accommodated and just concerns must be dealt with and be seen to be dealt with. I am therefore pleased that even the commentary will be made available under section 3 of the Bill. Not only will the comments be posted to applicants for a response, they will be put on public display to demonstrate the manner in which decisions are made. This means there will be a great deal of openness on the issue of permits. If, as the Minister said, things are working satisfactorily at the moment, I trust they will work even more satisfactorily once this Bill's provisions are implemented.

There have been no delays in the awarding of permits and we should ensure that no delays result from the enactment of this legislation. Dredging in Buncrana would be in the interests of the RNLI, the proposed car ferry and marina and many other activities on Lough Swilly. However, the lack of a foreshore licence has delayed dredging. On one side I hear the promise that there will be no delays, but on the other I listen to those in the marine sector of the local council explaining how they are treated. We do not expect delays, yet no progress has been made a couple of years after the process was started.

It is important that port and harbour plans are in place in respect of dredging and dumping at sea. The Minister has referred to five year plans in relation to which Greencastle and Buncrana both spring to mind. There are major plans for the development of Greencastle which incorporate dredging, but they are pointless if the finance to realise them is not forthcoming. The dredging moneys for Greencastle are the responsibility of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and those for Buncrana, Donegal County Council. While there is a slight difference, I assume the money will come ultimately from the same source, the Department of Finance.

It is great to be aspirational in terms of making five year plans. People often come to me seeking multi-annual funding and a facility to allow them to budget multi-annually. If the money is not there to carry out five year plans, it is better to be honest and to tell people to forget about dredging and plans for the future. This is not to ignore the fact that significant money has been available in the Department responsible for marine matters in the recent past. When I entered the Oireachtas seven and a half years ago, pitiful amounts of money were available to the Department of the Marine for pier development, har bour strengthening and boat building programmes. I have been very proud to see the development work on wrecked structures right around the peninsula on which I live and boats and major craft are now able to land there. While investment in this regard has been very important, there are ongoing issues in relation to dredging. If there is a five year plan of work, there must be a five year programme in terms of the allocation of money.

Section 1 of the Bill updates the definition of "harbour authority" in the 1996 Act for enforcement and related purposes. The new definition takes account of the Harbours (Amendment) Act 2000. I would like someone to explain how things stand in respect of Buncrana Harbour where there is an issue in relation to the harbour authorities. Who is in control and what are the plans in respect of the harbour and the old harbour authority?

The 1996 Act banned incineration at sea and the dumping of radioactive substances, toxic, harmful and noxious substances and materials. The Act also extended the limit of Irish jurisdiction in relation to dumping at sea from 12 nautical miles offshore to 200 nautical miles in line with the continental shelf. It is important to penalise any person who dumps without a permit and the Bill provides for a monetary penalty and-or imprisonment.

One cannot look at the issue of the acquisition of dumped material, particularly of a highly toxic nature, without considering Sellafield. It would be good to think we could impose a fine or prison sentence in regard to some of the activity there. Those of us on the northern and eastern coasts have concerns about Sellafield. We would like to see continuing efforts to expedite the closure of the facility.

On the issue of the days at sea and the argument presented about area six off the north-west coast, because of depleting cod stocks many fishermen are not allowed into a certain box. There is a blanket ban in that regard.

Coming back to what I said about dumping in appropriate locations and in an appropriate manner, according to the Minister dumping will not be allowed where fisheries, important resources or natural or archaeological sites might be damaged. Sites will be monitored before and after the dumping takes place. An "appropriate location for dumping" assumes an individual knows about the location in the first place. How much work went into ascertaining the location of these appropriate locations? We are saying that dumping cannot take place where fish stocks are present, yet we are only now starting to work out officially where the cod stocks are located with a view to presenting our case to Europe to ensure the ban on the days at sea can be lifted. Fishermen know from their own local knowledge that some of the areas they are not permitted to enter never had and never will have cod. Their knowledge of the appropriate location of fish stocks has not been properly documented and the crude instrument that is the number of days at sea arose out of that. I am concerned about how we define an appropriate location and I would like to know the work that went into that. If somebody has that information, perhaps they would let the fisheries section in on it so that it can assist us to help our fishermen in respect of the current days at sea argument in Europe.

I was interested to read that there will be a policy of not allowing the dumping of ships or aircraft at sea. Obviously such dumping is not a good idea because it must have an impact on the marine environment. They are not just wonderful locations in which fish can swim. There are obvious environmental impacts from such material being dumped at sea. I am aware also that much work has already been done in regard to First World War and Second World War boats and planes that now rest at the bottom of our seas. I understand there is a chart showing them but do we know the location of all those boats and planes? Are we considering the damage currently being caused by them?

When we talk about dumping at sea we are really talking about the environment and trying to improve water quality for all life in the sea. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that raw sewage continues to flow into many of our rivers. I recognise that significant moneys have been spent by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but my home town does not have a sewerage scheme and most of the sewage from the towns on the Foyle continues to flow into the Foyle estuary. That is not uncommon along the rest of the coast and it is a problem that must be addressed. I am not blaming the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in that regard but I encourage people in these towns to work with the councils and the Department on identifying sites as soon as possible to ensure the progress being sought by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government can take place. The rows about where facilities should be located prevent the resolution of the desperate problem of raw sewage flowing into very good rivers. I am under the impression that it is not always a case of the Department not having the money. I am aware that in relation to Donegal significant moneys are earmarked for this purpose.

I want to refer to a particular type of dumping being imposed on us in the Foyle region, namely, wind turbines. There are 85 30-storey wind turbines in the middle of the Foyle region and I reiterate my objection to them. I am not against wind energy; there are wind turbines on hills in front of my house. These wind turbines will be a possible disaster for the Foyle, not only in terms of the visual impact but in terms of our marine environment. We do not know the impact they will have on our very successful salmon fishery. I object to the fact that the Crown Estates Commission thought it had the right to give away the licence and allow these facilities to be put in place. I trust that will be parked for some considerable time, possibly indefinitely, but should one of these wind turbines fall down, the issue of decommissioning, which is talked about in relation to most parts of Ulster, will also have an effect on Donegal. I do not want wind turbines to be dumped in the sea in front of my house. I am declaring an interest in that regard.

Mr. Ring

As a Deputy from a coastal region I am delighted to contribute to this debate. I wish this Bill could be called the dumping at sea and on land Bill because many boats dump at sea and there is a good deal of dumping from the land to the sea. There is also a lot of industrial dumping from one county to another, which I will refer to later.

It is important that the Bill is before the House to regulate dumping at sea. When the Minister and his officials next go to Brussels I hope they will try to get agreement with their counterparts in Europe, which will not be easy, in regard to material that has already been dumped at sea. I am told reliably by fishermen that nobody knows what material has been dumped. All forms of dumping have taken place over the past 50 years and many coastal communities throughout Europe are now paying a price. Perhaps Ministers and their EU counterparts could discuss that issue at European level.

There is much talk about what was dumped in the seas around Europe over the past 50 years but it might be a step in the right direction if Governments put some fund in place to investigate what has been dumped, either by using divers or whatever. Fishermen in particular are concerned about what has been dumped there.

I welcome the fact that there will be public advertisements in the newspapers but there is little point in somebody making an observation to the Department which will be forwarded to the people making the application because they will rubbish it straight away. Ministers are pro-big business, like the local authorities. They know that businesses have money, money pays taxes and Governments have vested interests. Has an appeals mechanism has been put in place in respect of this legislation? There is no point in people going to the trouble of writing to the Minister only to have him send it to the person making the application for the permit. They will respond, the Minister will simply rubber-stamp it and the dumping will be allowed to go ahead, even though those people may have major concerns. Is there any appeals mechanism for people like that?

I saw what happened in north Mayo in relation to the gas pipeline. I want to see gas coming into Mayo but not at any price. The people of north Mayo who objected to the gas pipeline had concerns about whether it would be located onshore or offshore. We were then told it was too expensive to have it offshore and it would be brought onshore. The first proposal was exactly where the tragedy occurred last week. If the Government and certain Ministers had their way, that gas pipeline would have gone over Dooncarton Mountain and there would have been a serious tragedy. It is a pity the same Ministers who fought and pushed so hard for that gas pipeline have not visited the people of north Mayo to see how the State and the Government can help them. That is why they are concerned about their livelihoods, property and homes because they know the Government and Ministers will shout about the gas but if anything goes, they have seen what happens. We have not seen a Minister in north Mayo in the last three weeks since the tragedy. That is why the people are concerned and believe nobody is representing and listening to them. That is why they are concerned about the gas coming in.

There is much dumping at sea and on land. We have another problem in north Mayo where industrial waste is being brought from Cork, a big city, a long way from Mayo and Geesala. The waste is being driven from industries in Cork to Mayo passing by many fine towns, motorways, airports and so on. The people of north Mayo were concerned but the county council allowed the waste to be dumped. The people of north Mayo did not matter. They had to collect money and get a judicial review from An Bord Pleanála which they won. Industrial waste continues to be brought from Cork even though those concerned have been told by An Bord Pleanála they need a planning application and that there is a review to the High Court. Do the officials from the Department not think that should stop until the review is held in the High Court? These lorries are flying in—

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Ring, I am reluctant to intervene but we are discussing dumping at sea.

Mr. Ring

I am talking about dumping on land. This is what is happening – dumping on land and dumping on the people of north Mayo.

An Ceann Comhairle

Unfortunately, that is not included in this legislation.

Mr. Ring

I will come back to that in a minute but I would like to finish this point. Do the officials not think this dumping should cease given that the people of north Mayo went to An Bord Pleanála and won? That has not happened. Big business has won out again. The officials of Mayo County Council have not seen fit to bring the operators to the High Court to stop them operating.

The State is the biggest polluter of the sea. Sewage is going into the sea on a daily basis because proper sewerage schemes have not been put in place in coastal towns. The law in this country is set up for law-abiding citizens. If one cannot get the people who break the law, one gets the people who sometimes just step on the right side of the law and who are penalised. Who will police the sea? The only time we see Naval Service boats off the north coast of Mayo is on the day the salmon season starts because the salmon have to be tagged. It is a wonder they cannot tag the waste being thrown off boats from all over the world. Spanish fishermen come in, destroy lobster pots, dump what they want and the people on the west, north, south and east coasts must pick up what has been washed up on shore, sometimes a few years later. Who will police this legislation? How will it be policed and do we have the resources to police what is going on at sea? I would like the Minister to respond to that.

It is important that policing is put in place. There is no point passing legislation if there are not people to police it. I was going to say I did not want a police state but we have one already in that it appears one cannot drink, smoke, drive and walk down the street because of crime.

The Government has an obligation to ensure there are proper sewerage schemes in place in all coastal communities. I hear people talk about Sellafield and I, like everybody else, want to see it closed. When on this side of the House, Members lecture those on the other side but when they move over to the other side, they do not lecture anybody. We lecture Sellafield and we are worried about radioactivity regarding what is being dumped at sea and about our people, and rightly so. I would like to see that place closed but let us see what we can do regarding our industrial waste and sewage going into the sea.

If we are so concerned about the sea, why are we not actively fighting for money for coastal communities to guard against coastal erosion? That is a big issue. The coast is being washed into the sea. Private property is being flooded by the sea but people do not own the sea or the shoreline. They should be protected but they are being told that private property cannot be protected. This is not an issue for central government or for the county councils. The funding is not in place to deal with coastal erosion because of its high cost. It is time to get commitments from Europe because this is happening all over Europe. Last Christmas I watched Sky television and saw the high tides all over Europe and some of the coastlines being washed away. It is important that we stop the coastlines being washed into the sea. It is dumping at sea and it is something we should protect against. The local authorities have done their best with limited resources in many coastal areas in this country. I would like to see more resources being put in place.

The Bill is welcome. We want to know what people who make an application for a permit are dumping at sea. If waste is being dumped, it should be supervised and registered. I hope the Minister and the Department will monitor it and put the people in place. I am worried about one aspect of the Bill which states that a number of Ministers and Departments must be contacted. If the Ceann Comhairle wrote to the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources tomorrow morning asking it a serious question, wait and see how long he would have to wait to get a reply. It is not the quickest or the brightest Department for writing back. I wrote to the Department last November and I got a reply last week. If genuine people who want to dump waste must go through a number of Departments, this Bill will be successful because there will not be dumping at sea – the waste will all be dumped in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Since it will take them so long to reply, I would not have any worries about dumping at sea.

There is enough red tape and there are enough people who find it difficult enough to survive in life and in business without sending them to three or four Departments. One Department should have responsibility. If one Department writes to another, even if they are only across the road from each other, it will take them a number of years to reply. It is difficult enough to get a decision from any Department without having two or three Departments involved. I hope that issue will be looked at on Committee Stage because I am worried about it.

Where somebody makes an application, I have no problem with another Department making an observation but I do not want to see the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources state, as a stalling tactic, that it must write to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. If an advertisement appears in the newspaper, a Department should, by all means, make an observation. If each Department has to be contacted, I foresee all sorts of problems with this Bill. I hope this issue will be dealt with on Committee Stage. Why can a Department, like the public, not make an observation? The Minister could then consider that observation which could be passed on to the person making the application. That would be a reasonable request. Otherwise, if there is red tape, we will have major difficulties.

I hope the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Government will take this up at European level. There are major concerns about dumping at sea over the past 50 years. People are concerned that the sealed containers used for dumping materials are now beginning to leak. However, we do not fully know. It is no wonder that certain things happen on the coastline. One day, one sees beautiful clear water and the following day, it is polluted. No one can say what the pollution is, but it must come from the sea.

Our seacoast has been taken over by Spanish fisherman with massive vessels which pollute the coastline and take from the local fish stocks. I will conclude, a Cheann Comhairle, though I would like to say more on gas exploration and dumping in north County Mayo and Glancre Teoranta. County Cork, as a thriving economy should be able to deal with its own industrial waste. As a colleague of mine, Councillor Gerry Coyle, said, when Mayo did not get any part of the Celtic tiger, we do not want its dung.

Ms Lynch

This is a very short Bill, an extension of the Dumping at Sea Act 1996. As for Deputy Ring's comments, the way we deal with our waste, whether at sea or inland, should not be a county by county issue. We must have a clear-cut national policy on it. It is not fair for one county to deposit that which it cannot deal with in someone else's backyard. It has to be dealt with somewhere but it should not be on a county by county basis. People should not have to go to the High Court—

Mr. Ring

To get their rights.

Ms Lynch

—to address a fear they have. The 1996 legislation was comprehensive. There was much consultation with fisheries organisations and industrial interests before the original Bill was put in place. Coming from Cork city, I welcome the proposal that harbours be defined and included in the legislation. Cork is a harbour city divided by the river so it impinges on all aspects of city life. When one comes from a harbour city, one sees the clear link between the sea and the harbour. To define harbours and their control in this Bill is essential and long overdue.

Deputy Ring spoke of the offshore gas and oil industries. County Cork has been the beneficiary from offshore exploration for the past 25 years. The offshore industry was the mainstay of Cork Harbour and many families in the area during that time. It is a good industry and if well run, it can be an exceptionally clean industry. It is an industry that gives a good livelihood to the people who work in it.

However, there are difficulties in the industry. Last summer was one of the busiest summers for offshore exploration off the Kinsale Head. Over recent years we had been told that the gas supplies were running out. However, there are now new successful exploration wells, but despite this, there is no training programme for people working in the industry. I call on the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to take a serious look at this. The majority of workers in this industry, whose lifespan one can predict, are now foreign workers. I know we are in the EU and I have no objection to foreign expertise coming in. However, I am talking about people who with a little training and certification in the Irish industry could do the job well. It is a huge loss, particularly in revenue, that there is no training scheme for this industry in which there are huge tax write offs. The only financial spin-off from gas and oil exploration is through the buying of goods onshore and long-term employment. I ask the Minister to take a serious look at what can be put in place for the offshore gas and oil industry.

With regard to dumping at sea and the notion of five-year dredging permits, I accept that dredg ing is an essential part of any harbour activity. Anyone who lives in a harbour city realises that dredging is vitally important. Mapping of the harbour is equally important to ensure that one does not interfere with a sensitive system. People talk about ecosystems but when one is dealing with the sea, rivers, harbours or coastal areas, one is talking about a sensitive landscape. If an area is dredged in November 2002, it might not necessarily be ideal to dredge it two years later. Work on a tidal harbour must be delicately balanced and we need to be careful in that regard. This is why I have concerns with the five year dredging permits. Such permits are acceptable if there are regular reviews.

In the 1990s, before the Dumping at Sea Act 1996 was introduced, certain industries in Cork Harbour had their own ships to dump at sea. The materials dumped included chemicals and liquid water. The permits stated that dumping had to be done from beyond a 12 mile radius. Those who knew anything about the harbour knew that as soon as these ships hit Roche's Point, the pipes were opened and the dumping started. By the time they got to the 12 mile limit, they simply turned around and came back into port. The legislation introduced in 1996 and public outcry at what was happening in the harbour put a stop to that practice.

Legislation such as this Bill is essential. Not alone can it be effective in terms of monitoring and the imposition of penalties, but it can also make us aware of the damage we are doing to the environment. There is a problem with dumping at sea. Deputy Ring referred to tracking polluters, policing the system and implementing sanctions. There is a tracking system in place that deals with sea traffic. That is how ships in trouble are pinpointed. However, it is centrally European led. Deputy Ring is right that the difficulties with this legislation concerning implementation, monitoring and penalties must be dealt with on a central European basis.

What shipping does at sea gives rise to problems. We have all seen polystyrene cups coming up on the beach because they do not sink. At least we can pick them up – it is the stuff that sinks which worries me. One day the sea is clear for miles around and the next day a pool of oil is floating on it. This is due to the fact that ships have to clean out their tanks and this is usually done at night. If the will is there, it can be monitored by satellite. Deputy Ring referred to this phenomenon of the sea being clear one day and polluted the following day, which is probably due to the ship cleaning process.

Detergent is used to wash out the tanks or bilges. This is done to prevent corrosion and to stop shellfish getting into pipes or pumps. The process, therefore, is hazardous to shellfish. When tanks are emptied the detergent also comes out, resulting in polluted water and a threat to shellfish. It is possible to police this area and control it so that those responsible are penalised.

In the past, for the most part, we have relied on European directives to ensure the safety and pollution-free status of our seas. All of the major issues have been addressed. I am pleased to note the inclusion of harbours in the legislation. This legislation is easy to deal with because Deputy Gilmore addressed a comprehensive element of it in 1996. Difficulties still exist, however, but they can be easily resolved if the political will exists.

The sea is not a sponge. It will not take everything we throw at it. Marine life will become ill and die in some areas. Plant life will die off, which will affect fish stocks. There will also be an effect on our harbours and shorelines, as there will be on us. If legislation does nothing more than make us more sensitive to what we are doing to the sea, then it is a good thing.

I have concerns in regard to the five-year dredging permit. While I agree that a five-year plan in respect of dredging for the harbour is a good idea, we should be conscious of the fact that harbours by their very nature constantly alter.

Dr. Twomey

The many contributors to this discussion have added much to the consideration of the legislation before us. Whether we call it rubbish, toxic or non-toxic waste or refuse, we are dealing with what we discard. It is a by-product of the economic activity of a First World country. The greater the economic activity, the greater the amount of waste that is created. Unfortunately we do not know what to do with this waste; whether to dump it at sea, put it in landfill or incinerate it, as some people would like to do. We have to get rid of waste somehow. This issue needs to be considered with the utmost care.

This legislation may help to stop the current abuse, in the same way as dumping on land has been abused for so long. We have a cavalier attitude to dumping all kinds of waste. We have allowed landfill sites to leach into waterways. We have seen people who should know better dumping things such as creosote into waterways. As has been pointed out by many Members, I am sure the same type of behaviour happens at sea where ships wash out their tanks and dump waste indiscriminately into the oceans as if it can take it all. It is important that we improve on the current position.

An international commitment is required, or at the very least, an EU-wide commitment, so that countries work together to resolve this issue. Economic issues are difficult to deal with because countries compete with each other. If we try to impose a higher standard regarding waste disposal or the quality of ships, our contribution will not be as great if we work alone. An opportunity exists when we take over the Presidency of the European Union in January. We could initiate an EU-wide policy in regard to waste disposal.

There are two main issues in regard to waste disposal, whether it is at sea or anywhere else, namely, the effect on the environment and the immediate and long-term effects on our coastline, waterways and land. We have a very poor record in regard to environmental protection, in spite of the setting up of the Environmental Protection Agency and the legislation that is coming through.

A potential disaster for the environment is the towing across the Atlantic Ocean of warships from the United States that have been languishing in ports there for the past 50 or 60 years. These ships could easily break up as they cross the ocean, regardless of the number of tugs available. That would not really bother those that are getting rid of them, as it would do the job that is to be done on Teesside anyway. It is a further example of the cavalier attitude we have towards the environment that we would move these rusting hulks of disintegrating metal across a rough ocean and expect that they would safely reach their destination.

Reference was made to the amount of sea traffic that passes our coast. Many of these ships travel our seas under flags of convenience, which is nothing more than an opportunity to ignore workers' rights, environmental controls and the rights of all citizens where these ships ply their trade. Flags of convenience is another issue which needs to be tackled but, again, it must be done in a much larger forum than Dáil Éireann. It needs to be done on an EU-wide level. We allow these ships to dock in our ports. I accept that there is an economic argument to the effect that we cannot go too hard on these ships because we would lose the economic advantage to China or the United States which will allow these ships to continue working and, therefore, traverse the oceans more cheaply.

Some Deputies have even received deputations from people who work on these boats. There is a health and safety dimension to this issue. People on board these ships have been involved in numerous disasters, some of which were mentioned in the course of the discussion today. Many other disasters have occurred because these ships literally fell apart while at sea. As a result, seafarers lost their lives. These seafarers usually come from poorer countries and are dependent on the meagre wage they get on board these ships. We have chosen to ignore their plight because it suits us from an economic point of view to see somebody else working on these dangerous ships. We should also remember that when these ships fall apart, especially if they do so near our coastline, they add to the environmental disasters which affect the country.

Most of the important issues have already been discussed at length by speakers today. It is difficult for the Ceann Comhairle to ensure that we stay at sea and refrain from coming to land with the issues we discuss. It is important that we take on board many of the things that have been said by different contributors. As a national assembly we should decide to move this issue into a bigger arena, in this case the European Union, and enact legislation that is enforced evenly across the EU. We could also possibly use our influence in fora such as the World Trade Organisation where Mr. Peter Sutherland, a former EU Commissioner and an Irishman, is proof that Ireland's influence is international. We should use our influence to ensure the environment is protected.

We have good laws governing the movement of goods and ships on our oceans, but we should not forget the human aspect. The lives of many seafarers are put at risk daily simply because we choose to ignore the danger which many of these ships pose to both their lives and to our environment.

Mr. Morgan

I regard this Bill with amazement for a number of reasons. I agree with much of the sentiment of the Bill. The explanatory memorandum states that the Bill will not require any additional funding from the Exchequer. That suggests that this Bill will probably join the many other Acts on the Statute Book where it will sit waiting to be pulled out and acted upon in the distant future.

If additional funding is not available, who will police dumping at sea? If it is to be merely a passive process involving the issue of permits, that will leave much to be desired. Those who are the greatest offenders when it comes to dumping at sea have absolutely no intention of ever seeking a permit for their activities. I hope this is not merely legislation that will sit there.

It is common knowledge that through the late 1940s, 1950s and even into the early 1960s, the British Ministry for Defence was using the Beaufort Dyke in the Irish Sea as a dumping ground for its toxic waste such as munitions left over from the Second World War. Who was policing that activity and how will it be policed now if it is still happening? Nobody can say if this is so. I wonder if General John de Chastelain is not misplaced in his present activities and whether he should instead be examining how British weapons are currently being disposed of. I have many reservations about their activities. I suggest a mini peace process between our Government and the British Government for the purpose of curtailing their wayward activities in the Irish Sea and other areas.

I question why the issue of radioactive emissions is not included in the Bill. Many other contributors to the debate have referred to Sellafield. We know that British Nuclear Fuels is constantly spewing out radioactive material into the air and also into the sea. We are aware that it has a serious adverse effect on marine life, not just in the Irish Sea, regarded as the most radioactive sea in the world, but right around the Irish coast and as far north as the Nordic countries. It is unfortunate that this Bill does not seek to deal with that type of activity. That is why I have described it as an amazing Bill because it deals with many issues and completely omits some important areas of concern.

I readily accept that in response to people pressure the Government has acted more positively on the Sellafield issue than any previous Government and I hope it will continue to do so. I hope that the people pressure will continue. I welcome the fact that the Sellafield issue has been raised on a regular basis. We should use every available opportunity to fight British Nuclear Fuels on the Sellafield issue. The health of those who live on the eastern seaboard is adversely affected by Sellafield.

In the context of the value of the marine to the Irish economy it is unfortunate that the Government is considering the abandonment of the marketing division of Bord Iascaigh Mhara and moving it over to Bord Bia.

The Bill refers to dredging and dredging activities but it does not define what dredging is or refer to dredging and acquaculture. Where does dredging fit in relation to aquaculture activity? Aquaculture dredging is big business all around the coast and provides a livelihood for many people. Will the Bill exempt mussel dredging, cockle dredging and razor fish dredging, which is increasing? These issues must be considered or certainly tightly defined in the Bill.

Mr. Durkan

Razor fish?

Mr. Morgan

Yes, razor fish. It is particularly big business off the Dublin coast and further north.

Mr. Durkan

It sounds like a hazardous pastime.

Mr. Morgan

No. If people have beards it is probably not relevant at all.

Sewage emissions into the sea have been alluded to by other contributors and I will not dwell on the matter, but local authorities and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government have a responsibility in that regard. We cannot point a finger at other people and issue warnings, fines and penalties against dumping at sea if this Government and successive Governments since the foundation of the State have simply authorised the unmitigated pouring of raw sewage into the sea. I look forward to contributing on Committee Stage of the Bill.

Mr. Perry

Fine Gael fully supports this Bill, which is sensible, logical and uncontentious. It represents part of a body of legislation passed in this House designed to create a better natural environment and also through its provisions protects a vital indigenous aquaculture industry which is growing.

Ireland is an island nation and I am often amazed at the lack of development of the potential of aquaculture. Sligo has an extensive coastline. For the development of aquaculture it is critically important to deal with marine environmental concerns to protect the foundation on which this fine industry can be built.

The Bill passed all Stages in the Seanad but is only now reaching the Dáil. It amends the Dumping at Sea Act 1996 which strengthened and replaced earlier legislation for the control of dumping at sea in line with updated international obligations of the State. That Act widened Irish jurisdiction in the waters around the island from 12 miles to up to 350 miles in relation to what can be dumped in the sea. This has provided more scope and potential but the commitment to police this area of sea will be a significant undertaking. Illegal dumping on land can be well policed but I have no doubt that some people will avail of dumping at sea without seeking permits.

A previous speaker referred to the financial implications of this Bill and the fact that there is no contingency for further funding. I ask the Minister of State to explain how this will be policed and his policy regarding the powers of the coastguard on this issue. The obligation to obtain permits is to be welcomed but I do not foresee self-regulation being effective without stringent controls.

One of its main provisions is the inclusion of port companies in the definition of "harbour authorities". That is long overdue. It will help to ensure our modern and constantly changing marine infrastructure is included in the Bill's remit.

The Sligo Harbour and port authority has huge development potential. There is an agreement in principle that Sligo Harbour will be taken over by Sligo County Council. I know that permission has been sought from the Department to authorise that under the Harbours Act 1946. That would entitle the county council to take control of Sligo Harbour. Sligo Harbour and the adjoining property, which is part of the remit of Sligo Harbour Commissioners, is a huge resource. It is critically important that a clear mandate is given for the potential development of Sligo Harbour. I am sure the area could be developed through private enterprise and joint ventures, particularly when one considers the level of port activity in other regions. Sligo Harbour offers great potential for investment. However, little or no Government support has been given to Sligo for many years. Certain dredging work was carried out. There is an ambitious plan to develop the port from a commercial and tourism point of view. However, it is currently in limbo due to the lack of a clear response from the Minister about Sligo County Council's entitlement to take control of this critical asset. The county council has agreed this will happen. I ask the Minister to accelerate that application and to clearly indicate to Sligo County Council when that will take place. This delay is affecting potential investment not only by the State but by private enterprise which is critically important to develop Sligo Harbour.

Sligo is a spatial growth region. We all speak about the infrastructural deficit. We have a port and facilities, but we need a licence to develop it. Sligo has an airport and a port, which has historic connections. During the Famine thousands of people from the north-west left Sligo Port on their way to America. It was a prominent port in past decades. The time has come to re-establish Sligo Port not only as a commercial port but as a tourism amenity. It is underdeveloped. It should be developed as a matter of urgency.

As regards the marina at Rosses Point, Government funding has been secured for its development as a tourist amenity. It is critically important that this funding is spent in Rosses Point. It is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the north-west. Many people take a coastal tour of Ireland on boats and yachts, yet there is not a major tourist amenity at Rosses Point. I am glad the funding has been put in place in partnership with the county council. That issue must be dealt with decisively so that we can develop Sligo's tourism potential. We should work to improve such assets as Sligo Harbour and the marina at Rosses Point.

This Bill also extends the list of Ministers who must be consulted about permits for dumping at sea. It is unfortunate that we must debate this issue. Perhaps we could have a system where such changes could be made in the Dáil. It is important to debate this issue in the House because we are all aware of Ireland's potential as a tourist destination. Our coastal waters are important not only for aquaculture but also for tourism. We all know about the blue flag system. I come from a region with some great coastal attractions, such as Mullaghmore, which has blue flag status, Rosses Point, Strandhill and Enniscrone. All these areas have potential. However, it is critically important that we retain our blue flag status. Strandhill is internationally acclaimed as one of the finest surfing beaches in Europe. We must promote the development of the area.

There is an obligation on the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ensure that adequate funding is provided. There is an obligation on the Government to invest in sewerage systems and proper facilities to ensure that sewage and other material does not go into the ocean and into our rivers and lakes. A big investment is needed in Enniscrone. We had a debate during the summer about the lack of sewerage and treatment facilities in Enniscrone and the discomfort caused to people who visit a major coastal town which does not have proper State investment. We need investment to guarantee total blue flag status for the region. We must ensure that the Department and other relevant Departments are given the necessary finance to put the proper infrastructure in place to prevent pollution at sea.

I can speak on this subject with a certain degree of knowledge as I come from a county which has an extensive coastline. The people of Mullaghmore have been seeking funding for some considerable time from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ensure that proper sewage treatment facilities, waste water units, etc., are provided. Unfortunately, the treatment facilities along Sligo's coastline leave a lot to be desired. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention the urgent need to deal with these issues when discussing this Bill.

Those who seek permission to dump at sea must make public their applications through newspaper advertisements. That is the most important provision in the Bill because it allows for a public consultation period during which the merits of any decision can be debated. It is important to clarify where that will be debated, who will be entitled to attend and if it will be widely advertised. Perhaps the Minister could explain how and in what centres throughout the country that public consultation will take place and if it will pertain to the coastal areas nearest to a land mass.

The Bill also states that the Minister must consider any likely interference with our important natural or archaeological heritage when considering whether to grant a licence to dump at sea. It is extraordinary that that is not already the case. Fine Gael is delighted that measure has been included. It allows for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to be responsible for the natural heritage of the area and the water where dumping is proposed in the same way as it would be responsible for such an area of land. It is critically important that was included. The famous Armada collection is located off the coast of Sligo at Streedagh. It is one of the biggest attractions in the area, but, unfortunately, it is at the bottom of the sea. My predecessor, the former Deputy, Ted Nealon, has discussed on many occasions the possibility of raising that ship which contains cannons and many other important artefacts. There are a number of ships off Streedagh, which is outside Grange on the coast of north Sligo.

It is critically important that we identify the rich archaeological heritage that exists and create a database of the major artefacts in view of the possibility of future funding from the State. They should be given priority when funding is available from various Departments and marked out as areas that need further study in view of the possibility of bringing these treasures to land. Nothing is impossible and they are very near the coastline. I appeal to the Minister to make sure that efforts are made to raise the major treasure of the Armada collection off the coast of Sligo at Streedagh.

It is worth noting in the context of this Bill that five-year dredging and dumping permits have been granted to the Dublin Port Company, the Drogheda Port Company and the Port of Cork Company. The Port of Waterford Company submitted a five-year dredging and dumping plan for consideration but is currently in the process of carrying out a detailed monitoring programme in connection with its proposal. Shannon Foynes Port Company is expected to submit its five-year plan soon for approval. It is all about planned projections and careful analysis of possible future developments. It is important that the obligation is on the State, using its regulatory powers, and those in the waste business to ensure that permits are in place.

As the Minister of State said yesterday, dumping is not allowed where fisheries, important resources or natural or archaeological heritage would be damaged. Dumping sites are monitored before and after dumping takes place, as the Department requires, to ensure that any dumping is properly carried out. It surprises me that no resources are provided to deal with this aspect of the Bill, although it will cost money to police this. It is hard enough to police illegal dumping on land but when it comes to the coastline we are dealing with highly skilled, highly trained personnel. Increased powers will be needed by the authorities because those who are dumping waste 50 miles off the coast will be masters of their art. This legislation is important but it is also important to ensure adequate policing in this area. The Minister might explain his plans in this regard. What powers will he have and what penalties will be attached?

Permission has been, and will continue to be, refused for the dumping at sea of any harmful materials found on the seabed of any port or harbour. Non-dumping at sea treatment is insisted upon in such cases, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency. This should also be considered for dredging. Where does the Minister intend that the material be placed? How are harmful materials dealt with at the moment if they cannot be brought out to sea? The Minister will be aware of the controversy surrounding the shredding of beef and the facilities for storing up to 90,000 tonnes of beef in the south of the country when it was found that it could not be exported or dumped. Could the Minister tell me whether any of that beef was dumped at sea? I do not envy the Minister his job – policing the coast is a big job but policing and monitoring dumping at sea is a bigger one still.

It is important that the sentiments behind this Bill are acknowledged. It is a much-needed Bill, although I do not envy the Minister's task, or that of the Department, in ensuring that the law is upheld. People who are law-abiding will do their business correctly and obtain permits, but those who want to get rid of their waste without going through official channels will represent a difficulty. The Department must have on file the names of those who have participated in illegal dumping in the past. It is important that these companies and bodies be carefully monitored. One could hardly argue with such a provision and this should act as a reminder that dumping cannot be a fait accompli. Perhaps such sanction will act as a deterrent to anyone thinking of dumping such material.

Perhaps the most important aspect of this Bill is the message it sends out. Ireland's waters are not for sale and this House is fulfilling its obligations in protecting them. We sold our oil rights many years ago – at least we are now claiming environmental rights over our waters. It is important that we consider Ireland's potential for aquaculture, tourism and related growth industries. Anybody who comes from Ireland or another jurisdiction into the area of 355 square miles surrounding Ireland should be aware that we are now policing the area and will be taking action if anybody from another country is caught breaking Irish law within it.

As my party's deputy spokesperson on communications, marine and natural resources said yesterday, many Ministers have been in office since this legislation was introduced, including Deputy Fahey and former Deputy Hugh Byrne, and it is very disappointing to have to wait this long to see it come before the House. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for introducing it. He also raised the important issue of the Sellafield plant. People living on the coastline from County Louth to the south-east are concerned about the possibility that the plant is polluting the sea. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Attorney General are trying to obtain some answers from the authorities at Sellafield. On a recent visit, members of a Fine Gael delegation were frightened to see what went in and out. If an accident happened we would be in serious trouble because of the closeness of our coastline.

Fine Gael would like to ask a number of serious questions of the authorities at Sellafield, but they will always give a political answer. They will only give an answer that suits them, not an honest one. This is regrettable. An accident is waiting to happen and the public is very concerned about this. Families are concerned about the health of their children and we are all concerned about the health of marine life in the Irish Sea. Surely, at a time when we are discussing dumping at sea, we cannot ignore the greatest threat to our environment – one that lies across our waters but threatens them every day. The Government has acted forcefully on this issue, but I appeal to the Minister of State to keep up the pressure. I welcome the Bill and commend it to the House.

Mr. Boyle

I wish to share my time with Deputy Connolly.

Like most other speakers in this debate, I welcome the intent of this Bill. Any concerns my party and I have are about how the intent can be turned into reality. My first concern is the Bill's very long gestation – Second Stage of the Bill is taking place three years after the Bill was introduced. As a result, the Bill has become slightly anachronistic. The Bill includes on a list of Ministers to be consulted. It includes the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands – a Minister that no longer exists. Also mentioned is the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, a position which also no longer exists. There is a possibility that all Stages of the Bill will not have been completed before the next Cabinet reshuffle, during which there may be more changes in designation for members of the Government.

This Bill is a sincere attempt to produce legislation that ensures better respect for our marine environment. Our history in this regard is not something of which our country can be proud, despite the fact that this is an island nation. Many of the advances that have been made in this regard have been foisted on us – possibly through embarrassment – by European directives. At last we are beginning, through our legislative process, to adopt the means by which we can make clear statements as to what can, or should not, take place in the marine environment.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, as an assist to industrial development, there was encouragement, almost on a nod and wink approach, for large-scale dumping of materials at sea that should never have been permitted. Many high-risk industries producing much unwanted waste are located in the Cork south central constituency, which I represent. In the past, much of this waste was disposed of with the tacit acceptance of State authorities, in a way that was unacceptable then and which is now illegal. When the legislation is enacted, however, to what extent will we be able to prevent those practices, even if they are illegal?

We have a method of monitoring waste and through the various EU directives and our domestic legislation, restrictions have been placed on the types of material that can be disposed of. We are now talking largely about silt or earth materials but even they carry a high risk. The permit system allowed 1.6 million tonnes of material to be disposed of by the Port of Cork company last year, which I find astounding. Much of that material concerned the ordinary ebb and flow of port business, including dredging because much of Cork Harbour has had to be reclaimed. In addition, the aftermath of infrastructural projects, such as the construction of the Jack Lynch tunnel, involved a lot of material that had to be disposed of eventually. Particular diligence and proper controls will be required in future concerning sites, such as the former Irish Steel-ISPAT one, where there were earth movements in the past and where much of the ground is contaminated. A similar argument could be made about the IFI plant at Marino Point.

Silt or earth materials can look the same in any one container but there is no proper system of ongoing monitoring to ensure it is tested before disposal. I am dubious as to whether the resources exist to ensure such monitoring can take place and will be ongoing after the enactment of this legislation. The Minister should examine how such mechanisms can be devised. In saying that, I am repeating the argument made by other speakers that the Bill does not put in place resources to ensure the implementation of its legislative provisions. That is a mistake.

We are well served by the Naval Service, albeit a small one, that has environmental protection as part of its remit. It may not even be a first priority, however, because its remit also includes fishery protection and national defence. I am not convinced that the necessary expertise can be found within the Naval Service to provide the required level of environmental protection. Such expertise can only be provided through additional resources, although there is a potential source of expertise that should not cost the State that much money. In this regard, the Minister and the Department should examine the voluntary coastguard service, whose expertise has served us well. The men and women of the coastguard service know their local environment intimately and even though it is a voluntary service we do not use it to the extent that we could.

These people know about the most recent movements in the general marine environment and they can identify anyone who has been involved in illegal dumping, as well as the type of material being disposed of. Legislation such as that before the House could have a greater effect given an enhanced, strengthened and better resourced coastguard service. The Minister should investigate that suggestion, which could be applied more generally to include the involvement of coastguard personnel in applying recent regulations from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources governing the wearing of lifejackets by all boat users. That oversight should be corrected.

The suggested change in the law requiring advertisements to be placed in local newspapers concerning permits for dumping at sea is a welcome development. It is something we have already seen within the planning system but I suggest the change should be taken further. One problem with on-site notices for general planning – I suspect it will apply also to notices concerning dumping at sea – is that they may not be seen by those directly concerned. The onus should be placed on those seeking to dispose of waste to make those most likely to be affected aware of what is happening. In the Scottish planning system, for instance, as well as there being an onus to place newspaper advertisements and on-site planning notices, there is also a requirement to inform those who are directly involved in a planning application, within a 250 yard radius. The legislation should list those who must be directly informed of dumping at sea, such as fishery boards, other maritime bodies and residents on the coast and elsewhere who may live near the transit route of the waste material to be dumped. Such a provision would ensure that the public is kept informed of developments.

I do not have a direct criticism of the general legislation, other than the improvements I have suggested. My colleague, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has indicated a willingness to address these matters in committee. I hope the Minister will be willing to accept those suggested improvements.

While we have reduced dumping at sea largely to inert material, such as silt and earth, we should not take it for granted that they are not damaging the environment in their own right. Because these silt and earth materials contain nutrients, one is running the risk of upsetting the ecosystem around the dumping ground by putting a large amount of such material on a new site. That is another obvious omission from the Bill. Even though the issue of biodiversity has been included in some of the Seanad amendments, the fact that one ecosystem is interfered with by waste material means that such effects should be measured to see whether they are benign or negative. We have a responsibility in this regard, not only for the existing environment but also for generations to come.

The Bill has been welcomed by all sides of the House but I sense a willingness by the Government to improve it. The Green Party is prepared to play its part by making whatever helpful suggestions it can to improve the legislation further.

Mr. Connolly

The Bill is to be welcomed since it further amends the 1996 legislation which streamlined and strengthened our laws on sea dumping. It also conforms to the OSPAR Convention on Dumping at Sea. The sea is one of the finest natural resources and we must ensure that a structure is adopted to allow us to preserve, protect and utilise it to the country's optimum benefit. In recent years local authorities have devoted a considerable amount of time and effort to the development of waste management policies. It is ironic that waste management policies have resulted in the detention of one of our colleagues, Deputy Joe Higgins, in Mountjoy jail. Local authorities are now required to include a waste management programme as part of their development plans but it is also vitally important to provide for waste disposal at sea.

The Bill provides for the publication in newspapers of a public notice of application for a dumping permit to dispose of waste at sea. It is only right that the public should be kept informed of such developments and be permitted to respond accordingly, as is the case in the planning process. Ireland's responsibility in this regard will extend under the legislation along the continental shelf, and also extends our coastal jurisdiction from 12 to 350 miles. It is difficult for us to know what is being dumped in international waters, over 350 miles off our coastline. Toxic and nuclear waste have frequently been dumped at sea without much concern for the effects of erosion on sealed containers.

The Irish Sea has long achieved notoriety as one of the most radioactive seas in the world, largely because of Sellafield and its disposal of nuclear waste in these waters. British Nuclear Fuels Limited has long played down the significance of this, and has sought to allay public fears on both sides of the Irish Sea. Any measure that can be instrumental in preventing such disposal is to be welcomed.

The disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the dispersal of much of its nuclear capacity between the USSR's former constituent republics has increased the likelihood of nuclear waste being dumped indiscriminately in seas off their coasts. The effects on marine life and ultimately on the food chain would be catastrophic – infinitely greater than the effects of the radiation which emanated from the Chernobyl reactor some years ago. The involvement of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, is also to be welcomed as well as the fact that due attention will be given to sites of natural and architectural heritage before any application for a dumping permit can be entertained.

The Bill also involves Dúchas in the preservation of archaeological heritage around our coasts. This appears to be an eminently sensible proposal, since it will enable Dúchas to document, catalogue and preserve any valuable artefacts. Who knows what the underwater world may reveal at some future date – lost cities, Spanish galleons, rock formations, etc.?

I am glad the Bill also prohibits ships from flushing their tanks or disposing of waste within Irish waters. The possibility of fish stocks being decimated is very real, a situation we could not possibly have envisaged a few years ago. The continual and haphazard practice of dumping waste at sea cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely, since fish stocks are in real danger of drying up. The dumping of untreated sewage at sea also poses a major threat to marine life. Many of our local authorities do not have sewage treatment plants, and we do not have an impressive record in this regard.

The next Law of the Sea conference should adopt a global resolution to ban dumping at sea, because of its indiscriminate nature and because the effects are so far-reaching for marine life and for humanity in general. In a single generation overfishing and poor management have devastated fish stocks in the North Atlantic and other regions around the world. Some 13 of the world's major fishing regions have seen a decline in total catch, putting an estimated 100,000 fishermen out of work, and threatening the food supply of millions in developing countries.

The deterioration of the world's fisheries is just the tip of the iceberg. There is growing concern about the decline in marine life worldwide, as many ecosystems and entire seas falter under the combined effects of a wide range of human activities. Overfishing, habitat destruction, climate change and the indiscriminate dumping of sewage, fertilisers, oil and other wastes into rivers and seas are exacting a terrible toll on marine life.

Vast "dead zones" of oxygen-less water have spread across highly polluted estuaries and seas. Fish stocks have deteriorated or collapsed around the world. Important habitats like wetlands and coral reefs are rapidly disappearing, while changes in sea temperatures are altering ocean currents that drive world weather patterns, possibly due to global warming. The cumulative damage to marine life is most clearly seen in the world's semi-enclosed seas. Such seas generally have fairly dense human populations on shore, as on the west coast of Ireland, and a low rate of seawater flushing to the open Atlantic.

Pollution, coastal development pressures and fishing demands are concentrated with increasingly dramatic effects. A sobering example is the Black Sea. Over the past two decades 20 of the 26 commercial fish species have vanished. In their place are monstrous algae blooms which feed on human waste and the North American jellyfish that prey on them. These are one of the so-called "alien" species that are transported across the world everyday in the ballast water of cargo ships.

Romania and Bulgaria have already sold their entire state-owned fishing fleets and tourism is faltering as raw sewage washes on to the beach resorts that ring the Black Sea. In the longer term and in the light of these experiences a decision to ban dumping would have major repercussions in terms of quality of life, the marine environment and sustainability. I welcome the Bill and feel it is a worthwhile extension to the Dumping at Sea Act 1996 in terms of preserving the treasure that is around our coast. I commend the Bill. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr. P. Breen

Like the previous speakers I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill which was passed in the Seanad back in 2000. It amends the Dumping at Sea Act 1996 which was introduced by a former Fine Gael Minister for the Marine, Mr. Seán Barrett. As some of the previous speakers have noted, Ireland is an island with a long and beautiful coastline. It depends a great deal on the tourism industry. It is important, therefore, that we protect our waters and our coastline. I come from the constituency of County Clare, which has a long coastline. It stretches from Fenore, north of Galway Bay, right down to Loop Head and into the Shannon Estuary. I live on the estuary and I would like to talk, first, about domestic dumping before putting this into perspective with regard to dumping at sea. It was a common occurrence when I took a walk on the estuary banks to see bottles, fridges with CO gases and old cookers, and recently farm plastic from bales, even carcasses, being washed up on our shores. Thankfully, much of that has now come to an end. First, farmers have to pay a contribution when they buy the plastic – where a contractor comes along and collects the used plastic. That has put an end to it. In addition, with the traceablity by the Department of Agriculture and Food of farm animals, the dumping of carcasses, thank God, has almost come to an end. That is what was happening in the past, and thankfully things have changed.

Much of the dumping took place at sea over the decades, most of which we knew nothing about. Formerly it was believed that if dumping took place away from the shoreline the sea's power of dilution would render it harmless. That theory no longer holds, thankfully, and people – and countries and governments – have become more conscious of traffic and dumping on our seas. Irish people, too, have become conscious of this. We want to protect our beauty spots for bathing and other recreational purposes. We have all seen pictures on television of oil tankers cleaning out their hulls as they enter international waters. We have seen pictures taken by the Air Corps and the British and other navies of oil streaks along the seas. Ship captains assume these oil streaks will break up by the time they get to the coastline. That practice was common over the decades and I am delighted to see it will now be stopped.

The Irish coastline is no stranger to abandoned shipwrecks – ships that have been caught in storms and bad weather as they crossed the Atlantic Ocean. We had a wreck off the coast near Dingle some years ago. It was lodged there for years and was most unsightly for tourists or anyone to look at. I was on the small island of Inis Oírr some time ago and I saw a ship abandoned, which was most unsightly.

Even in my area the small village of Kildysart on the Shannon Estuary a person bought a shipwreck, the Matricia, which had been caught in a storm off the coast of Waterford, thinking he could repair it. He towed the ship to the Shannon Estuary, but unfortunately costs prohibited the ship from being repaired and it was left abandoned at the public port. The owner sold off the valuable parts of the ship, which was abandoned and remains there today. This has been the source of much discontent among people in the area. A few years ago some birds nested on the ship and when the chicks hatched, conservationists were anxious that people would not touch it. All of these things have to be put up with.

I am delighted the Minister has insisted that port companies prepare a five-year dredging and dumping plan, which must be published as part of the necessary consultation with the public and the statutory bodies when applying for permits to dump at sea. The criteria laid down as part of the OSPAR Convention are quite strict. There must be an alternative land-based disposal option before port companies can dispose of silt at sea. This is important in the interest of land reclamation and beach nourishment. The characteristics and composition of the materials to be dumped must be examined. The potential interference dumping could have on wildlife and shipping routes must be taken into account. The vessel that is disposing of the material must have proper certification. The potential impact dumping the material will have on the marine ecosystem must be considered.

The Shannon Foynes Port Company is the company closest to where I live. Having listened to the Minister yesterday, I understand that company is expected to submit a five-year plan shortly. I hope the Minister will be in a position to grant its application as he has done for the other port companies around the country. The Shannon Estuary is a very valuable shipping area used by many shipping companies as they ship material to the various ports on the estuary, Limerick Port, Foynes – which is a very large port, the Aughinish Alumina plant, and Moneypoint – one of the biggest generating stations in the country which receives large deliveries of coal directly into the plant.

It is unfortunate that there is only one real port – a private port used by the ESB – on the Clare coast. Kilrush with Cappa Pier was a good port in the 1960s but its business reduced because of competition from across the estuary. Some time ago the Department carried out studies on how to utilise the jetty at Moneypoint. Due to the fact that the estuary is very deep there was some investigation of the possibility of using it for transhipment as is done in Rotterdam where ships unload and the goods are then shipped on separately to other destinations in Europe. Cruise ships could also make use of it. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to that.

Harbours must be dredged on a regular basis as they silt up. It is appropriate that port companies should account for the disposal of gravel and sand. The 1996 Act prohibits the dumping of sewage sludge in the marine environment. As a member of the local authority, I know many villages and towns in County Clare where raw sewage is pumped into the sea. The population of Kilkee swells up to more than 20,000 in the summer. It does not have a proper waste water system and it will be a number of years before it does. Other villages on the coastline like Carrigaholt, Labasheeda and Kildysart have lost their blue flags over the years as a result of not having proper water treatment systems in place. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that these towns and villages have adequate sewerage systems in place in order to protect the waters along the coastline.

The same could be said of lakes such as Lough Derg, which recently had trouble with high levels of dioxins and algal bloom, which were causing harm to marine life. There is an onus on the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to get funding from Europe or elsewhere to introduce proper sewerage systems into towns and villages on the coastline and on lakes.

Many of the previous speakers spoke about the disposal of radioactive waste, which is always a cause of concern particularly for people on the east coast living in counties such as Louth, Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford bearing in mind the close proximity to Sellafield. Deputy Perry said a Fine Gael delegation, which visited Sellafield some time ago, was shocked at what could happen if an accident occurred and there was a discharge of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea. Ireland is noted for its fish, which is also good for people's diet. Recent tests have shown there are chemicals in some marine life and one has to be very cautious.

Currently there is controversy about a number of US navy ships due to cross the Atlantic to Britain where they are to be broken up. Some groups have threatened to try to block their passage. As they will not be travelling in Irish waters, we have very little responsibility for them. However, what if something happened to some of these ships and radioactive waste ended up in the sea off the west coast? These are all great concerns for us as an island nation.

There have been several oil tanker disasters resulting in serious spillages in recent years. I was only a young man in 1978 when the Amoco Cadiz went down off the coast of Brittany and did great damage to the coastline there. The Exxon Valdez went down off the coast of Alaska. Less than 12 months ago the Prestige did untold damage to marine life off the northern coast of Spain where I believe some 20 million gallons of oil went into the sea.

Apart from the issue of dumping at sea, single hulled tankers should be outlawed. Double hulls should be required for the protection of our seas. I understand the Prestige was a single hulled tanker and, therefore, very vulnerable, particularly in bad weather.

I note from the contribution of the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, to yesterday's debate that dumping of ships and aircraft will be formally banned, in the interests of marine and navigational safety, by 31 December 2004. I welcome this. We cannot have ships or aircraft being dumped in our seas and becoming a danger to navigation.

Let me conclude on a lighter note as my previous references to aircraft were in a serious context. I welcome the presence of aircraft in the Shannon Estuary provided they land at Shannon Airport, which is currently under considerable threat. The more transatlantic flights we have on the route, the better.

Again, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill which I hope will have a smooth passage. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Hayes

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. People may wonder about my interest in this Bill in view of the fact that I come from an inland county. However, those of us who live inland can also greatly appreciate the benefits and attractions of the seaside. Coastal counties are very fortunate from many perspectives, perhaps most importantly in economic terms. A nice coastline is a wonderful benefit. In that regard, we in County Tipperary, which has somewhat similar land to that of the Minister of State's home county, Wexford, might be forgiven for being slightly envious of the latter county's coastline in terms of tourism and other benefits. Perhaps this explains my interest in the protection of Ireland's coastline.

Our rivers flowing from inland counties such as the Suir which originates in County Tipperary and enters the sea through Waterford serve in many ways as a link between coastal and inland areas, including the movement of fish stocks, pro viding the basis for many small industries along our waterways which depend on clean seas. Anybody with an interest and concern for our coastline should welcome the Bill.

I understand the Bill is to amend the 1996 legislation introduced by the then Minister with responsibility for the marine and which, at the time, was a substantial measure which went a long way towards bringing into the 20th century our laws on dumping at sea, in line with the OSPAR Convention. One aspect of dumping at sea involves the reckless abandonment of vessels on our coastline, thereby creating an unsightly, untended and derelict effect. It is essential that we have effective legislation to deal with such situations.

I cannot recall any major oil spillage on our coastline. We are very fortunate that such an incident has not occurred, having regard to the untold damage which would be caused and the length of time required to clean up afterwards. Family visits to the seaside are a particular treat for those who live in inland counties. Their enjoyment of that amenity is greatly enhanced by an environment free of litter, oil spillages, water pollution or other debris. Those engaging in such family outings should be mindful of their own behaviour, in terms of avoiding careless dumping of litter and showing respect for our wonderful coastline. From my observations during the past summer, there is considerable room for improvement in that regard.

Direct comparisons between Ireland and Spain may be somewhat difficult, having regard to the highly developed state of the Spanish tourism industry and the extent to which that country's economy depends on tourism. The manner in which certain parts of the Spanish coastline have been taken care of is particularly impressive, even to the extent of bringing in fresh supplies of sand to provide a more attractive swimming environment. While our normal Irish summers may not be conducive to such elaborate measures, the wonderful weather of this past summer has brought many more to our beaches than usual.

Residents in many inland areas may still have a choice of seaside locations, within an hour's travel, in counties such as Cork, Waterford, Wexford and Clare, to which Deputy Breen referred. Our coastal villages and towns have benefited greatly, in economic terms, from the attraction which nearby beaches have provided. This underlines the importance of a responsible attitude towards maintaining these amenities properly. Future generations will not thank us for any neglect in that regard. We should appreciate and respect the freedom which our beaches provide to enable people to engage in a wide range of outdoor pursuits of their choice. We should not neglect our important obligations in that regard.

This Bill will have to ensure that the problems of pollution are being controlled and curtailed. That is welcome and it is important because we are all now conscious of the environment. Those of us who were members of local authorities – I had to resign from my seat recently – have seen a major change in consciousness of the environment with the new legislation which was introduced to cover, for example, landfills and pay-by-weight. These strides are to be welcomed and we must continue this process and educate our children with initiatives such as the tidy schools competition. This has helped to make young people more conscious of the environment in which they live. It should extend to our seas and the people who are responsible for them, especially those who can abandon boats because so many lives are at stake on the sea. It is such a wonderful natural asset to have close by and so many people have benefited from it that we cannot but welcome the legislation.

Mr. Cowley

Tá mé an-bhuíoch an seans a bheith agam cupla focal a rá ar an mBille seo. Bille an-thábhachtach is ea é, go mórmór dos na daoine atá ina gcónaí in aice leis an bhfarraige, mar atá a lán daoine i gCondae Mhuigheo agus in áiteanna eile sa tír.

I am very happy to speak on this fine Bill which backs up the Dumping at Sea Act 1996 and makes important amendments to it. We should be very aware of the importance of the sea to us. Nobody realises this more than me, living in a county with extensive coastline. All around the country it provides a wonderful opportunity, heritage and wealth but I wonder how well we have exploited it. We could perhaps have done a great deal more with this asset before we joined the EU. As has been pointed out today, the sea is not a limitless resource and there have been times when we have not treated it as we should have done. The 1996 Act and this Bill help to rectify that as much as possible.

There is no doubt that we have wasted opportunities. It is often said that the world is a large pond and this is borne out by the effect on us of accidents such as that in Chernobyl. Likewise, we have seen the effect of the waste from Sellafield and will continue to see that in the future. That is for sure. Even if Sellafield did close down we would have that problem for many years to come. We have a major responsibility to grow our asset, like the biblical talents which must be used. Somebody has to account for stewardship of the sea and this Bill moves towards achieving that. We will suffer the effects of radiation in the Irish Sea ad infinitum. The fish there are the hottest fish one can get, in the wrong sense. We are powerless over that as long as things continue to happen in Sellafield.

The Common Fisheries Policy is confining fishermen in terms of what they can do and what they can fish. We have the richest of resources yet it was plundered by many other nations. It was our heritage and we could have done a great deal for those people who have lived by the sea and fished for many generations but we failed when it came to exploiting it for our own benefit. Consider what could have been done in the west with a fishing industry that was never properly developed as it should have been. The policy could have been translated into infrastructure in some way if it had been west of Ireland-proofed or BMW-proofed to be of benefit to an area that is now so neglected. There is a lack there of balanced regional development and we should all regret that legacy.

Most of the licences in this Bill have been for port and harbour dredging and this would be very important for shipping and navigation and so on, and for development. I regret the fact that there is so little development in the western harbours. This is something that we should also have. I welcome the content of the Bill and the openness and transparency that it proposes. It lets people know exactly what is happening so that when they are aware that something is being dumped they can deal with that and make whatever observations are necessary. I note the 21-day period in which those observations can be forwarded to the Minister. That is all to the good and it is democratic.

The 1996 Act was and is important. Many people today mentioned pollution, and the Kowloon Bridge tanker disaster. There have been many situations in which such things have happened, not just in Ireland but elsewhere, because of the single-hulled vessels that are permitted to operate and which because of commercialism will not be phased out in the short-term. That is a pity because those accidents are preventable. The other problem is the raw sewage that continues to seep into our bays and rivers and in my constituency there are many examples where, due to inadequate investment, pollution continues to happen. That is regrettable because it interferes with fish life. Sewage has a negative effect on fish life, particularly on the string of mussel and oyster farms along the west coast.

I welcome the fact that the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs is involved. Island people are very aware of what is happening because they are seafaring people and this will be of use to them. I worry, however, that the extra bureaucracy might interfere with the smooth running of the Act. The converse is that the sea is our heritage and we have to protect that. Our fish have been plundered in the past, what more is to be plundered before we wake up to the fact that we have a resource which needs to be put to full use for the people?

I welcome the safeguards and the procedures for advertising applications and the necessity to have materials being dumped fully spelt out. This is pointed out in guidelines for applicants, including the obligation to look at options other than the sea for dumping. I am firmly of the opinion that it should be done away with altogether. It is wrong to dump material in the sea, which is a natural resource and with which we should not interfere. There must be other ways to dispose of waste material – the Dutch and others have done wonders. The sea is advancing on the west coast. Therefore, we should try to prevent this practice. The monitoring of the dumping area before and after dumping takes place is a step forward.

The 1996 Act extended Ireland's jurisdiction over dumping at sea from 12 miles offshore to between 200 and 250 miles to coincide with the continental shelf. This gives us an extra responsibility. The House is already aware of recent events in Pollathomas, County Mayo, where a mountain ended up in the sea. What effect will this have on it?

The few drift net fishermen who are left are suffering from over-regulation already. What chances will they now have? I do not know how this will affect sea angling in the area but fishermen have already been put out business by the new regulations that have been introduced with the result that sea angling competitions will not take place on the west coast this year. We are chasing the small people who are catching a few salmon in a season while super-trawlers are hoovering up fish. It makes no sense. What will this Bill do for people in north-west Mayo who are being affected by this? It will not do anything, even though there is an urgent need for something to be done for them.

When I raised the issue of the Pollathomas landslide on the Adjournment, I was told that because less than €3 billion in damage was sustained, the European Union would not get involved. This places an onus on national Government which the Bill should address. It is a good Bill. I do not want to take away from it but people's heritage in Pollathomas, where the mountain meets the sea naturally, was destroyed when it fell into the sea. In the past I asked for a special tax incentive scheme for the area because it is the poorest of the State. At the current rate, there will be no one left there within 100 years. In spite of this, we have not seen the Taoiseach, the President or any Minister visiting for weeks. This was a major disaster, the effects of which must be addressed.

The sea is vulnerable and being threatened with every hour that passes. Of the 25 bays regularly monitored by the EPA and local authorities, 12 were eutrophic or enriched. A large proportion of the 446 species of fish in Irish waters, including lampreys and shellfish, are under threat. This is a serious situation that must be addressed. The Bill goes some way to remedying it. That is the reason I welcome it.

Fish farms in south Donegal have claimed that the €50 million harbour development in Killybegs could be the cause of the fish deaths in two bays. I do not know if that is the case but we must recognise the interaction between action taken on the land and what happens in the sea.

We have many riches which place an obligation on us. People have mentioned the gas fields in the sea but this resource, worth billions of euro, was given away before it even reached the shore. That is a tragedy. The wonderful resources the sea gives us, the marine life, the gas and oil, are all gone. Norway has made tremendous use of the resources God gave it but although we have the same resources, we did not use them.

How will drift net and draft net fishermen be policed? GPS technology can indicate a body's position to within a few centimetres. Therefore, we could police the foreign trawlers plundering our waters and those who are dumping. That will, however, require resources, for which there is no provision in the Bill. We have the technology but will we make the resources available in order that we can use them?

This is a commercial State that produces waste that must be disposed of. The tragedy is that so much of it is dumped in the sea and on the land. In County Mayo, near Pollathomas where the tragedy occurred, the seaside village of Geesala is a dumping ground for the sludge from Cork. It should be benefiting from the sea. This is taking place against the wishes of the people and is totally illegal.

Mr. Durkan

Those Corkmen are devils.

Dr. Cowley

The plans are that County Mayo will receive waste from counties Galway and Roscommon. It is already dealing with waste from Sligo. Why is the west bearing the cost of waste on land and in the sea?

We must examine the current situation and think of ways to address the big issues without over-regulating the small person who is trying to eke out a living. I wish the Bill addressed this, examined the dumping that occurred in Pollathomas and investigated the cause of the landslide to ensure it does not happen again.

The Bill should give the people of Pollathomas the resources they urgently need from the Government, a multi-million euro package. They now have no hope. They know the roads and bridges will be fixed but what about the people themselves? Will their futures be fixed? It does not appear that they will. When this happened in Ringsend, the Red Cross was involved. The Red Cross and the European Union are not involved in County Mayo. It is time the Government got involved.

I welcome the Bill but ask how relevant it is to the needs of the people of Pollathomas. What are the implications of the landslide? Also, what about the man dumped in Mountjoy Prison, Deputy Joe Higgins? We live in a large pond and everything we do has an effect. In every international forum, including the European Union, we should push our own agenda in respect of the proper protection of our own resources. I welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction.

Mr. Durkan

If there are parts of this which seem remote to my colleague from the west coast, how much more is that the case in County Kildare where we have a broad knowledge of most things but are not renowned for our seafaring?

Mr. Browne

There is no sea in County Kildare.

Mr. Durkan

As yet – we have not developed the seas around us. We have, however, the largest number of harbours of any county which might come as an awful shock to people. They are the canal harbours along two canals traversing the county but they do not come within the ambit of the Bill.

Like a number of other speakers, to whom I have listened with some interest, I find nothing wrong with the legislation. It is well meant and represents an attempt to put an official structure on something that has been happening without controls up to now. We have seen on our television screens in recent times the dangers of uncontrolled dumping at sea but that is only to speak of what we have been shown. Given the difficulties we have had in relation to dumping on land, I can imagine how much easier it is to dump at sea with impunity. Once dumped, material tends to disappear downward at a very rapid rate. However, we now know and should have known long ago that while such material may disappear from view, it does not disappear from the environment. It may well cause serious problems at a later stage.

I welcome to the House my colleague from the neighbouring constituency of County Meath.

Mr. J. Bruton

Unlike County Kildare, we have a coastline.

Mr. Durkan

Indeed, Meath is a maritime county and I have no doubt the Bill will have special meaning for its population.

My colleague, Deputy Cowley, mentioned the global positioning system, a technology I have in my car. It runs into trouble on some of the road networks in this city due to the levels of traffic congestion but I will be very nice to Members opposite by refusing to discuss that matter. The Minister of State will be glad to know that I make only a passing reference.

Mr. J. Bruton

The Deputy would be causing trouble for the Chair if he discussed the matter.

Mr. Durkan

Absolutely. I hope GPS will help the powers that be to identify with some accuracy the locations of abuses which occur. I also hope that in contrast to the problem of traffic congestion, the powers that be will be able to do something about such abuses.

The legislation before us makes provision in respect of what can be seen and controlled. However, there are also things we cannot control such as large ocean-going oil tankers which get into difficulty on the high seas. While I do not wish to refer back to Bills we discussed earlier this year, I worry about the tendency of people to dump what they wish at sea, especially when I reflect on the difficulties we have had controlling dumping on land. The tendency is greater than we have considered previously. Unfortunately, I have serious doubts about the policing of dumping, despite the passage of this Bill and its mention of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, though he will no doubt have a major impact. We have become aware of the dangers we face once pollution takes place but we may not know until many years hence the full extent of the dumping which has taken place at sea already. The dumping which has occurred may yet result in very severe damage.

Various Members have spoken about the dumping of nuclear waste at sea. It seems to have been the philosophy heretofore that once material was dumped, it was out of sight and, therefore, out of mind. People seem to have thought the sea would absorb what was dumped naturally over time but we are not so sure of that now. Our suspicions have been aroused more than once in recent times. I particularly note the dumping of fish and fish processing materials which appears to have created serious problems for marine life.

While the Bill's provisions in respect of notices and licences will put the control of dumping on a statutory footing, what will happen if a person who applies for a licence ignores the conditions under which he or she is supposed to operate? Many who have applied for licences in the past have behaved in this way. Will the pollution of our harbours continue to take place?

I presume provision has been made in respect of refusals to grant licences. In the event of a refusal, the material which was to be dumped will have to be stored, presumably on land. The time has come to face reality in terms of all stored materials of a polluting nature. I would like to hear a declaration of our intention to either store such material permanently or render it harmless. It is necessary to do this to bring the debate further. If this question is not addressed, the residual build-up of pollutants will cause serious problems in the future. This issue does not only affect those living in maritime counties, it affects all of us, our marine life and ecology. It is necessary to deal with it to ensure there is a positive plan to address problems rather than a series of regulations outlining what one cannot do. Some means must be found which makes it clear to those who have waste of which they must get rid that there is somewhere for them to dump or eliminate it. If we fail to do this, we will always have this problem.

We have had this debate in relation to agriculture. When an animal dies, there must be an incentive for the owner to dispose of it in an orderly way. The solution is to find an orderly way in which to dispose of waste materials and provide an incentive for people to use it. It is not very difficult to do. The Minister knows full well that if a positive incentive to encourage a person in the right direction is provided, there can be no excuse for breaching rules and regulations. We must recognise that industries, including those in the marine sector, will always generate pollutants of one kind or another.

On the policing aspect, I have a vision of the Minister or the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism dressed up in scuba gear heading for the high seas with his iron lung, diving apparatus, etc., as he seeks out these pollutants on the sea bed. I hope it will not come to that. We would not like to see the Minister suffering in that way, nor would we like him to send any other Minister to the sea bed in that quest.

Mr. Sargent

Greenpeace will do that.

Mr. Durkan

Absolutely. I would like to hear more from the Minister about the policing and monitoring aspects. We are often criticised in this House for introducing legislation which is fine in theory but does not have any effect in practice. This is an area where we can arrive at that juncture.

Another interesting aspect is the fact that no extra staff will be needed to implement the legislation. I cannot understand how the legislation, which is necessary and desirable and which we support, is to be policed without extra staff. Who will do that if it is to be operated in that way? More importantly, how effective will it be? Perhaps the Minister will hand over full responsibility to the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism but that Minister is already overworked. The Minister should not expect him to inquire into these matters. I would like to know the practicalities involved. I would have expected further information on that aspect.

Mr. Sargent

Deep sea zero tolerance.

Mr. Durkan

The Bill does not require additional staffing and will not involve any net additional cost to the Exchequer. This is the kind of legislation this House has been seeking for years. It will cost nothing to implement. It is to provide for a licence which will be put up on a port wall or whatever the case may be. No extra staff will be required. I have my doubts about the strength of such legislation but that is a matter for another day. I know the Acting Chairman has a good knowledge of the coastal areas and is fully aware of the dangers of a lack of financing, staffing and so on.

I welcome the legislation and hope that it will be effective. I hope it will not be parked and that it eliminates the kind of pollution we have seen. It does not address the problem of the unseen polluter on the high seas who can have as big an impact as anything we have seen on our shores and harbours.

Mr. Sargent

Tá áthas orm deis a fháil labhairt ar an mBille um Dhumpáil ar Farraige (Leasú) 2000 and like Deputy Durkan, I will not hold my breath in anticipation of enormous changes, although one lives in hope. It is important to have this debate, however, to get a sense of where interests lie in the Oireachtas in regard to maritime matters. That is a revelation in itself because we have only had Deputies from the Opposition benches offering to speak on the Bill. Perhaps the Minister might enlighten us in due course as to the reason there is so little interest from his side of the House. What we see, however, is a reflection of a wider disregard for maritime matters, which is surprising and difficult to understand in a maritime country.

We all remember the traditional map displayed in our schools, nuair a bhí tusa agus mise ag múineadh, a Chathaoirligh. The map of Ireland on the wall resembled the shape of a teddy bear. That image of the country is imprinted on the minds of many people. The map of our maritime territory, however, is very different. It resembles the shape of a rugby ball, with the map of the land of Ireland looking like a logo on that rugby ball. It is quite a small part of the overall area which includes Irish waters. It would be important going forward if the Department of Education and Science took account of the fact that we are not just a bit of green land on the edge of Europe. We have a maritime territory and heritage and we have responsibilities to ensure we hand that on to future generations in a fit state.

That is all the more obvious when one considers the way our coastal towns are planned. The Bill refers to the Harbours Acts of 1996 and 2000 but it is clear that many towns are planned with their backs to the sea. They see the sea as nothing other than a repository for whatever effluent they choose to dispose of. One could be vulgar and talk about the town planners organising our towns as if they are mooning at the sea but that is the connotation when one considers the way the towns were planned. Unfortunately, that is reflected in many of the actions taken at Government, local and individual level regarding the sea.

There are exceptions to that, however, and I think of legends in their lifetime, people like John de Courcy Ireland who, if he was Taoiseach, would have made a significant impact in terms of Ireland realising its potential as a maritime country. He follows a long list of dignitaries and famous people throughout history, going back to Queen Meave and St. Brendan the Navigator who put us on the map as a maritime country. They remind us of our wealth as a nation and our potential.

I would also like to pay tribute to a late colleague of mine whom I would list among those who regularly reminded us of our maritime heritage. Councillor Vincent McDowell, who died recently, was a member of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. He did not just write books about the tides and the almanac for seafaring. He also built boats and treated the sea as a highway as well as a second home. I recall Vincent arriving at Balbriggan harbour and making a call to my house asking me to come down to the harbour and join him on his boat, Saoirse, which was moored there. He had travelled from Dún Laoghaire in the same way someone else might come by train or car. Taking the sea seriously and making use of it in a way which is almost second nature is an aspect of Irish life, whatever about public representatives, which is all too rare. Dia lena anam uasal, we remember him as a friend, colleague and a great mentor.

There is still a good deal of unfinished business in respect of the Harbours Act of 1996, with which I was involved. The Minister will recall it also. It is fascinating to read that Act which was supposedly a way of resolving a long-standing maritime stand-off on the part of local authorities in Fingal and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown over Bullock Harbour, Skerries Harbour and my own home town of Balbriggan.

Balbriggan Harbour is an indication of the neglect and disinterest shown over the years by the authorities with responsibility for its maintenance and upkeep. Such is the level of disinterest and neglect that even the harbour dues which Dublin Port is expected to collect are not collected. There is a level of indifference which, unfortunately, is all too common in matters relating to the sea. I ask the Minister to act as an honest broker or a peace broker between the local authority and Dublin Port, so there might be some type of settlement. The local authority is obviously afraid of the cost of a liability which has been so long neglected. One could not blame it for that. An independent honest broker is needed to come in and arrange some type of package which would move matters on. As the years and decades go by, the neglect takes a toll, and the sea is merciless in that regard. I ask the Minister to act on that as well as deal with the legislation in due course.

Deputy Durkan said he did not expect the Minister to don his scuba gear and check out all the problems below the waves but I have experience of working with Greenpeace which is quite adept at donning scuba gear and going about that exact work. I know from living in Cork in the early 1980s how important the activities of those raising the issues, such as Help Organise Peaceful Energy, HOPE, which went on to become EarthWatch, and Greenpeace, were in finally bringing about the end of the dumping of nuclear material off the south-west coast which had been happening there with impunity over the years and, indeed, in the Irish Sea as well. There is still a risk of dumping happening by default. We see that from time to time when oil tankers get into difficulty. My colleagues, Deputy Eamon Ryan and Deputy Boyle, myself and others have raised the issue in this House that Ireland does not have sufficient towing capacity for ships that flounder, particularly large tankers. We talk about the Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill as if it will be of some assistance but it will be of little assistance unless we act on the recommendations of the Government that there should be towing capacity which is up to the job of ensuring large tankers – perhaps single hull – do not flounder, get washed up or sink to the bottom of the sea leaving an appalling legacy. It will be too late to deal with the situation once the damage is done.

The Bill mentions the need for policing, empowering the courts and so forth and imposing monetary penalties. This is one area where policing is needed, particularly if one is going to license dumping. I am nervous about the way in which certain unscrupulous individuals will take advantage of any kind of licensing arrangement.

Although it is a dangerous proposal because it could be abused but for what it is worth, I know from looking at cases off New Zealand and Australia that decommissioned trawlers have been removed of their machinery, engines and oil. What is left is basically a wooden construction which is non-toxic and which will not damage the maritime environment. Such trawlers are allowed to be deposited where a reef will form – not on a reef, but on a sandy or rocky area which becomes home and a breeding ground for fish stocks. It also serves to protect those stocks from fishing because that activity must stay outside the area. The Minister said that had been looked at but was not possible. That is fair enough in that I would prefer to adopt a precautionary principle. However, if decommissioning of boats takes places that is perhaps one way of redeeming the problem, namely, by helping the breeding of fish and trying to restock areas where over-fishing has occurred. However, I will take advice from the Minister's Department on that given that I assume he has the expertise available to him to assess the pros and cons of any such proposal.

We have been told the first two of a fleet of 13 merchant ships coming from Virginia in the United States will not pass through Irish waters. We trust and hope that is the case but, nonetheless, even if they do not pass through Irish waters, the sinking, accidental or otherwise, of such vessels would contaminate the sea with PCBs and such persistent chemicals which would not be welcome and would have to be resisted and stopped if at all possible. Will the Minister make strong representations given the Basel and other conventions? It is against the spirit of the Basel Convention that ships sail to a country from which they do not originate, particularly across the Atlantic Ocean, with all the prospects of bad weather associated with such a voyage. What has the Government done other than to say they are not to come near Irish waters? That is not good enough in terms of international responsibilities.

I live in Balbriggan in north County Dublin where levels of technetium-99 emanating from Sellafield are an ongoing problem, as the Minister knows. That is ongoing dumping at sea. It is insidious and poisonous and it should be stopped. I ask the Minister to take the opportunity of this Bill to push home that point once more with the British authorities and internationally and that the European convention take steps to phase out the EURATOM Treaty which is a creature of a time when nuclear power was seen to be a cure-all. I hope we know better now.

In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s thousands of tonnes of radioactive material were dumped in the Irish Sea. The Minister's Department carried out a study to establish whether there was any significance to it. As mentioned in his Department's report, the Minister sought to allay public fear. It strikes me that in rushing to allay public fear, the testing was insufficient because water quality was tested. Nuclear material lying at the bottom of the sea often involves heavy elements which will not be apparent in the water quality. If the Minister and his Department were serious about testing the potential damage and future problems of long-term nuclear dumping, it would be important to test the seabed and to look for the problem which may be stirred up and agitated as time goes on, as happened with plutonium along the coast of Cumbria which was believed would sink into the sediment never to have any environmental effects. We now know it did not sink into the sediment but was agitated by the water movement, became airborne, in part, and was carried back on land with the prevailing wind as sediment. This matter is unresolved. I ask that we look more closely at the seabed of the Irish Sea where those thousands of tonnes of nuclear material were dumped in previous decades.

There is also the wider issue of the European Union. There was an interesting article on this in the business pages of The Irish Times. The accepted wisdom among many people is that we have been the recipient of much EU moneys and, thereby, owe a huge amount for this to our colleagues in the EU, such as the Germans who pay much in taxation. John McManus, in The Irish Times article “So Long and Thanks for all the Fish”, states that in terms of transfers from EU coffers since 1973, we have benefited to the tune of €30 billion. We are no doubt impressed with this figure. It has been used in different ways, not all of it to our benefit, but, overall, it has been well used.

However, in terms of fish taken from Irish waters by mainly non-Irish boats, John McManus estimates the value to be €120 billion, based on EUROSTAT figures. In terms of our maritime environment, it has been generously given and far more generously than people often acknowledge. He says that this surprising figure is arrived at by multiplying the estimate for the amount of fish caught in Irish waters during the period – some 36 million tonnes – by the average value of catch when processed over the period. The rule of thumb adopted by EUROSTAT is that the value of the catch is doubled when processed. He admits it is a crude analysis and can be picked apart by anyone determined to do so. However, he continues to state:

Even assuming that the figures exaggerate the value of the fish caught by even 100%, that still leaves us with €50 billion which is one and half times more than we received in agricultural subsidies and structural funds during that period.

It will be assumed by most people from the outside that we would have used much of this money to reinvigorate our fishing fleet and maritime protection. However, this was not the case. As John McManus points out:

The fishing industry in Ireland has never come close to reflecting the size of the resource available to it and as a consequence fishermen have never equalled the agricultural lobby in terms of clout. This was the case in 1973 and is still the case today. The total catch of fish landed in Ireland last year was just €250 million and the number of people employed in the industry is around 16,000. Compare this to agriculture which contributes €9.4 billion to the economy and employs 110,000.

There is no doubt that the maritime environment and the fishing industry has continued to be the poor relation. We have much work and catching up to do with regard to the maritime environment.

We should also be starting this Bill with coastal zone management legislation as well. Lack of such legislation has reflected our ability to turn our back on the marine and not even to require planning permission for drainage of wetlands in maritime areas. The Minister of State for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Browne, coming from Wexford, will know how important wetlands are. I ask that the Minister of State takes this as a call of crisis from the maritime sector. The Government needs to reflect beyond the green island that we live on and go further to include the Irish seas as part of our territory.

Mr. J. Bruton

I wish to share time with Deputy Deenihan.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Carey)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. J. Bruton

I am surprised that Deputy Sargent compares agriculture with the fishing industry. Agriculture by its very name is a culture. The product of agriculture is cultivated by deliberate human intervention whether in the form of sowing, breeding stock or having them use the land, whereas fishing is basically hunting. Fishing is taking what is already there in nature. It is not reasonable to compare the two.

Those who refer back to Ireland's accession negotiations and claim that agriculture got the better deal than fishing are not really comparing like with like. There are only so many fish in the sea. As we know from what happened in Newfoundland, too much development of the fishing industry can destroy the resource upon which it is based. The cod fishery disappeared completely without trace along the Newfoundland Grand Banks, thanks to people putting an emphasis on and heavily investing in the fishing industry. Through that very investment it destroyed itself. That is not something that can happen in agriculture. Agriculture is a cultivation industry. There is no form of agriculture, other than that which leads to soil erosion, which has the effect of destroying itself. However, there are forms of expression in the fishing industry that do destroy the resource upon which they depend.

As living standards rise in the world, we will see more people wanting to eat fish. As we are advised that cholesterol is something to be worried about and as the world population ages, the increasing demand will be for fish. The only way that we can satisfy the increasingly strong demand for fish is by introducing the same approach to fishing that is applied to agriculture. In other words, we must move over to fish farming as distinct from fish hunting, which is the current basis of the fishing industry. "Industry" is probably not the word to use.

I have quite a knowledge of Newfoundland due to associations. I know the Minister of State for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is from a part of the country from where many Newfoundlanders came. Currently, in Newfoundland, they are attempting to find a way of creating reservations for fish where they cannot be disturbed by modern trawlers sweeping the bottom of the sea. One of the suggestions to achieve this is to deliberately dump old car wrecks and iron works of various kinds at sea. This would make it literally impossible for the conventional methods of fishing to operate because the fishing tackle would be destroyed by these dumps.

We should consider using the actual necessity which we have of getting rid of material by dumping it at sea to create fish reservations. I hope this legislation would not in any way interfere with such proposals. Section 4 refers to the general considerations which must be taken into account which include interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral extraction, desalination and fish and shellfish culture. To my mind, in some circumstances, it is going to be desirable to interfere with fishing. A planned system of dumping inert material that will not damage fish stocks is something that we should actively promote in particular coastal zones. I hope this can be taken into account by this legislation.

If I may avail of the fact that the Chair indulged Deputy Sargent in referring to the EURATOM Treaty, to make a passing reference to it myself. Far from abolishing the EURATOM Treaty, we should recognise that it represents the only legal instrument this country will ever have that will work in stopping some of the activities to which we object at the Sellafield plant. While Britain can ignore UN bodies, it cannot ignore an EU body. The EURATOM Treaty, so long as an adequate emphasis is put on safety in its legal text, is a mechanism whereby, through the European Union, Britain could be commanded to do certain things with regard to its nuclear industry. It is empty symbolism on their part with no real political analysis behind it. People who are interested in combating the risks associated with nuclear power should demand the amendment and enhancement of the EURATOM Treaty to ensure that it puts greater emphasis on safety rather than the current emphasis which is exclusively on research and the promotion of nuclear power. It is a legal instrument that has the capacity to be used to achieve something worthwhile.

My final point is in regard to coastal erosion. In the past three years, every county with a coastline – with the possible exception of Leitrim – has been allocated funds to combat coastal erosion, except County Meath. No money has been allocated in the years 2001-03 to combat coastal erosion in Laytown, Mornington, Bettystown, Gormanstown or Mosney. I have the honour to represent this area. The coast is subject to erosion and I hope the Government Department that is allocating the budget for this subject will take account of the fact that the Meath coastline has been left out of the allocations for the past three years and ought to be included on this occasion in the drafting of the 2004 budget. On that slightly parochial note, I will hand over to Deputy Deenihan.

Mr. Deenihan

During the debate on an earlier Bill dealing with hazardous waste, I raised the issue of the custom of oil tankers and coal ships washing out their holds in the Shannon Estuary. As a result, at times the beaches there are affected by oil slicks and other types of waste. In his reply, will the Minister clarify if the Bill covers the cleaning out of the holds of ships in estuaries?

I welcome the Bill, as I come from County Kerry which is a maritime county. For too long we ignored the great advantages of our coastline. We probably looked more to our land than our marine resources. It is only now that we are beginning to see the vast potential which the marine holds for us. Kerry has some 300 miles of coastline, which with a few exceptions is totally underutilised.

I read a report recently in a newspaper about a conference in Dingle at which it was claimed that there are grave issues facing the marine environment and that many of our species are threatened. There is a major threat to the biodiversity of our coastline. Of the 25 bays regularly monitored by the EPA and local authorities, 12 bays or estuaries were eutrophic, or enriched, and some 14 of the 444 species of fish in Irish waters were under threat.

The days of untreated sewage being dumped at sea as a matter of course seem to be coming to an end. Previously it was believed that if the dumping took place far enough from the coastline that the sea's powers of dilution would make it harmless. Irrespective of what is dumped at sea, it will have an effect on some part of the ecosystem.

As the party spokesman on tourism, it is my belief that, as yet, we are only in the early stages of capitalising on our vast sea resources from a tourism point of view. Tourists who come here are horrified by the treatment of some parts of our coastline. The bad examples are close to harbours in the big urban centres. I am pleased that harbour boards, in particular, which have jurisdiction over stretches of our coastline, will now have a responsibility to produce five-year plans. I welcome the restrictions on dumping waste material following construction on harbour sites that will, to some extent, be controlled by the Bill.

The issue of coastal erosion has not been fully addressed. The amount of money in the national development plan is inadequate. An audit was carried out in Kerry, which quoted a conservative estimate of €30 million as the amount required to stem erosion along the Kerry coastline. I do not think there is much more money currently in the fund for the southern region. We are not winning the battle against coastal erosion, we are losing land to the sea on an hourly basis. Unless people live by the sea and represent communities along the seaboard, generally speaking they are not aware of what is happening.

The management of our coastline is an important issue. Karin Dubsky recently suggested that a coastal management group should be put in place that would include the statutory agencies and also the local voluntary groups. Has the Department taken up that idea?

In the context of the debate on the tourism Bill last summer, I suggested that there should be a more interdepartmental approach to tourism. Given that there are a number of Departments with responsibility for the protection of our seas and coastline, there should also be an interdepartmental approach to the management of this issue. At present there is too much fragmentation.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has a major role to play because of the break-up of the former Dúchas. The Minister referred to the fact that it will now have responsibility for special areas of conservation. While I welcome the Bill, there are a number of issues that have not been addressed by it. The Minister should take on board the type of forum proposed by Karin Dubsky. From time to time, legislation needs to be upgraded.

The last major Bill on this area was promoted by Deputy Gilmore. Things have moved on since then. I ask the Minister to state whether the custom of merely cleaning out holds and hulls of cargo vessels in estuaries around the country is covered in the Bill.

Debate adjourned.