I am delighted to revisit the Dumping at Sea Bill. I recall contributing to this Act five or six years ago when it was before the House. The Fine Gael Party welcomes the Bill. Anything that aims to ensure the well-being of the sea around our coast will get the support of everyone in the House.
There are, however, a number of aspects to the Bill I wish to highlight. The Minister said that early enactment is desirable. I will return to this point later. This is an example of enabling legislation which ties up many loose ends, such as the incorporation of those Departments which were not included in the 1996 Bill. It is one thing to legislate for something but it is an entirely different matter to police it. How well will the legislation be policed? In five or ten years time will we be able to say that the seas are more environmentally friendly as a result of these provisions? What policing measures will be available to the Departments involved in this area to ensure that what we legislate for today will become a reality?
The Bill is primarily a regulatory measure which will decide that only material which is adjudged on scientific advice – that is an important aspect – is suitable for disposal at sea. Material that arises from port dredging must be disposed of in the proper place and manner.
In regard to the protection of important natural and archaeological heritage, the Bill includes reference to the Minister with responsibility for this area. The relevant Minister will be consulted when the need arises by the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. It is reasonable to assume that the office of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will be included since the heritage brief has been added to his portfolio.
The consultative process also involves the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in relation to water quality and radiological protection matters. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment will be involved in so far as this relates to industrial matters.
The remit of the heritage and planning division of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is now more important, or is as important, as that of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources so far as sea permits are concerned. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will issue the sea permits in concert with the heritage and planning division of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I hope there will be an appeals mechanism for applications concerning natural heritage and archaeological projects. It is extremely important that a balanced approach is taken.
One can readily see the great commercial value of our ports and harbours. If a particular harbour has to be extended, it is not just a case of a few lorry loads of soil; we are talking about thousands of tonnes. There are only two options for the disposal of such soil; it can be sent to landfill or put out to sea. There is no other process for handling it. One would hope that every help will be given to the harbour authorities so that if they need to get rid of huge volumes of earth, debris and so forth, they will be given an opportunity to put it in landfill, if that is that most appropriate course of action. While I am not a scientist, I would question the environmental impact of thousands of tonnes of clay, stones and other debris on the seabed. I assume the scientists will be examining such issues before any permits are granted. While I accept that the ocean is vast in comparison to the land mass, one has to consider the effect on marine life.
It goes without saying that our ports and harbours are extremely important to us from a commercial point of view. As an aside, I was delighted to see from its financial returns last week how well Dublin Port is doing. It is prospering, which is hugely important for our industrial well-being. The more activity generated by the port, the greater the volume of traffic using the ports which brings us back on the merry-go-round to the M50, but that is not the primary purpose of today's discussion.
One would hope that common sense would prevail. While huge volumes of debris would inevitably impact on the seabed, it would probably rehabilitate itself over a period of time. This is something which needs to be done to make way for urgently required commercial entities. Many of our harbours and ports, with the exception of Dublin, are in areas that need extra business. It is important that we have good ports and harbours around the country, from the point of view of decentralisation and regionalisation .
A number of technical matters come to mind in regard to the Bill. Having to put prior notice in the paper is a good idea. People are used to doing this due to the various planning laws in regard to houses and other structures.
As regards the five year dredging plan, I do not have much experience of dredging other than that I spent some time as a Front Bench spokesman on fisheries over the years. I accept that all harbours and ports should have five year plans. I hope it does not necessarily mean that because, for instance, in the case of some substantial development that would not have been envisaged earlier and was proposed within the remit of the five-year plan as laid out, there would be nothing to stop a harbour commissioner or port and docks board from introducing it within the five years. I presume that is the case because it would make no sense if it were not the case.
The policing of the regulations is very important. Many colleagues have spoken of matters that are not within the remit of the Bill and I am sure the Acting Chairman will allow me mention some such matters. Sellafield is a serious problem. While I acknowledge that this Government and every other previous Government has tried unsuccessfully, unfortunately, to have it closed down, it does not appear at the moment that the British authorities have the slightest inclination to do so. It is most important that the pressure is maintained because it is a serious problem on our doorstep. It always was a problem and it always will be one. From a policing point of view it is important that the proper levels are taken and that tests are conducted at regular intervals.
On the matter of nutrient enrichment in the seas around our shores, nobody will deny that for the last ten or 12 years there have been significant contributions made by all Governments. Anything to do with effluent and sewage disposal is extremely costly. The engineering facilities are available and there is no problem in that regard, but there is a problem with money. Until recently it was nothing short of a disgrace and there are still disgraceful spots around the country. Now that the Celtic tiger seems to be almost in the coffin will it mean that over the next nine or ten years there will be a significant slippage again and many of the areas that are simply pumping raw sewage into the sea will take a long time to see the expenditure on investment in the infrastructure?
One's own area always comes to mind. A few months ago I was brought on a tour of beautiful Kinvara in south Galway which is on Galway Bay. It is a small town which prides itself on attracting many thousands of tourists every year. Every bit of sewage created in that town goes straight into Galway Bay. That cannot be good for anybody. While this issue is outside the remit of this Bill, I believe it is important to highlight that fact on this occasion.
There needs to be a planned investment programme for the future in order to cope with good and bad times. This business of stop and go investment where if things are going well the investment is made and if they are not going well then investment is forgotten about, will not be good enough in the future.
As Fine Gael spokesman for regional development I was very upset to observe the problems which have beset the Corrib oil business in County Mayo. Irrespective of where the gas came ashore, it could always be expected that if it did not come ashore in Connacht it would be a very long time before either our big or small towns would be supplied with natural gas. Everybody says it was because Connacht is so far away and that has always been our problem in the west of Ireland. Even when it arrived on our coast we still have problems getting it ashore. It has caused a lot of disruption to those who live in the area. Speaking from a regional point of view I can inform the House that we want the gas and it is needed in our community for industry, particularly to give small towns a chance. I hope the matter will be taken care of eventually.
It is very important for the general public to have an appreciation of the concept of safety at sea and the concept of ensuring that the sea does not become a cesspool. The model of the tidy towns competition could be used. People should be encouraged to take a genuine interest because the sea is for everybody and it is very important. There are many people, it could be nine out of ten people in this country, who do not regard themselves as having any connection with the sea and they are mistaken. We all have a vested interest in ensuring that the seas are clear and unpolluted.
I wish to take my cap off to a man and a programme, Tom MacSweeney of RTE, the "Seascapes" man. Many people who have nothing to do with the sea, other than cross over to Holyhead a couple of times a year, and who have no clue about the issues, listen to that radio programme. Some people tell me they do not know whether it is to listen to the programme or to the signature tune but one way or the other it is a very beneficial programme. I compliment Tom MacSweeney on an excellent job carried out over many years. It is not just a thought that came into his head and was gone in a season. Many people have a genuine interest in that programme.
Deputy Gilmore steered the 1996 Act through the House. The limit of the Irish jurisdiction for dumping at sea was increased from 12 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles. That had a significant effect. I assume it took a year or two for the 1996 legislation to get into top gear. What type of policing was there? Were any companies or individuals found to be causing pollution and, if so, what legal or other action was taken?
I ask the Minister of State to give the House an indication of how the policing arrangements are synchronised. Many people have said to me that this is the best Parliament in the world for bringing in laws but that we seldom if ever see them through. I ask the Minister of State to give the House an indication of the sort of people or groups who broke the 1996 law and the extent of the lawbreaking. I do not condone anyone throw ing a plastic bag into the sea but I am referring to a substantial fracture of this law. How did the courts and the policing bodies react to this law? Was the impression given that we meant business? That is most important. When talking about the attitudes towards dumping in a big bad world such as this, it has been represented to me that there are no fewer than 80,000 different types of chemicals in use worldwide.