Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 Jul 2004

Vol. 588 No. 6

Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2000 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 6 to delete "AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES".

—(Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources).

Mr. Broughan

According to the explanatory memorandum, the aim of the Bill is the reform of the main section of the earlier legislation, which is why I responded to the amendment's removal of this phrase. Why is it to be removed? As it stood, the Title covered a wide range of issues which I and my colleagues in the Green Party and Fine Gael tried to address on Committee Stage. We were conscious of the need to push the legislation out.

It is to be regretted that important legislation from 2000 is still being dealt with on the last day of the major session of 2004. The Department and Chief Whip should ensure that important legislation is not put on the back burner as this has been. While I accept there are many different territories, we need to carry out our business more efficiently.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Browne)

I accept that 2000 is some time ago but Ministers must get in the queue with regard to legislation. While I do not know why the Bill was not dealt with in 2000 or 2001, from 2002 my Department has pushed as much legislation as possible, first through Cabinet and then through the House. We must wait our turn but the Department has brought forward a substantial amount of legislation, particularly in the past year. I take the point made by the Deputy about the delay but there is little we can do about it at present.

Mr. Broughan

Why change the title? What is the import of this amendment?

Mr. Browne

The Parliamentary Counsel has stated it is irrelevant and, therefore, there is no point in including the phrase.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We move to amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 3 is related and the amendments may be taken together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, lines 12 and 13, to delete all words from and including "cause" in line 12 down to and including "means" in line 13 and substitute the following:

"also cause the register to be published by electronic means. The electronic record of allocations and registered permits should be updated within 14 days of each application being made and notice of the Minister's decision should be published electronically at the same time as the applicants are notified of the decision.".

I am proud to see my humble little amendment grouped with Deputy Kehoe's lengthy one. I hope mine has the same import as the longer amendment.

I thank the Minister for arranging for certain Opposition Deputies to be briefed by civil servants in the period between Committee and Report Stages. I found it beneficial and useful and I appreciate the help of both the Minister and the officials in that regard. I also appreciate the manner in which the Minister has brought various Bills through the House. He facilitated proper debate and discussion and accepted amendments where appropriate. That was most welcome. It makes the job of Members on this side of the House more rewarding if one believes the valid points one raises are being heard.

The point made in this amendment is relatively simple and relates to the rapid posting on the website of details of the allocation of registered permits. It also requires that the Minister's decision be published electronically at the same time as the applicants are notified of the decision. While it will require a certain amount of exactness within the Civil Service to update on a regular basis, that is appropriate in an age when more communications are conducted via the web and electronic communications media. We should legislate for that and set high standards as to when notices are posted by electronic means. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Kehoe

Section 4 makes a number of substantive and intricate amendments to section 5 of the principal Act. In addition, there are a number of Government amendments to this section. As a parliamentarian, I have access to the Oireachtas Library and to the Internet but I had difficulty trying to piece the amendments into their proper place. What chance would a member of the public have to understand the effect of section 4?

My amendment is simple. It sets out section 5 of the principal Act as amended by section 4 of the Bill. This is good drafting practice and will greatly assist the reader, lay person and the politician.

Mr. Broughan

I support my colleagues' amendments. I agree that the Minister has been forthcoming, unlike his colleague, the Minister for Transport, at the transport committee last week, who would not accept any reasonable amendments. The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, however, has been forthcoming when dealing with a number of legislative measures.

Full use of the electronic media, particularly the Internet, is critical for interested citizens and people who are concerned about the marine environment. It will enable them to track events as they occur. A number of later amendments are similar to Deputy Ryan's and relate to the time frame within which interested citizens can make submissions. Members of the House have experience of dealing with planning procedures, An Bord Pleanála and so forth and our major concern is that we must work at frantic, breakneck speed when trying to make submissions. I welcome the amendment.

I tried earlier to work out the import of the amendment Bill for the principal Act so I can understand what Deputy Kehoe is trying to achieve. The provision should be as simple as possible so citizens can understand their rights with regard to the critical matter of protecting the environment. I commend Deputy Kehoe and Deputy Ryan on these amendments.

Mr. Browne

The amendment is opposed as being unnecessary. A copy of each application for a dumping at sea permit is posted on the Department's website on receipt and may be accessed immediately by any interested person. The Department must also register dumping at sea permits issued, which is the decision on successful applications. Section 5 and amendment No. 22 deal with applications being posted on the Department's website but section 4 refers to permits granted being posted on the website. When we reach section 5, we will have dealt with a number of the issues raised by the Deputies.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

While it might be the habit to post notice of applications on the site at present, is there anything to compel the Department to do that? This is, in essence, a voluntary system whereby such notices are posted. Is there not a case for firming that up in legislation?

Mr. Browne

Section 5 requires the Department to do it.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Does section 5 require the Department to do it by electronic means within a specific period?

Mr. Browne

It requires the Department to do it but not within a specific period.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

That is the point. While it requires a certain exactness within the Department or a rigour or discipline which might be difficult to apply, it is appropriate that it be applied. People who might have an interest in a certain application or decision would like that decision to be made available as quickly as possible.

Mr. Kehoe

I agree with Deputy Ryan. Deputy Broughan referred to planning applications and the like. People should have a right to see the applications.

Mr. Browne

Section 5 states:

The Minister shall cause to be published by electronic means—

(a) all applications received for permits on or after 1 January, 2001, and

(b) all submissions or observations under subsection (3) in relation to such applications.

It would be the Department's intention that they would be posted on the website immediately.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

The timing of the posting of such notices has an effect on people's ability to make submissions with regard to decisions or applications. Does the Minister not agree that time is of the essence in some of these cases?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does the Minister have any comment on amendment No. 3 which is also being discussed?

Mr. Browne

Amendment No. 3 is opposed as being unnecessary. It was opposed on Committee Stage for the same reason. The drafting by the Parliamentary Counsel of section 4 which makes a number of amendments to section 5 of the Dumping at Sea Act 1996, is in accordance with current best practice and is clear as to its purpose. It is noted that the Deputy has not proposed any change of substance. The restatement of the extensive remainder of section 5 of the Dumping at Sea Act 1996, which is unaffected by the Bill, would be disproportionate in a short and clearly focused Bill.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Given that the Minister opposed the amendment on Committee Stage and continues to do so on this Stage, I will not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 12 to 17, inclusive, and 21 are related to amendment No. 4 and amendments Nos. 13 to 17, inclusive, are alternatives to amendment No. 12. Is it agreed that amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 12 to 17, inclusive, and 21 be discussed together? Agreed.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 5, line 17, to delete "21" and substitute "14".

This amendment is a continuation of the same point made in the earlier amendment in terms of the length of time for which the developer or person seeking a licence is required to put a notice of that in a local newspaper. The argument has been made both on Committee Stage and, separately, by the officials that it is necessary to give companies a certain period of time to arrange this. However, the nature of the permits being sought mean they are rarely for small scale emergency operations but require a good deal of forethought and organisation.

In such circumstances it should be possible for someone seeking a permit to advertise in a relevant newspaper within 14 days. Time is sometimes of the essence. It is difficult for the public to be aware of what is threatening or affecting the environment. We should therefore do everything possible to support the public in raising concerns. Swift advertising of the notice in this case would be a step in the right direction.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 relate to types of permit. We had some debate on this on Committee Stage. The nature of the permit sought is relevant, particularly in estuary areas where different newspapers are read on either side of the estuary. Typically, on one side of an estuary an advertisement regarding a dredging development might be carried in a local newspaper which appeals to a community which does not have a particular interest in the dredging development, whereas the community on the other side of the estuary which has a keen interest in such a development would not see the advertisement because it has not appeared in their local newspaper.

The intent of amendment No. 6 is to recognise that possibility and ensure that advertisements are placed in a number of different newspapers in an area, or in any local newspaper which is circulated close to the area in respect of which the permit sought. That would not be hugely expensive. It would be a fraction of the cost of the works involved, a minute expenditure. It would not constitute a major administrative burden. Once an advertisement is placed in a newspaper it can quite easily be replicated elsewhere. It would ensure that the public is informed about these often very significant developments which they would not otherwise know about until they saw a dredger in an estuary or bay. These are small but significant amendments aimed at achieving public involvement in the process and which I hope the Minister of State will support.

Mr. Broughan

I will speak on amendments Nos. 5, 16 and 17 in my name. I support the comments made by my colleague. The Minister of State has moved an amendment similar to amendment No. 5 which provides for publication in a newspaper circulating nationally. The point has been very well made by Deputy Eamon Ryan that different sides of a bay or a large coastal area may constitute different regions in terms of newspaper circulation. That is a fundamental reason for ensuring national publication of such matters.

There is increasing interest in the marine environment. A number of specialised groups, such as the UCC group, CoCoNet, and various other groups are interested in monitoring dredging and other issues of dumping at sea around our coastline. It is important that such interested parties should have relevant information which would not otherwise be available to people unless they were residents of or regular visitors to an area. That is what I am seeking in amendment No. 5. I support amendment No. 4 and the principle of amendment No. 6 for the same reason, namely, that people should be given the earliest warning of dredging or discharge into the marine environment.

Like most people, my experience has been in dealing with ordinary planning applications, appeals, oral hearings and so on with An Bord Pleanála. I am therefore conscious of the importance of giving interested parties the maximum amount of time in which to respond to and make submissions. That is why, in amendment No. 16, I sought to extend the time provided for in the new section 5A of the principal Act from 21 days to 30 days. From my experience of ordinary planning, I am conscious of how short a time 35 days is in which to respond. It usually takes a couple of weeks to study the impact a development might have in one's constituency. There is very little time in which to respond. I deplore this in ordinary planning. Similarly, in the context of the marine environment, I wanted to allow more scope for submissions. In amendment No. 17, I seek to increase the time allowed from one month to 42 days to allow the maximum amount of time for interested parties to make submissions.

It is difficult to track developments. The Minister of State has already tabled a number of amendments that relate to the timeframe for making submissions and for the publication of information. However, there is still scope for the greatest possible democratic practice and the greatest possible transparency. I represent a constituency in which a new city is being built and where monumental developments are planned. A public representative has very little time or resources to monitor these and put up the best case on behalf of citizens. Conscious of that, I ask the Minister of State to provide the greatest possible leeway in policing the marine environment. I urge him to accept my amendments and those of Deputy Eamon Ryan.

Mr. Kehoe

Amendment No. 12 seeks to delete lines 40 to 52 and substitute the following:

"(3) A person may, in writing, within——

(a) in the case of proposed dredging, over a period of not more than 12 months, for the maintenance of navigable depths, 21 days, or

(b) in any other case, 1 month,

after the date on which a notice under subsection (1) is published, make a submission or observations to the Minister about the proposal.

(4) A person may not make a submission under subsection (3) in a case of dredging which, in the opinion of the Minister, is urgently required for the purposes of navigational safety and is specified in a notice under subsection (1) to be of an urgent nature.".

Subsection (3) of the new section 5A as inserted by the Bill is unusual in that it sets out the exception first and then the rule. That seems contrary to logic. It would surely make more sense to alert people to the rule before setting out exceptions to it. I hope the Minister of State will accept my amendment. If he examines it carefully, he will see that I have altered the form and not the substance of the subsection. I concur with Deputies Eamon Ryan and Broughan regarding their amendments to which I will return later.

Mr. Browne

This amendment is opposed. The period of 21 days specified in the Bill allows applicants sufficient time to arrange to place the required public notice in a local newspaper and to arrange with the Garda Síochána for the deposit of documentation for public viewing in Garda stations. It also allows the Department time to assess whether there are any substantial errors or omissions in the application which should be rectified prior to its being put forward formally for public consultation. Fourteen days would not be sufficient for these purposes. Details of all applications for dumping at sea are posted on the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources website on receipt and are therefore immediately accessible to interested persons.

As on Committee Stage, I am opposing amendment No. 5 as it is not considered necessary for notice of every permit application to be published in a national as well as a local newspaper, which is the primary medium. Moreover, apart from giving rise to unnecessary expense, such a requirement ignores the immediate posting of details of the application on the Department's website, which will ensure that any interested person anywhere can access that information immediately.

Regarding a test case, departmental officials met representatives of the Shannon Foynes Port Company in February 2004 to discuss various technical issues regarding the port company's proposed application to dispose of material from maintenance dredging from 2004 to 2008. At that meeting, it was agreed that the Shannon Foynes Port Company's application should be used as a test case for the new requirements regarding public notices. The decision to publish a notice in the Irish Independent on 15 March 2004, a national rather than a local newspaper, was taken owing to the fact that dredging would take place in both Limerick Port and Foynes.

One of the issues raised on Committee Stage was how the dredging of Foynes might impact on local business and the marine environment in County Clare, as Deputy Broughan has said. It was also to allow for the widest possible notice to access its impact.

It should also be noted that the public notice allows for a period of one calendar month for comments from members of the public, as specified in the Bill. The cost of publishing the notice was approximately €4,800. However, it is likely that other such notices in a local newspaper only will be less expensive. Drogheda Port Company published a similar notice in a local newspaper for a proposed capital dredging project at Tom Roes Point. The national newspaper was used in one area at a cost of €4,800. The local newspaper in Drogheda was also used, since it dealt specifically with that town. I do not have the figure but I know that the cost was substantially less.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

I apologise for not realising that amendments Nos. 12 to 17, inclusive, were being taken together. Deputy Kehoe raised the point regarding the new section 5A(3) of the principal Act as inserted by the Bill that we are allowing for the exception and then allowing for the rule. The purpose of my amendment was to standardise the whole process so there would not be such exceptions. I will be interested to hear the Minister's view on why section 5A(3) is set out in the manner described by Deputy Kehoe.

Mr. Browne

That section is designed to highlight urgent cases and the need to deal with them in a specific manner.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Broughan

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 5, line 19, before "newspaper" to insert "national newspaper and a".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, line 23, to delete "a newspaper" and substitute "the newspapers".

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 7 to 11, inclusive, are related and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Browne

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, line 32, to delete "brief details of" and substitute "a brief sketch map showing".

I have carefully reviewed section 5 which contains the most important provisions of the Bill, in light of concerns expressed by Deputies on Committee Stage. I subsequently had very useful discussions with officials from my Department. I am glad to be able to respond with the amendments which I have tabled for approval in the spirit of securing improvements in the preparation and consideration of applications for dumping at sea permits.

These amendments are proposed to the new section 5A(2) as inserted by section 5 of the Bill to require public notices of permit applications also to include a brief, user-friendly sketch map of the site concerned and details of the dredging and dumping methods proposed. Those requirements would more transparently and readily help advise interested parties of the locations and nature of proposed dredging and dumping operations, thus focusing attention on the relevant issues and allaying fears generated by a lack of relevant information.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

I thank the Minister of State once again. I commend him on his actions in listening to some of the arguments coming from this side of the House on Committee Stage and in meetings with his officials, setting out very sensible amendments, which, though seemingly minor, could make a significant difference to the manner in which we allow for public consultation. In particular, providing for a sketch map of the site will make those advertisements about which we were talking far more effective at making what is being proposed immediately apparent to the average member of the public. The series of amendments supersedes the need for amendment No. 8 in my name and I commend the Minister of State and his officials on their action in that regard.

Mr. Broughan

I share Deputy Ryan's sentiments and commend him on bringing forward the thrust of these amendments on Second and Committee Stages. It is very valuable that we are to get a map showing the relationship with positions on land, with the general location very clearly set out for everyone to see, along with the methods of the proposed dredging and dumping. Once again, I commend the Minister of State on being so forthcoming in listening to the Opposition on important amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 8 not moved.

Mr. Browne

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 5, line 33, to delete "or sites," and substitute "or sites and the approximate distance therefrom to a specified place on the mainland and brief details of".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Browne

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 5, line 34, to delete "and" and substitute ",".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Browne

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 5, line 36, after "involved" to insert "and the method of the proposed dredging or dumping as the case may be".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Kehoe

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 5, to delete lines 40 to 52, and substitute the following:

"(3) A person may, in writing, within——

(a) in the case of proposed dredging, over a period of not more than 12 months, for the maintenance of navigable depths, 21 days, or

(b) in any other case, 1 month,

after the date on which a notice under subsection (1) is published, make a submission or observations to the Minister about the proposal.

(4) A person may not make a submission under subsection (3) in a case of dredging which, in the opinion of the Minister, is urgently required for the purposes of navigational safety and is specified in a notice under subsection (1) to be of an urgent nature.".

Question, "That the words and figures proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 13 not moved.

Mr. Browne

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 5, line 43, after "subsection (1)" to insert ", which is published in a newspaper circulating nationally,".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Browne

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 5, line 44, after "nature" to insert "for the reason or reasons stated in the notice".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Broughan

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 5, line 48, to delete "21" and substitute "30".

Question, "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Broughan

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 5, line 49, to delete "1 month" and substitute "42 days".

Question, "That the word and figure proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are alternatives to amendment No. 18 and the three amendments may be taken together by agreement.

Mr. Kehoe

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 6, to delete lines 21 to 38, and substitute the following:

"(6) The Minister shall not consider an application referred to in subsection (1) until after——

(a) the period specified in subsection (3) in respect of the proposed dredging, after publication of the notice, and

(b) the period of 21 days after a copy of any submission or observations has been given to the applicant under subsection (5) or, if the applicant responds to the Minister on the submission or observations before the end of that period, the date the Minister receives the response.

(7) The provisions of subsection (6) shall not apply in a case of dredging which, in the opinion of the Minister, is urgently required for the purposes of navigational safety and is specified in a notice under subsection (1) to be of an urgent nature.".

I am glad the Minister of State has agreed to take amendments Nos. 18 to 20, inclusive, together. I propose this amendment on the same basis as my previous one referring to the new section 5A and, in this instance, to subsection (6) setting out the exception and the rule. I have re-ordered my amendment and fully incorporated the exact text of the Government amendment. Once again I thank the Minister of State for taking these amendments together.

Mr. Browne

This amendment is opposed as being unnecessary for the same reason as when Deputy Coveney proposed it on Committee Stage. The drafting by the Parliamentary Counsel of the new section 5A(6) is in accordance with best practice and it is clear as to its purpose. The Deputy has not proposed any change of substance.

Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 19 and 20 are a response to issues raised by Deputies on Committee Stage. They are proposed to section 5A(3) and 5A(6) to require publication in a national newspaper of notice of urgent dredging required for purposes of navigational safety and to require in that notice to give a reason or reasons for the urgency advanced. This would help port companies, for example, to identify and address quickly, within a day if necessary, and publicise genuinely urgent dredging requirements if they should arise. The amendment would allay suspicion that, for example, port companies would hold off until the last moment to identify a publicised urgent dredging requirement to bypass general public consultation requirements connected with dumping at sea permit applications.

Question, "That the words down to and including ‘subsection (1)' in line 24 stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Browne

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 6, line 24, after "subsection (1)" to insert ", which is published in a newspaper circulating nationally,".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Browne

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 6, line 25, after "nature" to insert "for the reason or reasons stated in the notice".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Browne

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 6, to delete line 42 and substitute the following:

"or after 1 August 2004, together with a copy of the notice published under subsection (1) in relation thereto,".

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 23 is an alternative to amendment No. 22 and both amendments may be taken together.

Mr. Browne

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 6, line 45, to delete "applications."." and substitute the following:

"applications, together with any comments of the applicants thereon under subsection (5) on or after 1 August 2004, and

(c) all decisions made on or after 1 January 2004 on applications for permits or to amend or revoke a permit.’.”.

This amendment and amendment No. 21 are proposed to the new section 5A(7) to ensure that the Department's website also contains a copy of the required public notice of all permit applications as and from 1 August 2004 and applicants' comments on observations or submissions from the public as and from 1 August 2004 as well as details of decisions on permit applications or to amend or revoke permits as and from 1 January 2004.

This copperfastens transparency arrangements by clearly linking permit applications and decisions, and recording any amendments to revocations of permits so that interested parties are kept au fait with these procedures. Details of permits granted are available on the Department website as part of an accessible statutory register. The operative date of 1 August 2004 is necessarily prospective for detailed notice and other requirements which would not have a statutory basis — the Bill as passed by the Seanad in 2000 prospectively legislated for 2001 et seq. — until the Bill is enacted. There is no difficulty in website publication of permitting decisions as and from 1 January 2004 as this has already been done.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

The Minister of State referred to amendment No. 21 regarding page 6, line 42, which has been agreed. I take it, therefore, that we are dealing only with amendment No. 22 here. In that regard I hoped that my amendment No. 23 would complement rather than contradict the Minister of State's amendment. I commend him on this amendment because it is an improvement and will lead to the greater openness that I mentioned previously, namely, the ability to track the various submissions lodged throughout an application. That is a very important principle.

Does this amendment guarantee that a notice would be posted before a decision is made on the application, which is the intent of my amendment No. 23? If all this information is to be posted on a website it would be better done prior to a decision being made so the public may see the full case made for both sides. That would be more transparent and also provides a good check on the system because it allows developers at all times to see the submissions and who is saying what. It strengthens everyone's position when there is full clarity on the various applications made. Will the Minister of State reassure me that such notices would be posted prior to a final decision? If that is the case I am happy to accept the Minister of State's amendment without a further amendment. Otherwise, I will press my amendment, if I may.

Mr. Broughan

I support Deputy Ryan's amendment. Will the Minister of State explain the operation of the new section 5A? I presume some of the submissions, other than urgent dredging matters, will be accompanied by a major environmental impact statement. Are the submissions proposed by the developers similar to those made in the ordinary planning process? Would a situation arise whereby part of the process measures the environmental impact fairly precisely? The legislation makes some reference to this. The fundamental impact of whatever is proposed on the local marine environment must be taken into account by the Department.

Mr. Browne

With regard to Deputy Eamon Ryan's point, barring problems, applications are placed on the website as they are received. However, this would not in any way affect the decision-making process and a decision would have to be made within the relevant period.

In respect of Deputy Broughan's query, an applicant would have to meet the criteria laid down by the Department. In many instances, particularly if substantial developments are involved, an environmental impact statement would have to be available with the application.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Does the Minister of State agree that account would often be taken of additional comments that might be offered or that the content of other submissions that were made might be noted and that this might affect the decision-making process in terms of what was considered? Would it not be fair and proper that any such comments and submissions would be publicly available in order that applicants or people with an interest in particular cases would have a clear idea of what was proposed prior to a decision being made? These people could then possibly make a further submission on the issue if they did so within the timeframe set out in the legislation.

Mr. Browne

Under the legislation, applicants must receive copies of submissions made by third parties or other parties.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

I am seeking similar rights for those who might question an application. By posting everything on the web on an immediate basis the Minister of State is, in essence, providing them with the same service as the applicants.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has already made two contributions and must conclude.

Mr. Browne

The fact that information will be posted on the website means that it will be available for most people, particularly those with an interest in a particular case. I do not believe that anyone should have two bites at the cherry.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 23 not moved.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 7, after line 22, to insert the following:

"12.—Parties who have made an application for a permit or a submission to the Minister with regard to the application shall be able to appeal the decision of the Minister to An Bord Pleanála in accordance with their appeals procedure set out in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976.".

Regardless of the procedures we put in place and the open way in which we go about our business, there may be certain applications that are approved in respect of which there should be a facility of appeal. Members of the public or others who have a concerned interest in respect of a particular application should have access to some appeals procedure that allows them to have a decision reviewed. Given the lack of any other appeals procedure, I put forward this amendment which suggests that An Bord Pleanála, in accordance with the existing legislation that governs its actions, would be a suitable body to conduct any such appeal.

In debates about An Bord Pleanála, the Taoiseach recently stated that attempts are being made to reduce the length of time appeals take and that massive investment will be made in the planning appeals system so that there will not be delays. In that light, I do not believe that what is suggested in the amendment would cause major delays for those making applications. We are discussing what can sometimes be significant decisions involving millions of tonnes of material which can have a profound effect on the environment and there is a requirement for some appeals procedure regarding the applications that are made.

Mr. Broughan

I support the thrust of the amendment. In a procedure under which members of the public have made submissions and decisions have been made, there should be one last opportunity to make appeals. I do not completely share Deputy Eamon Ryan's confidence in An Bord Pleanála and I refer in this regard to a number of decisions that have been made in respect of the northern fringe. As regards the latter, I do not believe that the views of public representatives were taken into account to any great degree. However, I do not know what other route one would take in terms of putting in place an appeals mechanism. What this matter comes down to is ministerial diktat or power and I am glad the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is present to hear my comments in that regard. Some mechanism should be put in place under which people could make appeals.

Mr. Kehoe

I support the amendment and I concur with the comments made by Deputies Eamon Ryan and Broughan. An appeals system should be put in place. Such systems apply in respect of all other applications people are obliged to make and the position should be no different in respect of this area. The Department should explore the possibility of putting in place an appeals mechanism to facilitate those who make applications and are refused.

Mr. Ferris

I also support the amendment. In my view, it would strengthen the Bill and I ask the Minister of State to take it on board. The putting in place of an appeals mechanism is to be commended.

Mr. Browne

I accept what the Deputies are saying but I do not believe An Bord Pleanála would be an appropriate body to oversee an appeals system in this regard. The remit of An Bord Pleanála is set out in the Planning and Development Act 2000. The question of appeals arrangements in respect of the marine coastal zone will be considered in detail in the context of the new legislation on integrated coastal zone management. Deputy Broughan is forever criticising us for the delays in introducing that legislation. It would be appropriate to consider the introduction of an appeals mechanism in the context of the legislation.

Mr. Broughan

We have waited seven painful years for that legislation.

Mr. Browne

I would not oppose an appeals mechanism. The Government will decide its priority legislative programme for 2004-05 and our Department will push for the introduction of the integrated coastal zone management legislation.

Any permit granted under the Dumping at Sea Act 1996 is subject to review by the Minister at any time. In instances where problems might arise, I am sure the Minister would not hesitate to amend or revoke a permit if he should have cause to do so. It would seem more appropriate to include an appeals mechanism in the integrated coastal zone management legislation.

Mr. Broughan

Is that a promise?

Mr. Browne

Yes.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

I am glad the Minister of State agrees that we need an appeals mechanism for these procedures. However, having the Minister review his own decisions would not provide the best form of such a mechanism. Deputies Broughan and Sargent have been referring to the integrated coastal zone management legislation for a long period. It is on the verge of gaining mythical status in the near future.

Mr. Broughan

Some of the coasts will have disappeared by the time it is introduced.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Would it not be appropriate to use an appeal mechanism that is already in place? In that context, An Bord Pleanála is the best available statutory body to which appeals can be made. On some occasions I disagree with its decisions, while on others I find myself in agreement. That may be a sign that it is truly independent. In light of the Minister of State's agreement that some appeals system is necessary, would it not be appropriate, on an interim basis, to use the An Bord Pleanála appeals mechanism? We could easily amend matters in the coastal zone management legislation. Would An Board Pleanála not be able to provide an interim solution while the legislation to which I refer is being drafted?

Mr. Browne

Not really. We have given a commitment to consider the possibility of an appeals mechanism in the context of the coastal zone management legislation. That is the instrument we should use to deal with this matter.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 7, after line 22, to insert the following:

"13.—(a) The Minister shall publish a report setting out the conditions which would require an authority, an individual or a company to apply for a dumping permit. Such conditions may be reviewed by the Minister on a regular basis.

(b) In cases where an appropriate dumping permit has not been applied for the Minister shall have authority to instruct the responsible companies to treat hazardous spoil in a manner which ensures it does not threaten the marine environment within a port, coastal or estuary area.”.

This amendment suggests that the Minister would be obliged to publish a report setting out the conditions which would require an authority or an individual to apply for a dumping permit. The second part of the amendment seeks to ensure that the Minister, where a dumping permit has been applied for, would have real powers in terms of directing companies on how to treat the hazardous spoil that would result from dumping. The Department may well have such conditions. I was looking at it in terms of publishing a report as to when a permit is needed. I was also looking for it to be made on a much more public basis and to ensure the Minister has the power to instruct the companies responsible to treat hazardous spoil in a certain manner.

Mr. Browne

The amendment is opposed. There are detailed guidelines on the Department's website for the benefit of applicants for dumping at sea permits and for the public generally. These guidelines reflect best scientific and technical advice available and will be updated in line with scientific and other relevant developments etc. as soon as possible after the Bill is passed.

The Deputy will appreciate that there is a range of statutory provisions to prohibit litter and dispose of unacceptable material in the marine environment. I fully support him in ensuring there is no environmental degradation from dumping. The Waste Management Acts, administered by the local authorities and the EPA, are also relevant to his concerns.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Browne)

I thank Opposition spokespersons and Deputies from all sides for their contributions and for putting forward amendments, some of which we accepted, that improve the Bill as initiated.

Mr. Broughan

I thank the Minister of State for so expeditiously piloting these two Bills through the House. I also thank the staff of the Department who have been very helpful in all of these matters.

Mr. Kehoe

I wish to be associated with Deputy Broughan's sentiments. I thank the Minister of State for bringing the two Bills through the House. As Deputy Broughan said, it has taken a long time for the Bill to come through the House. The Minister of State should consult his officials to make sure this does not happen again. This Bill has been waiting to be dealt with for many months.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

I also thank the Minister of State and his officials for the manner in which they brought the Bill through the House. While it does not receive a great deal of public attention, the Bill will have a significant material effect on what we do to our environment. The work we have done will be very useful and valid.

Mr. Ferris

I thank the Minister of State, his staff and officials. I want to be associated with all the comments of Opposition spokespeople regarding the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.