I want to announce two corrections to the printed list of amendments. "Environment" is misspelt in amendment No. 7 and "legitimate" is misspelt in amendment No. 13.
SECTION 1.
Dumping at Sea Bill, 1995: Committee Stage.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 are Government amendments and form a composite proposal. All may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 3, lines 25 and 26, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following new paragraph:
"(b) any deliberate disposal in the maritime area of vessels, aircraft or offshore installations,".
The following amendments are being proposed: section 1 to be amended to extend the definition of "dumping" to include the dumping of offshore installations; section 4 (1) (a) to be amended to allow for the continuation of the complete ban on the disposal of offshore installations at sea, subject to section 5; sections 5(1) (a) and 5 (2) to be amended to enable the Minister, after consultation with other Ministers, to grant or refuse to grant a permit for the disposal of off-shore installations; and section 5 (1) (b) (ii) is being amended to require the Minister, when deciding to grant or refuse to grant a permit in respect of an offshore installation, to consider the exceptions to the provision of such dumping as set out in the new part 2 of the Second Schedule.
Part 2 of the Second Schedule sets out the exceptions to the prohibition on dumping of offshore installations in accordance with the provisions of the OSPAR Convention as follows. First, permits may only be granted in accordance with the relevant applicable decisions, recommendations and all other agreements adapted under the convention. Second, permits may not be granted if the offshore installation contains substances which result, or are likely to result, in hazard to human health, harm to living resources and marine ecosystems, damage to amenities or interference with other legitimate users of the sea. Section 5 (12) and (13) are new subsections which provide that the granting of permits on a case by case basis in respect of offshore installations may only come into operation by way of a Government order which must be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
The Government adopts a precautionary approach to the protection of the marine environment. In the absence of sound scientific evidence that the dumping of offshore installations does not impact on the marine environment, we must legislate for the complete ban of sea disposal of offshore installations.
Contracting parties to OSPAR, with the exception of Norway and the UK, adopted an agreement on a moratorium on the disposal of offshore installations at sea. Norway and the UK have, however, agreed informally to be bound by the terms of the moratorium. We will be pressing in OSPAR for a continuation of the current moratorium. Indeed, we will be seeking to make the current ban obligatory on all OSPAR states by having it formally enshrined in the convention.
I would regard a situation involving unregulated dumping by the international community as inappropriate given the irrelevance of maritime borders for the impact of marine pollution. While the Bill extends the limit of Irish control in relation to dumping from 12 miles to 200 miles, and in some cases up to 350 miles off the Irish coast, I would be very concerned about any future unregulated dumping of offshore installations by international communities in areas immediately outside our maritime area.
Since the introduction of the Bill matters have progressed somewhat within OSPAR. An internationally sound basis for selective dumping may emerge which allows for an authoritative risk categorisation of installations. This will determine which installations may or may not be dumped. It may well include regulatory controls underpinned by an internationally agreed monitoring and policing regime to oversee the identification of offshore installations which could be considered for dumping, the identification of suitable dump sites, preparation of the installations for dumping and the dumping operations themselves.
A special working group of OSPAR experts is currently studying this issue. The EU is also preparing a report on the matter. Thus, while it is our policy to maintain the ban, the alternative of a properly controlled international dumping regime may emerge instead. On that basis I propose these amendments to the Bill which will allow for this possible outcome following a review of the future of the complete ban. They are being proposed to allow Ireland to adhere to future international conventions if it emerges that an internationally accepted regime is adopted for the disposal of offshore installations. However, I do not foresee such dumping in our maritime area.
Senator Fitzgerald questioned the amendment during the debate on Second Stage. I undertook to address his concerns by requiring that commencement of the new provisions regulating the sea disposal of offshore installations be debated and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. This will provide the Legislature with the opportunity to revisit the issue in the light of international scientific investigation. I assure the House that a Government order will only be proposed on the basis of total satisfaction that an internationally agreed and environmentally safe method of disposal is available. If it is not available the ban under section 4 will remain. Senator Fitzgerald indicated on Second Stage that such an approach would satisfy his concerns.
I welcome the amendment. The proposal significantly strengthens the Bill. The Minister will be aware that there is sizeable interest in offshore oil exploration, especially on the west coast. Already, a Norwegian oil rig is operating off the west coast of County Clare and County Galway. There were indications yesterday that there would be further sizeable investigations in a number of areas in the Connemara bank, west of County Galway, which would necessitate the boring of a number of exploratory wells. The likelihood of pollution arising from these operations must be guarded against. Will the Minister assure the House that it will be possible under the proposed legislation to control any dumping that may take place from installations, in addition to the dumping of installations?
I am quite happy to give Senator Daly the assurance he is seeking. I draw his attention to section 4 of the Bill which provides that a person who deliberately disposes of, or permits the disposal of, in the maritime area an offshore installation or any substance of material from any such installation will be guilty of an offence. Similarly, the dumping of toxic harmful or noxious substances from an offshore installation, a ship, etc., is also prohibited, so the dumping of any material of that kind from an offshore installation is prohibited under this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 1a:
In page 4, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(e) in the case of Harbours under the Harbours Act, 1996;".
On Second Stage, I drew the Minister's attention to the fact that since the Bill was initiated new legislation governing harbours passed through both Houses and, as far as I am aware, has finally been enacted. To ensure that the new commissions and harbour authorities which have been established here are brought under this Bill, I proposed this amendment which I feel is necessary to bring that Act into line with this Bill.
According to legal advice available, Senator Daly's proposed amendment is not appropriate. A harbour authority is defined in the Harbours Act, 1996, as a harbour authority within the meaning of the Act of 1946. It is, therefore, the 1946 Act that defines a harbour authority.
Section 83 of the Harbours Act, 1996, provides that references in any enactment to a harbour authority shall be construed as including references to a company established pursuant to the new Act and to the local authority to which the harbour or harbour authority is transferred by way of order under the Act. The amendment proposed by Senator Daly is not necessary as the matter is already covered by the Harbours Act, 1996.
Is amendment 1a being pressed?
If the Minister is assuring me that it is not necessary, I will with-draw it. I want to be sure about that because there are a number of questions arising from the Harbours Act, 1996, with regard to particular harbours. It was believed that when the new harbour company was established in Kilrush, County Clare, for example, the old Kilrush Harbour Authority which existed under previous legislation would disappear. That has not happened. The existing harbour authority in Kilrush — that is, the Kilrush Urban Commissioners — might read this debate because they are still under a misapprehension as to whether they exist. I do not know whether that is deliberate. For the sake of clarity, we are satisfied that the new companies will be covered and that is really what I have been trying to establish.
First, the new companies will be covered because they are defined in the Harbours Act, 1996. Any harbour authority is defined as a harbour authority within the meaning of the 1946 Act, which dovetails with this Bill. Second, section 83 of the Harbours Act, 1996, provides specifically that references in any enactment — which would include this one — to a harbour authority shall be construed as including references to a company established pursuant to the Harbours Act, so the new harbour companies are included. It will also include harbours that are transferred to a local authority, for example, if Kilrush is transferred to the local authority, it will apply similarly to the local authority which takes charge of that harbour.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Lest I be misconstrued, I put on record my support for offshore island exploration. It is good to hear that this exploration has been taken up and I hope it will be successful.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 6, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following new subsection:
"(1) Subject to section 5 of this Act, a person who deliberately disposes of, or permits the disposal of, in the maritime area, an off-shore installation or any substance or material from any such installation, and the person in charge of, and the owner of, the offshore installation concerned, shall be guilty of an offence.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 6, lines 25 and 26, to delete paragraph (a).
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No.4:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 31, to delete "or the person in charge" and substitute "or the person in charge of".
This is a drafting amendment proposed on the advice of the Office of the Attorney General.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Government amendment No.5:
In page 6, lines 38 to 49, and in page 7, lines 1 to 3, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following paragraph:
"(a) The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and such other Minister of the Government as the Minister considers appropriate, grant, or refuse to grant, a permit to a person who applies to the Minister for a permit authorising the dumping of a specified vessel, aircraft or offshore installation, or a specified quantity of a specified substance or material in a specified place within a specified period of time or the loading onto the vessel or aircraft, of a specified quantity of a specified substance or material at a specified place within a specified period of time, which is intended to be dumped from the vessel or aircraft concerned.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 7, subsection (1) (b) (i), line 8, after "Act," to insert "and".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 7, lines 9 to 14, to delete subparagraph (ii) and substitute the following new subparagraph:
"(ii) (I) the exceptions to the prohibition on dumping as contained in the extracts from Annex II to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic done at Paris on the 22nd day of September, 1992, which are set out in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to this Act, or
(II) the exceptions to the prohibition on dumping set out in Part 2 of the said Schedule and permitted under Annex III to the said Convention,
as may be appropriate.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 7, subsection (2), line 20, after "aircraft," to insert "offshore installation,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 7, lines 28 to 32, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following new subsection:
"(4) The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and such other Minister of the Government as the Minister considers appropriate, revoke or amend a permit under this section, whenever the Minister deems it appropriate.".
Section 5 (1) (a) was amended in the Dáil to provide for consultation by the Minister with any Minister of the Government when assessing an application for a dumping at sea permit. Legal advice at the time was that this amendment should be made to provide for broader consultation when applications for dumping at sea permits impinge on areas of responsibility of other Government Ministers. The amendment I now propose is consequential on section 5 (1) (a). Section 5 (4) as it stands provides for consultation by the Minister with the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment and the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications only when deciding to amend or revoke a permit. The proposed amendment provides that the Minister may consult with any Government Minister that he considers appropriate.
Could the Minister indicate what length of time is envisaged for this consultation? The amendment is openended and this could mean that the consultation process will delay a desirable operation — the Minister will be aware that this is often the case in areas where consultations take place. Could this consultation process continue over a year or two and perhaps negative the application?
Our experience is that consultations of this type take about two to three weeks. We do not have a backlog of applications for permits to dump at sea. I am happy to say that the Department operates extremely efficiently in this area.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9a:
In page 8, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) The Minister shall cause to be published in at least one national newspaper a list of the permits which have been issued in each year.".
The purpose of this amendment is to provide that notification of the applications issued each year will be published in a national paper. There is growing concern about, and a deep interest in, permits of this nature. We had much discussion on the Refuse Bill about procedures for objections and for notifying the general public about proposals for licences for refuse collection, but there does not appear to be a similar mechanism in this legislation. While a register is provided for under the previous subsection, there does not seem to be any necessity for the Minister to publish such a list either in local or national newspapers. Can the Minister satisfy me that this is unnecessary? Would the list be too long to publish? Can he clarify the situation? I would prefer if the granting of these permits were more transparent.
Section 5(9)(b) of the Bill provides that a register of all dumping at sea permits issued must be maintained and be open to inspection by the public free of charge at all reasonable times. In addition, access to information on the 1993 environment regulations necessitates the utmost transparency in all such matters. Information is readily available on an ongoing basis. Detailed information is available to all members of the public at all times, therefore, I do not consider it appropriate for the Government to go to the extra expense of publishing information which is already available. I do not propose to accept the amendment.
Is amendment No. 9a being pressed?
Yes. Can the Minister give some indication of the extent of the list for a year? Is there an enormous amount of applications? I do not believe there is. Where is it proposed to keep the register? If it is held at the Department of the Marine in Dublin it will be difficult to access, especially for people who want to see what dumping permits have been issued for the Shannon Estuary or off the Cork coast. It is a long way to go. If the register is available in local authority or fishery board offices it might help to avoid a situation where I would have to insist on newspaper publication.
I see the purpose of Senator Daly's amendment. He is concerned that certain people would require this information but it would only be a limited number. The Minister could advise local fishery boards who has been granted permits in their areas. That is one way the matter could be dealt with. People interested in fishing and the sea in general will not face a great difficulty because of this. Most people know that information relating to marine issues can be found at the Department of the Marine. At this stage most people have fax facilities and faxes could be sent to people who seek information. If such a situation were to arise, I ask the Minister to urge his officials to fax the information to the people concerned. I agree with the Minister as to the cost. The cost of publishing a notice, particularly in national papers, is prohibitive. If an advertisement had to be put in every time a permit was issued, it could run to quite a bill at the end of the year. I do not think this is necessary.
The number of permits runs to about 20 a year and many of them are for maintenance dredging in harbours, capital works etc. There is no difficulty as the register is kept in the Department. The regional fishery boards are part of the consultation process which leads to the granting of a permit and they are supplied with a copy of the permit. This means they have the information. Anybody who has an interest in a dumping at sea permit can request one from the Department — this happens already — and copies of the permit are then issued to them.
I do not have any difficulty with the principle of what Senator Daly is seeking here. I agree that information of this type should be readily, and publicly, available. Apart from the issue of cost, I am not so sure that putting an advertisement, with a list of permits issued for the year, in a national newspaper for one day is the most effective way of making this information available to the public.
Under this legislation, we are required to maintain a register of the dumping at sea permits. Any member of the public may see that register and copies of the permits issued. We regularly supply permits to interested parties and members of the public who request them. The regional fishery boards get copies of the permits as a matter of course. We are repeatedly reminded that we are entering the information age when access to this type of information will not necessarily be on the inside page of a national newspaper but will probably be more appropriately available through the Internet. If Senator Daly is happy to accept my assurance that I envisage the issue of permits as precisely the kind of information that would be available through such means, I will give it to him.
I am not going to lose a night's sleep over this, and I will certainly not divide the House on it. We should endeavour to bring the public more into this arena. The recent Waste Bill incorporated an elaborate mechanism to keep the public informed. Even before waste licences are issued, there has to be public notice and people have the right to object, but in this legislation, that course of action is not being followed. Where we are dealing with legislation which will not be amended for another 20 years, it would be wise if the public were made aware of what is taking place, especially in our coastal areas. While I do not disagree with Senator Taylor-Quinn, we heard about quite an amount of dumping, not so far from our locality, after it had taken place. Had the public been aware of these operations, there may have been a different attitude adopted by the local community. We want to avoid a situation where, say, somebody goes to the register for a specific reason and discovers that a permit has been granted to dump disused army guns in their neighbourhood.
What the Minister is doing here is modernising the 1981 legislation to bring it into line with international conventions. Perhaps he is not taking account of the broader picture, where issues of dumping have an impact on the locality and the public may wish to know what is taking place so that they can object if they wish. They need to know. In this section I am not certain they are given the opportunity to know what is happening. Unlike the Waste Bill, this legislation is certainly not giving them the opportunity and the right to raise objections or to voice appeals.
I do not disagree with the principles expressed by Senator Daly. I agree that information of this type should be easily accessible to the public and they should know where to get it. At present it is available on request in the Department and in the regional boards. I have no difficulty considering, between now and Report Stage, copperfastening in the Bill some way of making this information more readily available. For example, the publication of the information in Iris Oifigiúil, though very formal, could be one way of doing it.
If the Minister does that on Report Stage, I will withdraw this amendment.
I will be happy to do that on Report Stage.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is amendment 9a being pressed?
In view of the Minister's assurances, I withdraw the amendment. I thank the Minister for the constructive way he is dealing with this issue. However, I believe the section should be expanded so that notice be given, not only when the permits are issued, but when it is intended to issue them; this happens in other areas. The public should be made aware and given an opportunity to raise objections and to appeal, perhaps to An Bord Pleanála, if they are not happy with a particular decision.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 8, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following new subsections:
"(12) This section shall not come into operation as respects off-shore installations until such day as the Government may by order appoint.
(13) Whenever an order is proposed to be made under this section a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 10a:
In page 8, before section 6, to insert the following new section:
"6.—Where the activity to which a permit is granted under section 5 has not been commenced within a specified period that permit shall cease to have effect.".
What I am endeavouring to do here is to give the Minister power to revoke a permit when it is not used within a specified period. The Minister already has the authority to revoke permits so this may not be necessary. However, he does not appear to have the power to invalidate a permit if, after a certain length of time, it is not being availed of. It would be better to have some control over permits so they would not just lie around for years. There should be a more specific time limit. The Minister might look at the possibility of terminating a permit if it has not been utilised within a three or six month period.
Section 5 of the Bill provides that the Minister may grant a dumping at sea permit for the dumping of a specified substance within a specified period. The permit ceases after a specified date. The marine licence vetting committee will recommend to the Minister the period during which a particular substance should be dumped, taking into account shipping, fishing and recreation interests as well as any other considerations they consider relevant.
No start up period is specified in the permit. This is because bad weather, technical difficulties with a vessel or other problems over which the applicant has no control could cause problems for starting up within a specified period. However, an applicant may not continue dumping after the completion date specified in a permit. The type of permit issued provides that the dumping may take place within a certain time frame. That is done to comply with fishing, shipping and other requirements. If the dumping has not commenced by the completion date the permit lapses. Similarly, if the dumping is not completed by the completion date it must cease and a new application made for a permit, either to continue dumping or to dump at another time.
Can I take it from the Minister of State that each licence or permit issued specifies a time frame and unless it is complied with the licence terminates? I would not want a situation where there are numbers of permits around which may be picked up at a later stage to do something totally different.
There is no question of a dumping at sea permit continuing ad infinitum. The permit states the time within which the dumping may take place. If it is not carried out within that time frame the permit lapses. If, for example, there is a delay in starting the dumping and it runs right up to the completion date the permit lapses and the applicant is required to make a new application.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 10b:
In page 9, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following new paragraphs:
(g) An Officer of the Central Fishery Board so appointed shall be an authorised officer for the purposes of the Act.
(h) A Regional Fishery Board may appoint an Officer of the Board to be an authorised Officer for the purposes of the Act.
The Minister has identified certain bodies which can appoint officers. The Central Fisheries Board and the regional fisheries boards are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of State and in the normal course of events would be covered by the section. I presume the Marine Institute is in a similar situation. I want to ensure, through these amendments, that the Central Fisheries Board, or indeed any one of the regional fisheries boards, would have the authority to appoint an officer to implement this legislation. If the Minister of State tells me there is sufficient power under the section as it stands, the matter will be settled. Why was it necessary to identify the Marine Institute and not the Central Fisheries Board?
The Central Fisheries Board and the regional fisheries boards have an important role to play in the assessment of applications for dumping at sea permits. An official from the Central Fisheries Board is represented on the marine licence vetting committee which assesses all dumping at sea permit applications. The relevant regional fisheries boards are also consulted in respect of each application.
Fisheries aspects of dumping at sea permits are considered in great detail by the marine licence vetting committee. This committee will submit recommendations to the Minister in respect of applications. The recommendation will include conditions of permit which will include fisheries concerns. The Bill already makes provision for the appointment of a wide range of technical and scientific experts as authorised officers, including fishery experts from the Marine Institute. These authorised officers have the expertise and competence to enforce provisions of the Bill. I therefore do not consider it necessary to burden the central and regional fisheries boards with additional duties when their concerns in relation to the impact of dumping on fisheries are taken on board, both by the marine licence vetting committee and by authorised officers.
I am amazed at the Minister of State's reply and I certainly will have to press the amendment. I am aware that the Central Fisheries Board will be represented on the vetting committee, which is not a statutory committee. It is an ad hoc committee established by the Minister within the Department. It has no statutory powers or functions of which I am aware. To the best of my knowledge, it is a type of ministerial subcommittee that has been established within the Department. There was talk of such a measure when I was in the Department.
Our proposal is to include a provision in the statute which gives the central or regional fisheries boards the same type of power as the Garda Síochána. There have always been complaints and comments about the fact that the Garda authorities do not appear to give the same attention to fishery matters as the statutory fishery officers. There were calls for more Garda involvement in local fishery protection and conservation. Some of the corporations need to be monitored on a local basis. A local officer appointed by a regional fisheries board would be in the best position to give advice and guidance to the vetting committee and the Department.
I cannot see how it would be an enormous burden on the fisheries boards. I realise that they already operate under severe financial and personnel restrictions. However, these matters would be vital to local fishery and other interests connected with the activities of the central or regional fisheries boards. I am at a loss to understand why the Minister cannot identify them and specify what we are proposing here. If he wants time to look at it, I will give him all the time he wants between now and Report Stage. It is vital that he does so.
I support Senator Daly. He is quite right about the role the Garda play with regard to pollution. Whenever one takes up a newspaper and reads about the pollution of a river, it is always the fisheries boards which are on the scene and monitoring the situation. They are set up properly to deal with these matters. Members of the Central Fisheries Board would have been on the some of the main monitoring committees but it is not the same thing. The Minister is not really giving power to the Central Fisheries Board. In light of the fact that the boards are the main monitors of pollution in rivers and so on, I support Senator Daly's amendments.
The officers of the Central Fisheries Board already have an extensive amount of work and they are fairly stretched to do what is statutorily expected of them as it stands. They already have statutory obligations in relation to the pollution of inland waters. Applications will be seriously evaluated by the Department of the Marine and the fisheries boards will have an input. Therefore, one assumes only strictly evaluated licences will be issued. The burdens the Senator wishes to place on the Central Fisheries Board, the regional boards and their staff would be unnecessary.
It would be wise to pass the Bill as it is and if at a future date a situation was to arise where this provision proved necessary, the matter could be reviewed. The amendment is not necessary.
I agree with Senator Taylor-Quinn with regard to the workload of the boards. A lot of the fish which come into our rivers — white trout and salmon, for example — come from the sea. We do not know whether the fish may have picked up some of the diseases brought into the rivers through pollution at sea. Many arguments have been advanced about where diseases of the white trout stocks and the salmon stocks came from. It is possible that the diseases could have been caused by pollution at sea. Although the workload of the fisheries boards is high, they are responsible for pollution in the rivers. Pollution in the rivers can be directly linked to dumping at sea. I support the amendment. The fisheries boards should be involved.
The Central Fisheries Board and the regional boards have an important function in relation to pollution control in inland waterways. There have been two serious incidents recently resulting in major fish kills on the Shannon system at Lough Derg. I envisage that the fisheries boards will play an increasing role in policing the pollution of inland waterways.
Senator Daly's amendment seeks to extend that function to pollution at sea. While the fisheries boards have functions which extend to the 12 mile limit, this Bill deals with dumping at sea in an area that extends out to 350 miles. The officers of the fisheries boards must give their priority attention to the protection of our inland waterways and it is unimaginable to give them a function which could see them working far out to sea. That would be to stretch the role of the fisheries boards far beyond what was intended.
The Central Fisheries Board and the regional boards have a role in relation to the issuing of dumping at sea permits covering the issues Senator Fitzgerald addressed. Fish come into our inland waterways from the sea and what happens at sea has an impact on our inland waterways. That is why the fisheries boards are involved in the consultative process leading to the granting of a dumping at sea permit. That is an important role which they will continue to play.
The enforcement of breaches of the legislation are in question here. If somebody dumps without a permit or is in breach of the conditions of a permit, certain authorised officers must have powers. The powers are set out in this section and include boarding the vessels, arresting them, taking them to port or out to sea, holding them and bringing people before the courts. A great deal of thought was given to deciding who would be appropriate to exercise these functions.
Scientists in the Marine Institute, including those in the Fisheries Research Centre, are appropriate as are officers appointed by the Minister. The Garda is deemed appropriate because a vessel may be brought to port and arrests may have to be made. The Navy is also deemed appropriate. The Radiological Protection Institute is also appropriate because the dumping of radiological materials and nuclear waste is banned in the Bill. The harbourmaster of a harbour and the harbour authority are also appropriate. There is no function officers of Central Fisheries Board or the regional boards could perform that is not already provided for by one of the other categories.
This is not an appropriate area in which to extend the role of the officers of the fisheries boards. There are areas in which the roles of the fisheries boards may need to be changed and extended. That will be considered in the context of the review of the services and structures currently underway in the Department. However, extending the role of an inland service far out to sea and giving it an enforcement power is not appropriate, particularly when the fisheries boards already have a role to play in the decision on granting a permit.
The Minister of State has opened up another element of the issue.
He has made a good case for it.
The authority of the fisheries boards stops at the 12 mile limit. Where does the authority of the Garda or the Army stop? I would have assumed that their authority also stops at the 12 mile limit. Dumping at sea could take place 350 miles out to sea. A member of a regional fisheries board would have to be treated in the same manner as a member of the Garda or the Army. It is not a case of just inspecting a vessel on shore because the section refers to going out to monitor dumping and to make sure it takes place in the right place. If the powers of the Central Fisheries Board and regional fisheries boards stop at the 12 mile limit, I would be under the impression that the powers of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces also stop at this limit and that they cannot go out 350 miles. I think only the Naval Service has power beyond the 12 mile limit — if I am wrong the Minister can tell me. The Minister correctly stated that the jurisdiction of the Central Fisheries Board stops at 12 miles and it would be mind boggling to think of its jurisdiction extending to 350 miles.
That is what Senator Fitzgerald is proposing.
Does the jurisdiction of the Garda Síochána extend to the 350 mile limit? Does the jurisdiction of the Army also extend this far?
I am more worried about this section now than I was originally. If the Minister said earlier that he could appoint an officer of a regional board or the Central Fisheries Board, I would have accepted that. Will the officers who are to be appointed under this section be new personnel or will existing personnel be reassigned from duties they are already undertaking? The Minister made a good case for accepting these amendments. He said that the whole problem was a matter of enforcement. The Minister may not have details of the licences which were issued in the last year or so, but would I be right in taking it that at least half, if not more, of these permits were probably for within the 12 mile zone, where fishery boats have jurisdiction? Enforcement of existing permits and ensuring that no illegal dumping takes place without permits will prove difficult for the Minister.
The Commissioners of Public Works will soon begin to work on new landing facilities in Cappagh and Kilrush and on Scattery Island. More than likely they will remove a sizeable amount of spoil from these sites. Will they require a permit from the Minister to carry out this dumping? If so, would it not be sensible for the local regional fisheries officer to ensure that this takes place according to the permit issued? I am not asking for additional work to be done by conservation staff because they are already worked to the bone and find it difficult to undertake the work they must do at present. However, in my view this is part of their normal routine duties and would be sensible in a situation where the Minister's difficulty will not be setting down legislation but ensuring that its terms are complied with and that it is enforced fully and effectively.
The Garda Síochána is specifically identified in the section as having this responsibility. I am not sure how it will be able to carry this out. In the days of the bicycle a garda would not have been able to cycle ten or 12 miles to sea. The bulk of these licences must be issued within the 12 mile zone, in which regional boards have responsibility and where most of them have patrol boats at their disposal. It would be sensible and wise for them to be part of the overall scheme of things.
A little realism should come into this debate. We should look at the reality of fisheries boards, their officers and equipment and how they operate. Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Daly are reasonable and sensible fellows who are familiar with reality on the ground, at sea and on rivers and lakes. My mind boggles to imagine fisheries boards vessels with their equipment going beyond the 12 mile limit up to a distance of 350 miles. Are we looking for casualties among fisheries boards officers?
They would be on board naval vessels.
Senator Daly referred to the work which is to take place in Cappagh and on Scattery Island. Regional boards are responsible for any pollution which takes place within their jurisdictions and they must be aware of this all the time. This Bill proposes to extend the limit to 350 miles and this is most welcome. This will require high powered naval vessels. The helicopter service which the Minister for Justice will introduce shortly and Air Corps helicopters will also be available to survey the situation. The case for the amendment has not been strongly made by Senator Daly and Senator Fitzgerald and I do not think they are too serious about it. I am not sure officers of fisheries boards would welcome this additional responsibility. Senator Fitzgerald knows the work they must do in his area.
They have more work to do off the Clare coast.
It is currently the job of these officers to find people who fish illegally for salmon. I cannot imagine them supervising the dumping of substances or craft at sea. This would be an interesting spectacle to behold. I hope realism will enter the debate on this amendment. It is not sensible to give them additional responsibilities without giving them back up support.
The Minister identified the harbour authority and the Bill contains the words "within the jurisdiction of the authority". I would have no difficulty adding to the amendments the words "within the limits of the jurisdiction of the board or the authority". The only reason I did not do this was because there may be difficulties in identifying where jurisdiction begins and ends, especially where two boards meet in the eight, nine, ten or 12 mile limit. It is not accurate for Senator Taylor-Quinn to say that fishery boards do not have some equipment. The Shannon board, with which we would be most familiar, had an excellent and effective naval vessel for fishery protection duties and for enforcing fishery regulations on the Shannon Estuary, as the Senator knows only too well.
Would the Senator expect officers to go out into the Atlantic in it?
This vessel has operated a short distance out in the Atlantic where there are many difficulties. These officers are specialists in the area. Some of them have worked in fisheries for many years and they are familiar with boats. The situation of the Garda Síochána is not similar. It has a special squad for search and rescue, but to my knowledge it does not have specialised people for this type of operation. I do not know of any Garda divisions with facilities for enforcing the terms of licences for dumping spoil from a harbour five or six miles out in an estuary. The Garda Síochána does not have such resources, but the regional fishery board has. I do not know why we are making this argument because I thought it would have been dealt with in the legislation. The Minister mentioned the vetting committee in relation to the issuing of a licence. I am not sure if the vetting committee has any statutory obligation. As far as I know, it is an ad hoc committee which was established in the Department to advise the Minister.
I ask the Minister to consider the amendment. Perhaps I could table an amended version on Report Stage to limit the jurisdiction of the regional fisheries boards within the area of their authority defined under statute. I am even prepared to withdraw the amendment about the Central Fisheries Board and allow the regional fisheries boards to do it. We are being as fair as we can about this matter.
Senator Taylor-Quinn is right. I would not go out 12 miles in some of the craft owned by the Central Fisheries Board and the regional fisheries boards, yet I have met them 12 miles from shore. The biggest craft the Customs and Excise has is a 26 foot boat in which it patrols the shoreline every day. How will the Garda Síochána go out to sea? Should it drive out in a squad car because it does not have a boat?
It could use the new helicopter.
It could cycle.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Fitzgerald, without interruption. Everyone else will have an opportunity to discuss this matter.
Senator Daly mentioned a 12 mile limit. There is some sense in being able to monitor what is happening within the 12 mile limit, but damage is being done beyond the 12 mile limit. Have the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces power beyond the 12 mile limit? Perhaps this section will have to be reconsidered.
I saw this amendment this morning and I have given Senators the benefit of the consideration I gave to it in the limited time available to me.
We saw the Minister's amendment this morning as well.
That is not my fault. I have no difficulty considering it before Report Stage, but I do not want to raise expectations. There is a logical reason why each of the categories of authorised officers are included in this Bill. If somebody is carrying out a dumping operation in normal circumstances — for example, dredge spoil — the question must be asked if they have a permit. That is straightforward. However, where enforcement is required, more complicated questions must be asked, such as is the dumping being carried on in the appropriate site and are the conditions being complied with. Officers from the Department and the Marine Institute are the appropriate people to make a judgment on that.
If, for example, somebody dumps material without a permit 100 miles out to sea in our maritime area, they will be spotted by camera surveillance which has been undertaken around the clock by the Air Corps. This makes information available which would not otherwise be available. The Navy can then apprehend whoever is dumping illegally in our maritime area. That is why the Navy are included. Similarly, if a vessel is brought into harbour, the harbour master has a function to fulfil, which is outlined in other legislation. The Garda is involved because if somebody is brought into harbour for illegal dumping activity, they may have to be arrested. The Garda may have to go on board the vessel and bring them before the courts. The Radiological Protection Institute is included because of the danger of dumping nuclear materials. It is the competent authority to deal with this and its functions are set down in the Radiological Protection Act, 1991.
Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Daly want me to include a provision in the Bill that a regional fisheries board shall appoint an officer of the board to be an authorised officer for the purposes of this legislation. I can imagine a scene somewhere off the coast of Clare where an officer from the Marine Institute says the dumping complies with the permit but the officer appointed by the regional fisheries board says it does not. Not only would there be two appointing officers but two appointing authorities. I know Senator Daly will draw my attention to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications and other people who make such appointments.
The Minister has six authorities.
They are all for specific purposes and all are appointing officers of bodies which are established under legislation and which have certain functions in those areas.
I am happy to give further consideration to what Senators have said. However, I am not convinced that either officers of the Central Fisheries Board or a regional fisheries board should be authorised officers for the purposes of this legislation. I will think about it between now and Report Stage. Senator Daly and Senator Fitzgerald have already seen some of the flaws in their amendment and have mentioned redrafting it.
We are happy with it.
We can discuss it again on Report Stage but it is not an area where a convincing case can be made.
I am grateful to the Minister for listening to our arguments. On Second Stage Senator Cashin mentioned the dumping of ballast water. The dumping of ballast water could happen on the Shannon, as far as Limerick, or between New Ross and Waterford. Other pollution could happen in those places as well, which are now under the jurisdiction of the regional fisheries board and the Central Fisheries Board. The Garda Síochána is included in this legislation. Rivers, such as the Shannon, the Barrow and the Nore are rich in salmon and other fish. There are two instances where Central Fisheries Board officers would come into play and maybe there is other legislation that gives them the power in cases like that but these two instances would clearly give them the authority and they should have the authority to act.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being pressed?
As the Minister of State said he would examine this again more closely, I am disposed to withdrawing it at this stage but I reserve the right to put it down again on Report Stage perhaps in redrafted form. If the Minister of State says this happened without any great thought being given to it, I would be happy enough to see how we could improve the Bill but I have a feeling from his earlier comments that there was some deliberate intent to keep the fisheries out of this.
That is nonsense.
If the Minister of State says that is nonsense, I accept that but he has been making a very strong case.
There has to be a reason to include people.
If, for instance, the new commercial Limerick authority, which may be more disposed towards commercial than fishery activities, were involved and it was written into this legislation that a harbour authority can appoint an officer, that officer may be more disposed towards commercial activity within the harbour than considering any ill-effects that activity might have on the fishery interests — not alone salmon and trout fisheries but aquaculture and the development of mariculture which is expanding.
The Marine Institute has one boat, the Lough Beltra, which is involved in a series of worthwhile projects some of which were announced earlier this year. The institute plans to have a new boat at their disposal but at the moment it has one boat for the whole coastline. The Minister of State knows that better than I do; he knows what the programme is. I was critical of those proposals when he announced them because there was not one research project into the problems connected with pollution in the £2 million programme.
Is the Minister of State saying that under section 6, because the boards are statutory and report to him, he could appoint officers of the board to be authorised officers? He did not make it clear. Is he appointing new officers under this section or will he be using existing personnel or reallocating them to deal with this matter? These are the issues that concern us. I cannot accept that the fishing interest is not a valid one which must be taken into account when considering the issue of dumping licences. These amendments are not only desirable but essential.
Is it not right to say ballast water is discharged long before we come to the coastline. While there is a possibility that someone might sneak in and release it in the harbour if they are monitored before they reach the coast-line, that eventuality should not and will not happen. Will the Minister of State give me a guarantee on that?
Yes, that is the intention. The question of ballast water is not specifically dealt with in this Bill; it comes under the Sea Pollution Act. It is an area that is currently under consideration by the International Maritime Organisation and is getting quite a lot of attention because of the long distances many vessels travel now and the potential environmental problems that are associated with ballast water from one part of the globe being discharged in another. I would be prepared to think further about the issues raised in this discussion. I am assuming Senator Daly is not pressing his amendment.
If the Minister of State says he is going to look at this seriously and that there is no bias against fisheries personnel in this, I will not press it.
I do not know where the Senator got the idea there was bias against the fisheries personnel, far from it.
Everybody else is mentioned.
I commenced with the most complimentary remarks about the fishery boards and the very important role they have in relation to pollution in our inland waterways.
Write it in.
That is an area which will have to be enhanced and increased because of the threats from pollution in our inland waterways. It is one of the reasons I am reluctant to extend the obligations of the fisheries boards seaward. I do not know how one could conclude bias from that. I also said that there were specific reasons the other categories were being included as authorised officers. I am prepared to think about the issues that have been raised. I am not satisfied that I have heard anything remotely approaching a convincing case for Senator Daly's amendment but he indicated that a revised version might be submitted. If it does, we can look at it again.
I withdraw the amendment but I want to reiterate that the fisheries people have more or less been regarded as second class citizens in matters of fisheries prosecution and conservation enforcement. They had bad conditions, bad pay and were not respected by the general public who shot at them, abused them and tried to terrorise them. In this case where we are identifying certain people who will have some responsibility in a matter as serious as this, and where they will have such impact on one of our major natural resources — our fisheries — it is vital that they have a role and a responsibility and they be identified and clearly written into the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
Under section 7 (2) the Minister or the authority may bring a prosecution. I would like the Minister of State to clarify that. The point I made on earlier sections is that there may be a feeling abroad that the new commercial harbours especially may be more oriented towards commercial activities at the expense of the conservation and protection of a valuable resource like fisheries.
Under the Harbours Bill which has passed both Houses of the Oireachtas the new harbour companies are being given certain statutory obligations not only in relation to the commercial activities in their ports but also for the protection of the environment and the amenities in the harbour areas. The harbour authority will not have an entirely blinkered commercial focus and the harbour master in particular has certain functions in relation to environmental matters, such as dumping and so on.
Section 7 (2) provides that, where an offence was committed, proceedings may be brought by either the harbour authority or the Minister. In the unlikely event that a harbour company did not take proceedings against a person who dumped waste in a harbour, the Minister could initiate those proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 12, line 46, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following new paragraph:
"(b) the Attorney General consents, and".
An amendment to section 11 was passed by the Dáil to make provision for the Attorney General to prosecute offences committed under the Dumping at Sea Bill because of the international and diplomatic complications which can arise in cases of this kind. Until now such offences were prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Offences under the Dumping at Sea Bill are not like ordinary offences in our jurisdiction and may involve relations with other countries. It is important that the Attorney General be involved in the actual prosecution because he sits with the Government and is aware of the diplomatic and international perspectives involved in prosecuting such offences. Maritime law is a very specialised area and is traditionally dealt with by the Office of the Attorney General.
This amendment is consequential on section 11. Section 10 (2) (b) of the Bill, as it stands, provides that a judge of the District Court will have jurisdiction to try an offence summarily when the Director of Public Prosecutions consents. As section 11 provides that the Attorney General will prosecute offences under this Bill, it follows that the Bill should be amended to provide that the District Court should have jurisdiction to try an offence summarily when the Attorney General consents.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister of State inform the House regarding the necessity for having permits to dump waste at sea? Is it necessary that the Department of Defence or the Commissioners of Public Works obtain permits if they wish to to so?
Under this legislation it will be necessary for the Department of Defence to obtain a permit if it wishes to dump at sea.
What about the Office of Public Works?
The same provision will apply in the case of the Office of Public Works.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 11 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
Section 15 repeals the 1981 Act. During the Second Stage debate I stated that it would not be desirable to completely repeal the 1981 Act on the basis that the new Bill might not be adequate to deal with situations which may be covered under the old legislation. In the past legislation was repealed and it was discovered that the new legislation could not deal adequately with problems that arose. I understand that two Acts which referred to the Minister of State's Department's responsibility for aquaculture were found to be inadequate in this regard. Despite this fact, however, he has introduced a third Act of that kind. The 1981 Act is not a very old piece of legislation. If there is any question about some of the new provisions, it might be more useful to see how the Bill operates before dispensing with the 1981 Act in its entirety.
The 1981 Act is being replaced by this Bill. There is nothing in the 1981 Act that is not covered by the new Bill, which goes far beyond the provisions of the previous legislation. This Bill is a much stronger piece of legislation than the 1981 Act and effectively bans the dumping of all materials with the exception of dredged spoil. It greatly limits the materials that may be dumped at sea and such materials can can only be dumped on foot of a permit.
This legislation goes far beyond the scope of the 1981 Act and draws upon the increased environmental awareness which came about during the 1980s and the early 1990s. It also draws on the considerable agreement at international level to replace the Oslo and Paris Conventions, which dealt with dumping at sea, with a combined convention called OSPAR. The primary purpose of this legislation is to enable Ireland to ratify the OSPAR Convention and it completely replaces the 1981 Act. It is better to achieve our aims in this way rather than introducing an amending Act, the provisions of which would be unnecessarily complicated and would constantly refer to the earlier legislation. Where possible, it is desireable to have a single comprehensive piece of legislation which is easy to consult, understand and access.
Before we conclude our deliberations on this section, I wish to draw the Minister of State's attention to an inadequacy in the 1981 Act concerning the public in general. In the past permits were granted, by and large, without the public being given a responsibility for or input into developments in this regard. Perhaps the Minister of State might consider before Report Stage whether it might be desireable to include a section to give the general public a say in decisions on the granting of permits before they are issued.
As I stated earlier, this Bill goes far beyond the scope of the 1981 Act. It extends Ireland's maritime area from 12 to 350 miles and completely bans the dumping of toxic, noxious and radioactive materials other than in cases of limited background radiation or those approved by the Radiological Protection Institute. The Bill also limits the dumping of material at sea to a large extent. It establishes a regime where the type of dumping that may be permitted is extremely limited. There is no point in anyone applying to the Minister for the Marine for a permit to dump noxious or toxic materials. Such applications will be unsuccessful because they cannot be permitted under the legislation.
The critical difference between this legislation and the 1981 Act is that this Bill bans a range of materials from being dumped in the sea. For example, under a procedure in this Bill one must apply to the Minister for a permit to dump dredge spoil from maintenance dredging of a harbour. An extensive consultative process is undertaken and underpinned by a scientific evaluation. For example, the dump site is normally assessed independently to ascertain whether it is suitable to take the material. As we discussed earlier, a register is kept of dumping permits and that information is accessible to the public. I am, as I mentioned earlier, prepared to consider ways in which that might be made even more accessible. The bottom line as far as this legislation is concerned is that dumping at sea, particularly the dumping of poisonous materials or materials which would damage the marine environment and food chain, is banned.
A very strict procedure is being set down in this legislation covering the limited circumstances where an application may be made to dump material at sea. Very stiff penalties are being set down for breaches of the legislation. The courts are being given unlimited powers to impose fines which will reflect the cost of undoing the damage caused by illegal dumping at sea. Similarly, there are powers in the Bill whereby vessels found dumping at sea may be taken in and held until the damage has been undone or the cost has been paid. The Bill also covers vessels which are loaded or flagged in this jurisdiction and which dump anywhere in the world. It is very tight and advanced marine environmental legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the First Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."
The First Schedule lists what can and cannot be dumped. The dumping of fish at sea is a problem because it cannot be avoided. At certain times of the year fishermen catch large amounts of fish — probably mackerel or blue whiting — for which they are entitled to be compensated. An inspector from the Department of the Marine inspects the fish and sprays them with a dye and the fish are then taken out to sea again. I have no problem with that because it is said of us that "dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return" and the same line could apply to fish —"fish you are and unto fish you shall return".
With a bit of dye thrown in.
I do not want our fishermen to be too restricted because we make them dump the fish. The Minister is going to Dingle at the weekend because he wants to see Fungi, and he will be very welcome. However, I am sure he will be approached by two fish factories there which have problems.
The first is a very modern and up to date factory which processes shellfish. They are obliged by law to grind the empty shells in a crusher and take the resulting small pieces to the dump. They have been in business for the last couple of years, but to date they have not found a satisfactory crusher. They were dumping the shells off the side of a cliff in a place where nobody would see, but objections were made to that. I helped them out, as did the harbour master in Dingle, and the shells now have to be dumped at sea, which is an extra cost for the factory.
The second factory processes mostly fish. A new sewage treatment plant was opened in Dingle a year ago, which is magnificent. However, nobody warned the fish processors about it and they are now faced with huge costs as a result. The minimal amount of sludge which goes from the factory into the sewage treatment plant renders the plant inoperative because the fish oil prevents the bacteria in the plant from working. The council has to install a new gadget and has already written to the owners of fish factories in Dingle stating they will have to pay £140 a day to allow the main waste from the factories into the treatment plant. An extra cost of £140 a day is a great deal of money for a fish factory. If they had been told about this in advance, or if those planning the sewage treatment plant had done their job properly, they would not have to pay this cost.
Those two problems are related to dumping at sea. The shellfish processor has nowhere to dump the shells. Údarás na Gaeltachta tried to help him find a suitable machine to crush the shells in accordance with the regulations. He would buy a machine tomorrow morning if he could, but he has tried three or four machines which all broke down. He is faced with the huge cost of dumping the shells at sea. The other factory owner is also faced with a huge cost. I am sure the Minister will be told about these problems at the weekend.
In regard to the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fish we have to dump at sea every year, will fishermen be restricted in this dumping? Will they have to go through the paperwork required for a permit? Will they have to pay money which might make it not worth their while to catch these fish? The fish have to be dumped.
I had been looking forward to my visit to Dingle at the weekend.
The Minister should not let that put him off.
However, the more Senator Fitzgerald spoke, the more I wondered how long I am expected to stay there.
Two days.
It is difficult to respond on the hoof to specific issues put across the Floor and I am sure the Senator would not expect me to do so.
I appreciate that.
We can talk about it over the weekend. On the general question of the position of the fishing industry, this Bill does not impact on their normal operations. The definition of dumping in the Bill excludes the discarding of unprocessed fish or fish offal from fishing vessels, which is a normal part of the fishing operation. That will not be interfered with. The dumping of unprocessed fish and fish offal is returning to the sea a natural material that belongs to it in the first place and——
"Fish thou art".
——is able to return to it naturally. The Bill is not intended and does not interfere with normal fishing activity.
Question put and agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 12 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 15, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
"PART 1".
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 13 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 15, after line 35, to insert the following Part:
"PART 2
THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION ON DUMPING PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANNEX III TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OF THE NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC DONE AT PARIS ON THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1992
Disused offshore installations dumped in accordance with a permit issued by the competent authority of the relevant Contracting Party on a case-by-case basis:
Provided that the Contracting Parties shall—
(a) ensure that their authorities, when granting permits, implement the relevant applicable decisions, recommendations and all other agreements adopted under the Convention, and
(b) refuse to issue a permit if the disused offshore installation contains substances which result, or are likely to result, in hazards to human health, harm to living resources and marine ecosystems, damage to amenities or interference with other legitimate uses of the sea.".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
The Minister is aware that these are exceptions to the general rule. A couple of years ago there was a sizeable amount of pollution along the west County Clare coastline when waste oil or waste material from washed out tanks was dumped. The Minister has not made the necessary resources available to ensure enforcement of the proposed legislation. It is not his fault as he is limited by the Minister for Finance in this regard.
It is time a message was sent to the Minister for Finance that on such matters substantial costs are involved, because we have been unable to identify some of the sources of this oil pollution. Clare County Council and Kerry County Council are still awaiting substantial settlements from the Department of the Marine for oil clean ups which they had to undertake on the beaches at Kilkee, Lahinch, Ballybunion and along the coastline due to the licensed or indiscriminate washing out of tanks in the high seas.
The Second Schedule to the Bill grants exemptions to the prohibition on dumping. We must ensure that activities which damage our coasts and environment and cause untold problems for people using beaches and for birds and wildlife will not be permitted under the exceptions provided here.
It will not be possible to do this under the exemptions contained in the Second Schedule to the Bill. Paragraph (b), which refers to inert materials, is concerned with materials of natural origin.
Such as oil from an oilwell.
Not necessarily. It will not be possible for oil to be exempted. On the question of resources, we would all prefer if there were more resources available for environmental protection of all types, including marine environmental protection. However, improvements have been made in this area. The provision in the Bill puts the onus for paying for the cost of pollution on the polluter and includes provisions for the seizing of the vessel from which the pollution comes and the impounding of that vessel until either the clean up has been completed and paid for, or the owner or master has paid a bond or a security for the amount that is estimated it will cost to carry out the clean up.
The most recent example of oil pollution was the case of the Sea Empress. We monitored the situation from the moment the ship ran into trouble in Milford Haven. We were in regular contact with the UK authorities, had an officer present on the site and had close liaison with the meteorological service, obtaining regular reports on wind direction, weather conditions etc. We also had aerial surveillance in the Irish Sea to establish if there was any movement of the oil slick. When some of the oil eventually appeared in the form of little particles, the Marine Institute undertook its own independent investigations, travelled to Milford Haven, compared the samples and was able to establish a case for the local authorities concerned which enabled them to lodge a claim with the insurers of the ship.
There has been a considerably improved capability with regard to surveillance. There is now a clear policy that, irrespective of the source of the pollution, ultimately it is the polluter who must bear the cost of the clean up.
In the cases I mentioned, the polluter could not be identified. Senator Taylor-Quinn, who is a member of Clare County Council, will be aware that the council did a clean up and was expecting reimbursement — it continues to await it, two or three years after the event — from the Department of the Marine, as this was the understanding under which the work was undertaken. Perhaps the Minister of State could investigate the matter to ascertain if it is possible to reimburse the council at this stage.
Clean ups have been a consistent issue with local authorities in that the expenses incurred by them remain outstanding for a considerable number of years. It is an unsatisfactory situation, especially when it is so important to maintain what are essentially resort areas which depend on a good seaside environment for tourism purposes.
Given the progressive approach adopted by the Minister of State within his Department, I hope he will have these matters investigated and will encourage the Department to be more forthcoming on the making of payments to local authorities. It is a significant issue for them, especially when they face so many other expenditure demands.
It is important that priority be given to environmental issues. There is a danger that if moneys are not paid the importance of such issues will decrease, which is not wise. We are all becoming increasingly aware of the need to protect our environment and to maintain standards. It is important that every Department plays its part in this.
The Second Schedule to the Bill is interesting. I hope that by 1998 all local towns, especially those currently dumping raw sewage into the sea and the rivers, will have secondary treatment plants in place. The Minister and the Government are proceeding seriously to ensure this.
Why is there an exclusion for aircraft and vessels to 31 December 2004? Senator Fitzgerald spoke earlier about returning to the earth what is the earth's and to the sea what is the sea's. The constituent parts of aircrafts and vessels did not emanate from the sea. The sooner this exemption can be lifted and brought closer to the year 2000 the better.
First, with regard to the issues raised by Senator Daly and Senator Taylor-Quinn, where local authorities find themselves faced with the cost of a clean up operation and it is not possible to identify the polluter, I want to inform Senators that I will be submitting some proposals in that regard to Government shortly which I hope will be helpful to the local authorities concerned.
Second, the exemption for vessels and aircraft until 31 December 2004 is that which is provided for in the OSPAR Convention. Therefore, after the year 2004, which I hate to remind everybody is less than eight years away, it will not be possible to dump aircraft or vessels in the sea within the OSPAR area.
In practice, as far as Ireland's maritime area is concerned, the State does not give permits for the dumping of aircraft or vessels, so it does not actually arise. The existing position with regard to Ireland's maritime area is that there is no dumping of either aircraft or vessels. I must say I cannot recall any application in recent times for the dumping of either aircraft or vessels, so it does not arise in practice in Ireland's maritime area. The provision is in this Bill in order to comply with the general provisions of the OSPAR agreement.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Next Wednesday.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 29 May 1996.
Sitting suspended at 5.5 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.