Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 are related to amendment No. 1 and they may be discussed together.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, to delete lines 15 and 16 and substitute the following:
"‘authorised officer' shall be construed in accordance with section 6 (1) of this Act;".
This is a technical amendment and is recommended on the advice of the Office of the Attorney General. "Authorised officer" is defined in the Bill as meaning a person appointed to be an authorised officer under section 6 of the Bill. However, section 6 of the Bill provides that members of the Defence Forces shall be automatically authorised officers for the purposes of the Act. Appointment is not required.
Amendment No. 28 proposes that members of the Garda Síochána shall automatically be authorised officers for the purposes of the Act. The Dumping at Sea Act, 1981, makes no provision for enforcement powers for either the Naval Service or the Garda. Provision has been made in the new Bill for enforcement powers for the Naval Service. The Attorney General's Office has advised that these enforcement powers should be extended to include gardaí because they are best equipped to detain vessels when they have been escorted by the Naval Service into a harbour. This will relieve Naval Service vessels and allow them to proceed with other duties. Such enforcement powers have been granted to gardaí under the Sea Pollution Act, 1991, and the Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1994. The Minister for Justice is agreeable to the provision of enforcement powers for gardaí in relation to this Bill.
Amendment No. 29 which relates to the Defence Forces is purely a drafting amendment recommended by the Attorney General's Office. That Office has also recommended amendment No. 30 which involves the removal of the text "and an authorised officer appointed under this paragraph may exercise the powers of an authorised officer under this Act.", as it is considered unnecessary. Section 6 (2) already outlines the powers of authorised officers so there is no need to distinguish officers appointed by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications from all other officers.
I commend the amendments to the committee.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, line 19, to delete "means" and substitute "includes".
This amendment depends largely on a later amendment which has to deal with the changing of the Title of the Bill. The Oslo-Paris Convention does not replace the London Convention but is additional to it. The Oslo-Paris Convention deals with the maritime area of each contracting State in the north Atlantic while the London Convention deals with the seas. We are dealing with one convention which is regionally based and the other which is globally based. The question of annexing the 1981 Act with the 1985 Act appears to be the more logical way of embracing both conventions. I propose substituting the word "includes" for "means" because dumping under the London Convention has already been defined in the 1981 Act. Including the maritime areas in the Oslo-Paris Convention has a more extensive but not necessarily coextensive definition.
In dealing with this amendment the Minister might also deal with the question of how this Bill will cover the London Convention as well as the Oslo-Paris Convention or does he agree with my contention that it is better to have two Bills co-existing and developed into one Bill — the Dumping at Sea Bill?
Deputy Smith proposes replacing the term "means" with "includes" in the definition of "dumping". The legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General is that the definition of dumping as set down in the Bill should be specific as to its meaning and that it would not be appropriate to substitute the word "includes" for the word "means".
With regard to the position of the Bill vis-�-vis the Oslo-Paris Convention and the London Convention, the Bill will enable this State to ratify the Oslo-Paris Convention. This is one of the reasons the Bill is before the House. However, the Bill’s content goes beyond what is required in that convention in the specification of the materials that may not now be dumped at sea. The Bill provides for a ban on the dumping of all toxic and harmful materials. It provides for a ban on the dumping of radioactive materials and a ban on incineration at sea. It bans the dumping of off-shore installations and the dumping of munitions. It ends the concept of sovereign immunity as it applied to dumping at sea. It goes considerably beyond the requirements of the OSPAR Convention. In effect, dredge spoil is the only material which it will be permitted to dump at sea in our maritime area. The Bill extends the maritime area from the 12 mile to the 200 mile limit, or to the extent of the continental shelf, which will be under our jurisdiction under the Law of the Sea.
I have no objection to legislation being enacted to enable the Government to ratify the OSPAR Convention nor do I contest the fact that the Bill covers a wider area than the Dumping at Sea Act, 1981, with regard to the prohibition of dumping. My question relates more to sovereignty and powers. The convention is in a regional context and is obligatory on the contracting parties. The London Convention covers the whole of the sea and is, therefore, of global reference. It seems more logical to embrace part of the 1981 Act, which has a more all embracing character than this more specific Bill.
While the Bill deals essentially with the ratification of the OSPAR Convention, it fails to provide for the kind of powers required outside the North-East Atlantic and which existed prior to the potential passing of this Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to combine the original potential of the 1981 Act with what is provided for in this Bill.
The Bill replaces the 1981 Act and it covers the London Convention. The dumping of material from any vessel or of a vessel itself regardless of its origin is prohibited within the extended maritime area which is now defined in the Bill. Under existing legislation the maritime area with regard to dumping at sea is confined to the 12 mile limit. The Bill proposes to extend it considerably beyond that I have a map which I will circulate to members.
Within the green area shown on the map and within the red line, which denotes the 200 mile limit, there is a prohibition on dumping at sea by any persons, whether they are parties to the OSPAR or London Conventions or ships flying flags of convenience which are not parties to any convention. Dumping by Irish vessels anywhere is also prohibited. The Bill covers the requirements of the OSPAR and London Conventions and, arguably, goes beyond the bare obligations of both.
The Bill provides for a double prohibition. Within the extended area provided for in the Bill and which is shown on the map, incineration at sea and dumping of munitions, off-shore oil installations or anything else is prohibited, irrespective of who or from where the dumpers are. The Bill also prohibits Irish vessels from dumping anywhere, even outside the areas defined in the Bill.
We are not in dispute with the Minister on the extension of the maritime area and prohibitions. The Bill specifically sets out to give effect to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic done at Paris on 22 September 1992, and for those purposes to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Dumping at Sea Act, 1981, and to provide for related matters. I am not convinced that we are embracing part of the 1981 Act which has a more global effect or that we are taking on board all the obligations which should be possible under the London Convention. While we are extending the maritime area, the law of the sea and the London Convention may well mean that we do not have the effective powers we think we have.
The 1981 Act is considerably more restrictive than this Bill which is replacing that Act. The Bill goes considerably further, both in terms of the definition of the maritime area and the materials which may not now be dumped at sea. To my knowledge it is the most advanced marine environment legislation introduced anywhere and prohibits the dumping within our maritime area of any dangerous substance, irrespective of its source. In addition it provides for the requirements of the London Convention. I draw Deputy Smith's attention to section 2 which states:
If any vessel or aircraft, substance or material . . . is dumped anywhere in the sea outside the maritime area and the dumping is from an Irish vessel, or an Irish aircraft . . . the master and the owner of the vessel, or the pilot in command and the owner of the aircraft, as the case may be, and any other person who causes or permits the dumping or loading shall be guilty of an offence.
That covers the wider remit of the London Convention about which Deputy Smith is concerned. If he can draw my attention to any specific requirement of the London Convention which is not covered by this Bill, I am prepared to look at that. However, I do not think he will be able to do so because the Bill is drafted in such a way that it imposes an all embracing ban on dumping at sea. The materials which may now be dumped at sea under this legislation will be limited.
During Second Stage Deputy Smith expressed concern that this Bill was so restrictive on dumping at sea that it may lead to an increase in demands for dumping on land.
That does not contradict what I am saying now.
If there is a specific matter which the Deputy feels is covered by the London Convention but which is not included in this Bill, I will be happy to look at it. However, I am satisfied that the legislation covers both the OSPAR Convention and the London Convention and goes beyond both.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurance that it is legally based and that it has been checked out with the Attorney General. However, I may table another amendment on Report Stage to give me confidence that we are in a position to deal with problems outside the maritime area of the contracting states to the OSPAR Convention.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 is cognate on amendment No. 3. Amendments Nos. 9 to 16 are related to amendment No. 3 and amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are consequential on amendments Nos. 3 and 6. Amendments Nos. 3, 6, 9, 11, 12 and 16 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, line 20 after "area" to insert "of the State or of another contracting state to the Oslo/Paris Convention".
This is not likely to arise if I accept what the Minister outlined earlier.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, line 21 after "dredging" where it firstly occurs, to insert ", plough dredging, water injection dredging".
There are three such dredging techniques — side-cast dredging, which involves dredging up soil and ejecting it through the side of a vessel; plough dredging, which involves dredging up soil with a box like plough and displacing it so that the currents can carry the spoil away and water dredging, which involves liquidising spoil with powerful jets of water which results in the spoil washed out to sea. This amendment will allow for regulation of future dredging innovations. As these dredging techniques involve dispersal of material out to sea, it is imperative that they are regulated.
The Second Schedule states:
The Exceptions to the Prohibition on Dumping as contained in 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.
Article 3
(a) dredged material;
Since dredged material is an exception, what will be exempted and what changes will this amendment make to that?
The exemption of dredging material will require a permit. If someone is carrying out dredging they must apply for a permit to dump. That is the position at present. The amendment is to provide for the changes which are taking place in dredging techniques and the advance in dredging technology. When someone wants to dredge a harbour or, for example, the Lee tunnel, which will require considerable dredging, and dredge material must be disposed of at sea, they must apply for a permit. Strict procedures are set down in section 5 which govern the way in which these permits are issued. A marine licence vetting committee examines all the applications and then there is a consultative process with the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications before a decision is made to grant a permit.
If we consider paragraphs (a) to (e) of the exceptions to the prohibition on dumping in the Second Schedule, does that mean a permit can only be granted for applications relating to those exemptions?
Yes. The Bill prohibits the dumping of certain materials in any circumstances. The exceptions do not mean there is carte blanche to dump the materials listed as exceptions. The exceptions mean they are not statutorily prohibited and that people wishing to dump materials which are listed as exceptions must apply for a permit. The permit must then be considered on its merits. A Minister could refuse a permit or could attach conditions to the issue of the permit.
Is that not the position as it stands?
Yes, the position is that a person applies for a permit. The Bill restricts the number of things for which a person can apply for a dumping permit. It is widening the list of areas for which a person should not apply for a permit because they will be statutorily prohibited.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 21 are related and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, line 23, after "installation" to insert "or pipeline".
I want to amend that to "off-shore installation" and "off-shore pipeline" so that the Bill will contain the words used in the OSPAR Convention.
Is off-shore pipeline already included?
Yes. The definition of off-shore installation on page five states that off-shore installation means any man-made structure, plant or vessel or parts thereof, whether floating or fixed to the seabed, placed in the sea for the purpose of off-shore activities. The definition of off-shore instalation includes its pipelines and the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, line 12, to delete "3" and substitute "5".
The purpose of the amendment is to correct an editorial error. Paragraph (3) of the definition of dumping provides that, if the placement of a substance, material vessel or aircraft in the maritime area is for a purpose other than that for which it was originally designed or constructed, it must be in accordance with the restrictions on dumping provided for in section 2 of the Bill and two provisions governing the granting of permits provided for in section 5.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"(iv) the discarding of unprocessed fish or fish offal from fishing vessels;".
As it stands, the Bill would prohibit the disposal of unprocessed fish and fish offal from fishing vessels. Returning untreated fish to its original environment will not impact on the marine environment. Natural discarding of such waste from fishing vessels is part of normal sea fishing activities. The prohibition on such dumping or the imposition of a requirement that it must be regulated under dumping at sea legislation would disrupt the normal operation of fishing activities and make it impossible for fishermen to operate commercially. This is recognised in the OSPAR Convention which excludes unprocessed fish and fish offal discarded from fishing vessels from its provisions. The amendment will allow this normal process of discarding unsuitable fish and fish offal at sea to continue.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 4, line 39, after "State" to insert", and the seabed and subsoil beneath those seas".
The purpose of the amendment is to regulate dumping on the seabed and subsoil within the 12 miles territorial seas area. The seabed and subsoil outside the 12 miles limit is already defined in paragraph (b) of the definition of the maritime area, that is, the continental shelf.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 5, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
"vessel' includes an aircraft which is capable of landing on or taking off from water.".
The amendment is recommended on the advice of the Office of the Attorney General to allow for the regulation of aircraft which are capable of landing on and taking off from water.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.