Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senators McHugh and Quinn for their kind comments and look forward to working with them during my period in office. Senator Quinn's contributions are always taken seriously. It is gratifying to note that his proposals have found their way into the Bill. While this has not always been the case, it underlines the importance of this House. I also appreciate the Senator's comments concerning the Department's website. Everything is dealt with transparently and published on the website as soon as is practically possible.

The process appears to be working well. As I stated, I am grateful to all those who are co-operating with us, even though there is no legal requirement to do so. Those applying for permits appreciate what the Department is doing and are complying with the provisions of the legislation without any legal obligation to do so.

Senator McHugh's question on Buncrana could apply to any port or channel anywhere in the country. Silting is a matter for nature and nature takes its course. I hope that once a dredging job is completed, the matter will have been dealt with permanently. Naturally silting recurs but efforts should be made to ensure it is not significant. I am not an expert on this matter but it is in the interests of those who dredge to try to buy in the necessary expertise to ensure silting will not recur on a regular basis.

Local authorities and experts are involved in the various types of dredging. Apart from straightforward dredging, suction dredging, for example, is used. The latter approach was used in my native Burtonport some time ago. Rather than dumping the material at sea, it was used to reclaim a large area of land which was retained as a result of the provision of boulders. While I hope there will be no seepage from the land in question, we cannot anticipate what nature will bring.

I agree with the Senator that every effort should be made by those who are responsible for buying in the expertise to ensure that once a dredging job is carried out, there is no recurrence. Questions are being asked at present about work that was carried out in Magheraroarty and my colleague, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, who was responsible for financing that work, will be there tomorrow morning to have discussions with the stakeholders who might be affected by it.

Amendment No. 24 updates section 10 of the Dumping at Sea Act 1996 in line with the general updating of fines for summary offences to maintain their deterrent effect. It updates the maximum fine of £1,500 or €1,904 which may be imposed by the court for summary offences under the Dumping at Sea Act 1996 to the current maximum imposable for summary offences generally, that is, €3,000. Dáil Éireann deleted the original provision in the 1996 Act for a term of imprisonment to be imposed by the court in lieu of or in addition to a fine for a summary offence. The 1996 Act leaves it to the discretion of the court what monetary penalty, if any, to apply in the case of persons convicted on indictment under the Act in lieu of or in addition to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. It has not been found necessary to take court proceedings under the 1996 Act, a testimony to its effectiveness.

There is always a question about updating fines. My personal view is that they should be index linked and I believe it is the intention of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to introduce legislation to provide that fines across the board would be updated on a regular basis by means of a link to a relevant index.

Amendment No. 26, sponsored by Deputy Coveney, includes the likely impact on fish spawning and nursery habitats among the important matters to be considered when applications for dumping at sea permits are being assessed by the Department and its scientific advisers. Amendment No. 27 is designed to protect biological diversity in the context of the national biodiversity plan approved by the Government in 2002. The definition of biological diversity is modelled on that in section 9(b) of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. Amendment No. 28, again sponsored by Deputy Coveney, specifically requires the results of the national seabed survey undertaken by the Geological Survey of Ireland, which is part of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, to be taken into account in the assessment of applications to dispose of dredging material at sea.

Amendment No. 29 deletes the exemption from the prohibition on disposal at sea for fish wastes from industrial fish processing operations, which is contained in paragraph (d) in Article 3 in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Dumping at Sea Act 1996. The deletion of the exemption is required to take account of EU legislation designed to protect animal and fish health, which requires animal and fish wastes to be specifically treated before being disposed of, in the case of fish waste by ensiling or composting. In other words, fish wastes from industrial fish processing operations must not be disposed of at sea and amendment No. 29 makes provision in that regard.

Amendment No. 30 repeals provisions relating to prosecutions under the Sea Pollution Act 1991. The appropriate place for such provisions is in the body of the Sea Pollution Acts and that is being arranged. Amendment No. 32 deletes unnecessary words in the original Long Title of the Bill.