Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to clarify an issue. The Department does not permit the dumping of rubbish or other material at sea. The provision strictly applies to permits to dispose at sea suitable dredged material. We would much prefer if the material could be taken ashore for land reclamation. Permits will not apply to rubbish.

Joe McHugh (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This is the first public opportunity I have had to congratulate him on his new post. It is nice to have a fellow County Donegal man in Government. I am also delighted with my party leader's stance on the marine on which he has provided a full brief on the Front Bench to Deputy Perry.

The Fine Gael Party supports the Bill. It is sensible, logical, uncontentious and appropriate to many businesses involved in the aquaculture industry. The Minister of State is aware that County Donegal, more than other areas, faces challenges in terms of the multifaceted fishing industry, which extends from mussels and scallops to fish farming. We have a plethora of fishing interests in the county.

That public consultation involving all parties will take place on dumping at sea is a welcome development. I also welcome the move to enable the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to have the same control over archaeological heritage at sea as it currently has on land. We have many special interest groups, including deep sea divers who are interested in archaeological heritage off the coast.

I will be parochial and raise a minor issue involving dredging in Buncrana. Donegal County Council undertook a major lobbying effort on behalf of the RNLI, which was seeking a berth for a larger boat, and a new ferry which was about to come on stream. The matter went through a public consultation forum. Several errors were made in the beginning — hindsight is great — but the project was successful. What contribution does the Department make as regards the type of dredging used? According to local hearsay, a large amount of money has been invested in dredging. Re-silting will continue to be a problem and focus for the public. What will be the Department's input, in consultation with local authorities, as regards the type of dredging?

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate the Department, the Minister and the Minister of State on their response to an amendment I tabled. Every time a Bill before the House includes provision to publish information in a local or national newspaper, I table an amendment providing that the information in question also be published by electronic means. I appreciate that such an amendment, which I tabled on Committee Stage, has been accepted and a website link created for precisely the purpose I had hoped before the Bill has even been enacted. I hope I will no longer have to table amendments of this nature and that draft Bills will include provision for the publication of information on websites. I congratulate the Department on publishing the register and permits on the website which, I understand, has been in operation for some time and is working well. It is a reminder of the benefits of debate in the Seanad and its consequences.

I have one indirect criticism. I do not understand the reason it has taken so long to return to this House a Bill passed here in October 2000. If a certain issue is likely to cause delay, we should pass the Bill and, if necessary, introduce an amending Bill.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Brendan Kenneally (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House this morning. I am not sure if it is his first time in the House since he was appointed Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources but it is certainly his first time here on official marine business. He will not have to read into that brief because he has significant knowledge of it. Civil servants often get a little worried when the Minister knows more about a brief than they do. I look forward to working with the Minister over the next few years.

I also congratulate Senator McHugh on the recent good news in his private life and on his appointment as Fine Gael spokesperson on the marine. I look forward to working with the Senator. I thank Members and the Minister's staff for their co-operation in working on this Bill.

Joe McHugh (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senator. The Fine Gael Party welcomes the Bill; it is non-contentious. We are discussing dumping at sea but we should put down a marker with regard to Sellafield. It is not related to this legislation but we should keep an eye on what is being dumped in Irish waters from Sellafield. We should be stronger on that issue. There are many concerned families in County Louth who have serious health problems due to the dumping at sea from Sellafield.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate the Minister of State on grabbing hold of this Bill and bringing it before the House and I congratulate the officials who helped him do so. The point I made earlier is one that frustrates me. It has nothing to do with the Minister of State but this Bill was passed by the Seanad in October 2000 and it seems wrong that it should take four years to return to the House. It is a good Bill. This is an island nation and it needs clean seas. The benefits we reap are such that we should not allow anything to interfere with them.

I accept Senator McHugh's point with regard to the Irish Sea and other forms of dumping which are not covered by this Bill. Let us keep our eye on the future and recognise that this legislation is only part of the story. The fish stocks in the Irish Sea are in danger as a result of Sellafield and we must do something about that too.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate Senator McHugh on his appointment as marine spokesperson. I look forward to working with him. I also congratulate him on his personal good news. The people of north-east Donegal will be delighted to hear that it might be on his agenda to move to another part of the country. If that is the case, it is even better news politically. On a serious note, I wish the Senator well.

Joe McHugh (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It could be south-west Donegal.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are no vacancies. In response to Senator Quinn, I accept that the Bill has been around since 2000. It was a question of finding a slot. It might not be a great defence but perhaps if the Bill had been enacted then, we might have had to wait a much longer period to improve it. While this is the only defence, I thank all speakers for their contributions.

In exercising the Dumping at Sea Acts' functions as delegated to me by the Government, I will insist on the fullest examination of alternatives to the disposal of material at sea, and allow disposal at sea only where there is no alternative and where the material in question is adjudged on scientific advice to be suitable for disposal at sea. The obvious example, if it were cost effective and practical, would be in regard to the reclamation of land, which makes much sense. I will also ensure that material is disposed of at sea at an appropriate location and in an appropriate manner.

Senators will be happy to note the reclamation of over 28 acres of land at Killybegs fishery harbour centre by the use of dredged material. Further such opportunities will be availed of at Port Oriel, Clogherhead, and at Castletownbere fishery harbour centre and elsewhere where major developments are planned. I confirm that any permit granted under the Dumping at Sea Act is subject to review by me at any time and I will not hesitate to amend or revoke a permit if I should have any cause to do so, as that Act specifically empowers me to do.

Senators should note that, at my Department's insistence, five-year dredging and dumping plans for ports are being prepared and will be published as part of the necessary consultation with the public and statutory consultees in regard to dumping at sea permit applications by the ports in question. Already, five-year dredging and dumping permits have been granted to the ports at Cork, Drogheda, Dublin and Waterford and, most recently, to the Shannon Foynes Port Company. Other major ports will be encouraged to follow suit as soon as possible.

The preparation, publication and updating of such five-year plans makes sound business sense, as well as appropriately informing the public of proposed significant activities on State-owned foreshore which could be of particular interest to them. More importantly, such five-year plans allow timely and full consideration of alternatives to disposal at sea, notably beach nourishment and land reclamation.

Following the granting of a dumping at sea permit for a period of up to five years, covering several dredging and dumping operations as detailed in the port's five-year plan, it will suffice for the port in question to publish a notice of intention to dredge and dump within specific areas as needs arise, which is common sense. Such a notice of specific dredging and dumping is a timely reminder to any persons who may be affected, so as to allow the approved and necessary dredging and dumping operations to go ahead without interference or delay.

In conclusion, the Bill strengthens substantially the Dumping at Sea Act 1996 so as to ensure the continuance of a robust statutory framework for protecting important marine heritage as well as the marine environment generally. I am fully committed to operating the Act as amended by the Bill, and to the ongoing enhancement of the Department's website in regard to the application and permit process for the benefit of all concerned. Following enactment of the Bill, I will arrange with the Attorney General for the early publication of a formal restatement of the 1996 Act, as amended by the Bill, for the benefit of interested persons, of whom there are many.

While understanding a Bill is difficult for many people, we must ensure it is as consumer-friendly and citizen-friendly as possible so we can access and update its contents, and, in computer terms, cut and paste this information. It will not be necessary to read the principal Act, or the Bill in conjunction with it, because all of the legislation will be incorporated. Members will recall we have this power as a result of legislation introduced by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in 2002.