ORDER OF BUSINESS.

The Taoiseach: The Order of Business shall be: No. 21a, motion of referral to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights of the proposed approval of Dáil Éireann of a Council regulation (EC) on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II); No. 1 the Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2000 [Seanad] - Second Stage (resumed); No. 5, Aer Lingus Bill 2003 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; and No. 2, the Criminal Justice (Joint Investigation Teams) Bill 2003 [Seanad] - Second Stage. It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the proceedings on No. 21a should be decided without debate, Private Members' Business shall be No. 32, the Planning and Development (Acquisition of Development Land) (Assessment of Compensation) Bill 2003 - Second State (resumed), to conclude at 8.30 p.m.

An Ceann Comhairle: There is one proposal to be put to the House. It is the proposal for dealing with No, 21a without debate.

Mr. Kenny: We are not objecting.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I wish to object to--------

Mr. Kenny: What is that law applicable to the non-contractual obligation of Rome II?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I wish to object to the way we are being asked once again to adopt a very important element of EU law, without full scrutiny of this House. The referral to committee in my view is absolutely unacceptable, given the major implications for judicial harmonisation between this State and other member states. I believe that during the course of the Nice treaty debates the Taoiseach gave a commitment in this House that such important EU matters would not be deflected into committee - where following deliberation this House gets no report back. There is no report back procedure whatsoever. It will return to the Order Paper in a number of weeks and we will be asked to rubber-stamp it without any indication to the membership of this House of the import, concern, reservations or whatever of the participating committee members. This may be a motion which, with the full detail and exposure, my colleagues and I would support. It is the procedure to which I am objecting. This point has been validly addressed here before and in line with the commitment already given, I am asking that this approach not to be adopted in this instance or in any other such instance in the future.

Mr. Stagg: I support the point made by Deputy Ó Caoláin. This has been discussed at Whips' meetings and with the agreement of the chairs of the committees we are seeking to introduce a system to ensure a report will be made to the Dáil. I ask the Taoiseach to address that point and perfect the procedure we are proposing.

Mr. Sargent: Like other speakers, I would be interested to know what we are being asked to approve. In endeavouring to find that out, what is contained in the Order Paper is mysterious. We are being asked to approve an option, provided by Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to notify the President of the Council of the European Union that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of proposed measures such as a proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations.

It could have been phrased in a way that would make sense. This is a legal paraphrase designed to be as inaccessible as possible. I ask that we be given the basic information and that the report be placed before us before we approve it rather than afterwards in the hope that it might not be as damaging as we might fear.

The Taoiseach: I agree with what Deputy Stagg has stated. It is important that we try to get the workings of the procedure right whereby we can get reports back from committees. I know the view has been held that we have conveners at these committees and these conveners should report back. I know this issue has been looked at by the Whips. While there are conveners, they do a job of trying to ensure attendance and other issues, but to get reports from conveners does not seem easy to achieve given their parliamentary position. Maybe it should be so in theory, but I do not think it is likely in practice. The Whips are pursuing that so we will continue to try to find a satisfactory outcome on that point.

In reply to Deputy Kenny and others, the objective of the regulation is to harmonise the rules on the applicable law for non-contractual obligations, both civil and commercial. The Commission argues this will ensure that courts in all member states will apply the same law to cross-border disputes involving non-contractual obligations, thereby facilitating mutual recognition of court rulings in the European Parliament. Apparently the reason for all this is the initial focus on the question of civil liability for damage caused to others by for example defective products, unfair competition, violation of privacy or violation of the environment. Member states do not at present have common rules for deciding which law should apply in cases concerning non-contractual obligations so each court applies its own national rules. This is an effort to have one ruling for all cases.

As regards dealing with issues in the full House, not just this issue but others also, they are technical issues. They are legalistic - I do not disagree with Deputy Sargent's point. At many times it is difficult reading these, but then that applies to most legal matters wherever they come from. I accept that is a difficulty. It is necessary to read them three or four times, but the idea of putting these kinds of technical issues on to the floor of the House would not do much for the House and certainly would not help attendance in the House. I do not agree with the concept that they should not go to committees. I say to Deputy Ó Caoláin that people have the right to speak on these issues at committees, but that is not the difficulty we are having.

Question put: "That the proposal for dealing with No. 21a be agreed to."

12 o'clock

The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 32.

Tá

Níl

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Morgan.

Question declared carried.

Mr. Kenny: Will time be made available for discussion of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the health services following publication of the Hanly report?

The Taoiseach: We will have a debate on the Hanly report.

Mr. Kenny: Will the Hanly report be published in the next week?

The Taoiseach: I do not have a date but certainly it will be in the next few weeks.

Mr. Allen: In time for the Christmas market.

Mr. Rabbitte: We read today that the Minister for Health and Children will next week sign the regulations to ban smoking in enclosed places. Will the Taoiseach assure the House that time will be made available to debate this issue, given the widespread support for it in the House, before it is signed?

The Taoiseach: I hope there is widespread support in the House.

(Interruptions).

The Taoiseach: I have no doubt that Deputy Rabbitte and his party will give it total support in January.

Mr. Rabbitte: Will the Taoiseach provide time in the House to debate the regulation on tobacco?

The Taoiseach: There is no problem whatsoever in that regard. Time can be arranged through the Whips.

Mr. Rabbitte: My party Whip is agreeable. Do I take the Taoiseach's reply to mean there will be time provided to debate this issue before the order is signed?

An Ceann Comhairle: It is a matter for the Whips to discuss.

(Interruptions).

The Taoiseach: May I remind Deputy Rabbitte that we have debated and passed the legislation? However, if time is required to discuss the regulations, we can do that also. I believe it is useful to reiterate, once again, that 8,500 people die from cancer in this country each year. We have spent considerable time discussing the fact that about 400 people per year die as a result of motor accidents, which is an enormous tragedy, but I believe we should give more focus to the fact that 8,500 people die from causes directly related to smoking.

Mr. Sargent: I agree with the Taoiseach. The Green Party would also welcome a debate, if only to help publicans avoid legal cases down the road when their employees may take them to task for non-compliance.

An Ceann Comhairle: Has the Deputy a question appropriate to the Order of Business?

Mr. Sargent: On promised legislation, in relation to the Department of Education and Science, given that the Government is at sixes and sevens on the issue of indemnity for victims of abuse in institutions, when will we see the register of persons who are considered unsafe to work with children? It is mentioned in the list we have that it is not possible to indicate when it will happen. Will the Taoiseach state whether there is an intention on the Government's part to bring forward this legislation and when it might be published?

The Taoiseach: Is the Deputy referring to the legislation concerning people with disabilities?

Mr. Sargent: No. I am referring to the register of persons who are considered unsafe to work with children.

The Taoiseach: The Department of Justice, Equality and Law reform has established a working group on Garda vetting of people who have significant unsupervised access to children and vulnerable persons. The work of that group is aimed at the enhancement of services provided by the Garda central vetting unit. Accordingly, the issues being discussed have considerably wider impact than in the education sector alone and the group is representative of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Office of the Attorney General. I am not in a position to specify a date at this stage. However, the working group is operating with a view to giving effect to the recommendations of the child protection group. There is also legislation arising from issues in the context of the North-South Ministerial Council.

Mr. Crawford: I have two questions in relation to legislation. First, however, I congratulate the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health and Children on their strong stance on the smoking ban. Will they display the same grit with regard to the reopening of Monaghan General Hospital?

On legislation, what is the position with regard to the driving tests and standards authority Bill, in view of the long waiting list? Second, having regard to the difficulty in obtaining death certificates, when will the Coroners (Amendment) Bill be discussed with a view to easing that situation?

The Taoiseach: The heads of the driving tests and standards authority Bill have been approved recently, the legislation is being drafted and should be available next spring.

Mr. Crawford: What is the position with regard to the Coroners (Amendment) Bill?

The Taoiseach: It is hoped to circulate the heads of that Bill before Christmas and the legislation will be available next year.

Ms McManus: My question refers to the Hanly report. According to media reports, this report is currently being printed and bound and will be---

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry, Deputy. That matter was raised yesterday.

Ms McManus: I know that, a Cheann Comhairle. Is it possible for the Taoiseach to give a commitment on a specific date for the debate? Next week the report will be published after months of waiting.

An Ceann Comhairle: That is a matter for the Whips.

Ms McManus: In relation to the report and the legislation which will inevitably arise from it, will the Taoiseach arrange for a debate before the House rises for a week at the end of October?

The Taoiseach: I understand the report will be published within the next few weeks, following which it will be debated here. The legislation will not be ready for a long time afterwards; there is no possibility of that.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Last week the Taoiseach stated in this House that consultation was still ongoing in relation to the disabilities Bill. However, I understand that the disability legislation consultation group has actually concluded its work and that the disability sector has clearly stated that the consultation process has concluded.

An Ceann Comhairle: Has the Deputy a question on promised legislation?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Given that this Bill is eagerly awaited, will the Taoiseach ensure that the Government's previous commitment to publish it in this session will be honoured and that we will have a full and frank debate in this House before Christmas?

The Taoiseach: That is the intention - it is on the list. However, it is an enormous Bill. Not alone do the disability groups want the legislation, they also want the frameworks. That is an enormous task on which a large number of officials are working. It is very easy to suggest what should be done but a substantial amount of time is being given to this matter by senior officials as well as those in the middle and junior ranks. I am not aware of any previous Bill on which such a large number of people have worked so hard.

Mr. Timmins: I understand that, in the week beginning 22 September, Iarnród Éireann placed an advertisement with local radio stations outlining the line closures over the next 18 months, but that, on the evening of 26 September, the advertisement was withdrawn. Will the Taoiseach ask the Minister for Transport the reason for this?

An Ceann Comhairle: Has the Deputy a question on promised legislation?

Mr. Timmins: When will the transport reform Bill be published? Will the Taoiseach arrange for the Minister for Agriculture and Food to go to Libya, now that UN sanctions have been lifted, with a view to opening up the live cattle trade? Egypt has been reopened for the tenth time in recent weeks.

An Ceann Comhairle: That is not appropriate to the Order of Business. The Deputy's question on the transport Bill is in order.

The Taoiseach: The heads of the Bill will not be ready until next year.

Mr. Timmins: What is the situation with regard to the Iarnród Éireann advertisement?

The Taoiseach: I know nothing about it.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Costello: I am aware that the Cory report was raised yesterday. However, now that the Taoiseach has received the report, has he had an opportunity of reading it? Is it his intention to refer the Cory and Nally reports to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Law Reform, as well as publishing them? One report refers to collusion by gardaí with the IRA; the other relates to prior information the Garda would have in relation to the Omagh bombing.

The Taoiseach: I commented at length on this yesterday. I received the reports last night but have not read them. This morning, I have referred them to the Attorney General, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for their consideration. When there is a comprehensive response, we will publish the reports insofar as we can do so. As I said yesterday, having regard to security issues, it may not be possible to publish the full reports, which include many names. As I also pointed out, we only have the Buchanan and Breen reports and that in relation to Lord and Lady Gibson. The other reports were presented to the British Government and it will be some time before it examines them. I hope all of the reports, or at least as much of them as possible, will eventually reach the public domain.

Mr. Gormley: I wish to refer again to the medical practitioners Bill. When does the Taoiseach expect the heads of the Bill to come before the Cabinet?

The Taoiseach: The heads of the Bill are expected within the next month and the Bill should be ready next year.

Mr. Durkan: I refer to a subject in which I know the Ceann Comhairle, as a medical practitioner, will have a keen interest.

An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise at this juncture.

Mr. Durkan: All will be revealed in due course, a Cheann Comhairle. A piece of information which was handed out to commuters on the DART this morning came as a shock to them, as the Fine Gael Party Leader has already indicated. Is there a hidden message on the reverse of that information which depicts a saw? Since the Taoiseach, the Minister for Transport and the Government were unaware of the intentions of Iarnród Éireann, the message might even be hidden. Does the Ceann Comhairle think there is a hidden message there?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Ceann Comhairle has no views on the matter.

Mr. Durkan: They are getting their teeth into it.

Mr. O'Dowd: The Saw Doctors with "N17".

Mr. Quinn: The Intergovernmental Conference on the Constitution treaty commenced work last week. The Labour Party Whip had agreed in principle with the Government Whip that there would be an early debate on the matter. Will the Taoiseach indicate now when the debate will take place in this House?

The Taoiseach: The debate will take place in the House next week.

Mr. Morgan: In light of the defeat of the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill 2001 in the referendum in early 2002, when will the Government legislate to deal with the X case decision?

The Taoiseach: There is no proposed legislation for this.

Mr. Morgan: So it will not happen?

Ms O. Mitchell: Today's Order Paper includes the Criminal Justice (Joint Investigation Teams) Bill 2003. Without wanting to prejudice any trial that may ensue, it has been reported that one of those arrested for the shooting of a prominent publican-----

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy must ask a question on the legislation itself, which was raised yesterday by Deputy Naughten.

Ms O. Mitchell: -----was out on release. Will the Taoiseach guarantee that the revolving door system is now at an end?

An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise on the Order of Business.

Mr. Broughan: The Taoiseach reminded us yesterday about the famous RAPID programme. On the north side of Dublin we have been waiting for RAPID for over three years. Areas are-----

An Ceann Comhairle: Does the Deputy have a question on legislation?

Mr. Broughan: It does not need legislation but I wonder if the Taoiseach will discuss when it will be put in place.

An Ceann Comhairle: Then we cannot discuss it. The Deputy should submit a question to the appropriate Minister.

Ms O'Sullivan: The programme is gone. It is like the DART.

Mr. M. Ahern: Does the Opposition not want an extra €170 million to be spent on the DART?

Mr. Durkan: Check with the commuters on the DART.

Mr. Eamon Ryan: Will the Taoiseach tell the House why the greater Dublin land use and transport authority Bill is back on the legislative programme when it was proved in the last session that neither the Minister for Transport nor the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government believes in an authority to plan transport in our city?

The Taoiseach: The Minister for Transport and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are looking at the policy issues in this area and will bring forward new proposals.

Mr. Rabbitte: The Government does not believe in transport.

Ms Burton: In view of the statement by Dr. Michael Somers last week that it costs the State 4.5% to borrow, as opposed to the private sector investors in PPPs seeking a 15% return, what is the Taoiseach's view of the development of the DIT at Grangegorman? In the last session the Taoiseach promised that the Bill to provide for it was almost ready but there is no sign of it yet.

The Taoiseach: It will be ready during this session.

Treaty of Amsterdam: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Ms Hanafin): I move:

That the proposal that Dáil Éireann approve, in accordance with Article 29.4.6° of Bunreacht na hÉireann, the exercise by the State of the option, provided by Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to notify the President of the Council of the European Union that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure:

a proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II),

copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 6 August 2003, be referred to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, in accordance with paragraph (2) of the Orders of Reference of that committee, which, not later than 21 October 2003, shall send a message to the Dáil in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 85, and Standing Order 84(2) shall accordingly apply.

Question put and declared carried.

Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2000 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Broughan: I generally welcomed this Bill last night on behalf of the Labour Party, which closes significant loopholes in the 1996 legislation, and I also welcomed the proposed amendments which the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has said he will table on Committee Stage.

This legislation will address certain key issues which should be closely monitored with a view to their development in the future. A major problem in coastal management has been the ongoing discharge of sewerage into waterways and streams and, finally, into the sea. At surfing competitions last year, particularly in County Donegal, many competitors referred to the problem of sewage damaging the wonderful coastal areas in that county.

I commend, therefore, the Dublin city manager, Mr. John Fitzgerald, and the Fingal county manager, Mr. Willie Soffe, for the magnificent Dublin Bay project, most of which is now complete. In the past five years, Dublin city and Fingal engineers have constructed a major pipeline across the bay to take the bulk of the sewage from the north side of Dublin across to the new secondary and tertiary treatment processing plant in Ringsend. The last leg of the project remains to be completed in the Howth peninsula, where a certain amount of sewage is still being discharged. One more major pipeline is needed to reverse the sewage from the peninsula and join it to the new pipeline.

It is, however, a wonderful achievement that Dublin Bay will soon be in a position where beaches such as Dollymount and Sandymount will reclaim blue flags, establishing the bay as a key area that has managed to put an end to the dumping of sewage that has gone on for generations. I commend everyone who has been involved in that project.

The local authorities in Dublin city and Fingal are also carrying out major studies into the management of our streams and rivers, such as the River Mayne, and the flooding caused by changing tidal conditions due to global warming.

I call on the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, to introduce the full coastal management programme. There should be no part of the country where sewage is discharged straight into the sea. Under the EU water framework directive and the EU port waste management directive, the State has the opportunity to embark on a programme that will see a massive reduction of pollution in our seas, particularly areas vulnerable to nitrites and other harmful effluents.

The Minister has promised that new legislation will be introduced next week to address the problems with the management of the huge amount of shipping traffic around Ireland. As I speak, at least 30 major ships are transporting cargoes, some of which are very dangerous, up and down the busy shipping lanes of the Irish Sea and along our western coast. On a day like today, there will be 100 of our smaller fishing vessels busy at sea. We have seen a litany of disasters, including the significant oil spills involving the Exxon Valdez in March 1989, the Aegean Sea in December 1992 and the Jessica in January 2001. Very often the vessels involved in great discharges of oil are ancient, single-hulled ships which get into grave difficulties and break up before causing major environmental damage in the surrounding seas. In our country we have had the episodes involving the Betelgeuse in 1979 and the Kowloon Bridge in 1986, the latter of which represented an important stepping stone in the creation of the Department of the Marine. As a number of speakers mentioned in the Seanad, a disaster involving the Prestige occurred before Christmas off Spain's famous Costa da Morte. The Spanish authorities behaved extraordinarily when they prevented the vessel being brought closer to shore, thereby exacerbating an already very serious disaster.

All this raises the question of how we would cope in the event of a similar disaster around our coastline. There have been stringent criticisms. My Green Party colleague recently mentioned Ireland's deficit in terms of not having a significant tug which would be capable of towing large vessels which have been stricken while carrying oil, gas or other possible pollutants. In that context, I congratulate everyone involved in the incident off the coast of Donegal in which Donegal County Council, the Irish Coast Guard and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources worked closely together to ensure that the Princess Eva did not cause major pollution.

I congratulate the Minister for bringing this Bill before the House, but I regret that it has taken almost three years to bring it from the Seanad to the Dáil. I hope the Minister will consider a couple of the amendments the Labour Party intends to bring forward on Committee Stage.

Mr. Eamon Ryan: I wish to share time with Deputies Ferris and Finian McGrath.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Cowley): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Eamon Ryan: Like my colleagues, I welcome this Bill which has finally made it, three years on, from the Seanad to the Dáil. In the context of the debate on Seanad reform, it is interesting to see in this legislation the good work the Upper House can do. An amendment proposed in the Seanad three years ago to provide that information about dumping would be published electronically was accepted. This positive step is worth noting in the context of the controversy this summer involving dumping and its possible consequences in the constituency of the Minister of State present, Deputy Gallagher. It was very useful this summer for me or any member of the public to be able to find clear information on the Department's website detailing the reasons materials were being dumped and the locations and amounts involved. It is regrettable that there has been such a long delay before we could continue the useful work of the Seanad and enact this legislation.

In his speech, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, suggested that he will make two particular amendments to the Bill though it is difficult to address them specifically as we do not have details. I wish, however, to take up some of the issues raised by the proposals. It is proposed to begin to recognise the implications of dumping for biodiversity and to end the exemptions of fish processing plants from the dumping provisions of the 1996 Act. I welcome very much both proposed amendments. In regard to the latter, a hugely important factor is the polluting influence of nutrients in our water which is something that may be of interest to the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gallagher. The environmental programme of the United Nations produced a millennial report on the environment which states that the problem of nutrient pollution in our sea water has global implications comparable to those caused by the destruction of the carbon cycle. We have a huge issue in our marine environment of nutrient enrichment and we must consider it in the context of the problems of dumping. It is right, therefore, that the fish processing exemption is to end.

There are other implications which are slightly broader than the particular implications of this Bill. Like most of us, the Minister of State will be concerned with finding out what exactly happened to cause the salmon kill in Inver Bay and McSwynes Bay in Donegal this summer. Increasing evidence is being put forward by scientists that aquaculture itself is leading to nutrient enrichment which may in turn be leading to formation of toxic bloom. Was it a form of dumping by the aquaculture industry that led to the problem which has wiped that industry out in the area in question?

I refer the Minister of State to a very interesting report prepared by Dr. Malcolm MacGarvin for the World Wildlife Fund examining the Scottish experience of nutrient enrichment from aquaculture. Dr. MacGarvin is a very eminent scientist who has done extensive work for the European Commission on the issue. If one applies to Ireland the figures he applied to Scotland, one sees that the salmon farming industry here is releasing, or dumping, 1,500 tonnes of nitrogen and 250 tonnes of phosphorus in selected coastal areas. In terms of nitrogen, that is the equivalent of the sewage outflow from 650,000 individuals and, in terms of phosphorus, of the sewage outflow of 1.9 million people. The level of nutrient enrichment being caused by this industry is equivalent to that of the entire population of the west coast.

While I await the findings of the Department, in a complex marine environment in which toxic blooms are increasingly caused by a combination of factors, the incident in Donegal may have been part caused or influenced by dumping by the Department from the Killybegs site. I do not give huge credence to the theory that this was the main factor, though it may have been contributory. High water temperatures may also have been a factor as may nutrient enrichment from the aquaculture plants themselves.

I am sure the Minister of State watched the "Prime Time" programme this summer which addressed this issue. The sentence which stood out came from a Government scientist, Dr. Ken Whelan, who hit the nail on the head in terms of the future of the aquaculture industry or any other activity in our marine environment. On the programme, Dr. Whelan said it is only when we are in tune with nature that anything can have a long-term, sustainable economic or environmental future. With the Bill before us, we should try to achieve a scenario in which our dumping is in tune with nature. For that reason, I welcome the amendment proposed to end the exemption of the fish processing industry and, in particular, the amendment to provide for the recognition of biodiversity as a factor to be taken into account in our dumping activities. It is difficult to accomplish the latter. It requires complex scientific analysis and recognition of the fact that marine eco-systems are complex, interrelated and may be changed by small, imperceptible alterations in circumstances.

To go back to the start when I mentioned the use of the site where we can see the level of dumping, even in 2003 we can see that the five or six licensed dumpings which have occurred have involved very significant volumes of material. If my recollection is correct, 1.6 million tonnes of dumped material emanated from Cork Harbour. I am aware that in Dublin Bay, serious volumes of material are taken out of the port tunnel, possibly to be used in reclamation elsewhere. We are talking about massive volumes of materials in some cases and we cannot simply dump them on the sea bed and be blind to the possible consequences to the local and broader eco-systems. The pollution of our marine environment is the most important environmental issue we have to tackle and I welcome the late arrival of the Bill from the Seanad as one part in that battle.

Mr. Ferris: There can be no doubt that the Dumping at Sea Act 1996 has greatly improved the statutory protection of our waters from threats posed by the dumping of dangerous materials and extended jurisdiction by up to 350 miles offshore. It is vital that the State exercises close surveillance over this area, and any measures that strengthen that must be welcomed.

If I were to enter one reservation it would be that the Act does not prevent the ongoing pollution of our waters by a different type of dumping, that which emanates from the British nuclear facility at Sellafield. Indeed, a report on radiological pollution published in May this year proved that Sellafield remains the single major source of pollution of the Irish Sea. While that remains the case, measures such as the 1996 Act can only tackle a small part of the problem. The solution to the Sellafield problem is that this State demands that it be closed.

Another area of concern in parts of the country is the continued entry of untreated sewage into the sea, despite the ban on the dumping of sewage at sea under the 1996 Act. I appreciate that this problem does not directly relate to the contents of this Bill but as with the Sellafield issue, it illustrates that the good intentions of legislation can be defeated by more basic factors. In this case, it is the absence in many areas of modern sewage treatment systems. My point in raising this issue is that the provision of such facilities would have a much more beneficial effect on the health of our waters than measures such as this Bill, welcome though it is.

I come from an area just outside Tralee and I spent much of my life involved in the fishing industry. In Tralee Bay we have a natural oyster industry which was almost lost in the mid-1980s as a result of the inadequacy of a sewage treatment facility and sewage flowing into the harbour. Tralee Bay probably has one of the best oyster beds in Europe, and it was almost lost. Addressing that issue has contributed to the regeneration of the industry and in my talks with fishermen from that area as late as last week, it is fair to say the oyster bed has been saved and is almost back to its original condition. That was down to putting in proper treatment facilities so that the natural oyster could flourish and grow.

Ballyduff is another area not far from where I live which I know intimately. Ballyduff is a village which has a sewage treatment facility originally designed for fewer than 50 houses. It is currently servicing up to 400 houses without any upgrading. The consequences of that are that raw sewage is flowing into the River Feale and making its way out through Ballybunion into the sea. That is a major problem which needs to be addressed, perhaps not in this Bill but in conjunction with it, in Ballyduff and throughout the country. Wild salmon come up the River Feale to spawn each year but there is a decline in the salmon stocks along the west coast. I am sure the Minister would be au fait with that and also the effects of a lack of proper facilities on the future of the salmon industry.

I welcome the fact that the Bill provides that the Minister with responsibility for our archaeological heritage will be consulted in regard to any application to dump at sea. I am aware that the archaeological heritage of our coast is far less well known to people than that of inland areas. Much of that has to do with simple geographical facts such as erosion but we must also recognise that much of it has been lost through the development of ports, harbours, marinas and the necessary dredging that is carried on in areas.

Until this proposal there has been no attempt to subject any of this work to the same level of monitoring or regulation as that which is applied to construction projects in towns where developers must take cognisance of the fact that areas of major archaeological and historical importance may be disturbed. I am aware from my county that much of the heritage of the harbours along the Kerry coast has been lost over the years and any measure that will preserve what remains or at least allows proper evaluation prior to development has to be welcomed.

There are other issues which I am not certain can be adequately addressed under the 1996 Act or through suitable amendments. These include the dumping of rubbish from ships which may not appear to present as great a threat as those addressed under the 1996 Act but which clearly are an ongoing problem. That is clear to anyone who visits many of our beaches which are strewn with all manner of debris which I assume does not grow naturally in the areas. This summer I had the luxury of spending some time on Banna beach, in Inch and all along our coastline, and much of the debris coming in is from refuse being discarded at sea. That fact has to be taken on board.

In general there is a heightened consciousness of the importance of our seas. As a former fisherman I am aware that we have had to become far more aware of the sea, not only as a source of food and our livelihood but also as a territory, the demarcation and regulation of which has become much stricter over recent decades. Again, the growing levels of pollution in the Irish Sea and the ongoing threat from Sellafield contributed to this heightened awareness on the part of people whose livelihood is based on the sea.

The level of control over our waters has had particular implications for Irish fishermen since we joined the European Union. They have had to deal with what can be fairly described as, and which was admitted to me by an EU official in Brussels earlier this year as being, an inequitable distribution of the fish quotas in Irish waters. However, fishermen will also admit that they have to become more aware of the need to conserve stocks and in general there is a broader understanding of the sea as a valuable natural resource which needs to be protected.

When I visited the sea ports during the summer it was commendable to see fishermen coming home with their refuse bags after a day fishing for lobster or salmon or some trawling and putting their refuse bags into skips that were available on our piers. That is an indication of the seriousness with which the fishermen are taking this problem. In that spirit, measures such as this Bill are to be welcomed by everybody connected with the sea.

I hope that strict surveillance is maintained over ongoing future oil and gas exploration off our coast. The need for this has been emphasised by the decision some months ago by An Bord Pleanála to reject the application by Enterprise Energy to build an onshore facility at Ballinaboy in County Mayo. It is heartening to know that the board exercised suitable vigilance regarding the environmental aspects of the proposal, to say nothing of the devastating critique made by the board inspector, Kevin Moore, of the lack of economic and social benefits to the region.

I am aware that this application was for an onshore facility but that only makes it all the more important that where oil and gas exploration is being conducted offshore, it, too, is subject to proper surveillance to ensure the protection of the surrounding sea area. I appreciate that, as with Sellafield, this strictly concerns factors outside the remit of the 1996 Act but I cite them to indicate that sea pollution is far more prevalent and insidious than can be dealt with by addressing the issue of dumping as defined in the Act. Having said that, I welcome the proposals contained in the Bill and trust that the heightened consciousness of the health of our seas will continue to be reflected in future legislation and Government action regarding developments which impinge upon it.

Mr. F. McGrath: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2000. I welcome this debate as I believe sea pollution and the destruction of our bays are not often given enough political attention. I am also extremely fortunate to live in a constituency which is beside our beautiful Dublin Bay and, in today's debate, I will be highlighting this serious issue as it affects the people in Dublin North-Central, particularly in Clontarf. I also pay tribute to people who have worked tirelessly to clean up our bays and who have tried to keep our seas clean. The great Sean Dublin Bay Loftus comes to mind and it is essential that we carry on his tradition. As a former Member of the Oireachtas and a former Lord Mayor of Dublin, he had a tremendous record in dealing with sea pollution, dumping at sea and the protection of Dublin Bay.

It is nonsense to talk about a dumping at sea Bill while ignoring any proposed destruction of Dublin Bay. Looking at the present situation we must ensure vigilance in regard to the protection of our seas and bays. In October 1999 the Dublin Port Company Limited applied to in-fill 52 acres. This application was rejected in March 2000 after the independent consultants found that the environmental impact statement was inadequate. On 7 March 2002, Dublin Port Company Limited reapplied to in-fill the same 52 acres. The independent consultants reported on the EIS in September 2002 and this application is still current. There is a history of attempts to destroy and dump in our sea.

Since 1972 the Dublin Port Company has tried further in-fills. In 1972, Dublin Port published a long-term plan for Dublin Bay which proposed the in-filling of 2,870 acres. In 1980, Dublin Port published notice to apply to in-fill 94 acres of our bay. In 1988, Dublin Port applied to in-fill 52 acres of our bay and in 1999, the port again applied to in-fill 52 acres of the bay. Finally, in 2002 Dublin Port applied to in-fill 52 acres of our bay. The signs from the Department responsible, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, are not encouraging. If the Minister gives the go-ahead, then the application will be published for public comment. This is a classic example of one section of Irish society trying to dump in and destroy our bay. We will need to defend Dublin Bay and defeat this in-fill attempt.

The Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, may remember that last year there was extensive flooding around Dublin Bay. A recent Environmental Protection Agency report recommends no further reclamation of estuary lands to address the reality of rising sea levels, and this includes Dublin Bay. In other words, it is a danger to the broader communities in Dollymount, Clontarf and East Wall. The Minister of State will see that when talking about dumping at sea, it is important we keep our eye on the ball to protect and preserve what remains of the lovely amenities of Dublin Bay. It is essential that I put these facts on the record. I urge the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to listen to the people on this important national issue. Dublin Bay belongs to the people of Dublin and Ireland and not just the port company.

The purpose of this Bill is to update the definition of "harbour authority" in section 1 of the Dumping at Sea Act, 1996, to include port companies to which the Harbours Acts, 1996 and 2000, apply. Section 2 provides for an amendment of section 5 of the Dumping at Sea Act, 1996, to include the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands in the list of Ministers who must be consulted by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources in relation to all applications for dumping at sea permits. I welcome section 4 which removes doubt that any likelihood of interference with important natural or archaeological heritage should be considered before a decision is made on an application for a dumping at sea permit.

Sections 3 and 5 are progressive sections which I welcome. The public has a right to know and to have their observations listened to in relation to any applications. Again, this is all relevant to Dublin Bay as the Minister must always listen to the thousands of people who object to the 52 acre in-fill. It is an environmental, public health and, above all, a citizens' rights issue. If he does not listen to sensible voices who care about our seas and bays, the Minister is turning his back on the democratic wishes of the people. Let this debate be a wake up call to show the people that damaging our seas and bays is really not an option. May I say it is great to see a member of the Technical Group in the Chair.

In section 3(3), the Minister can consider urgent cases involving navigational safety as quickly as possible. He is obliged to allow sufficient time for the applicant. In relation to staffing and the financial implications, I note the Bill does not require additional staffing or involve any net additional costs to the Exchequer. I have a concern about this section as we need to ensure the maximum health, safety and protection of the environment. One cannot do this on the cheap. It is important that the Minister takes my views on this legislation on board.

When talking about dumping at sea legislation, it is essential that we do not forget the people, our fishermen and women who use the sea for their livelihood. We all have a duty to ensure their quality of life and that their livelihood is protected. We should never forget the tragedies of those who have lost their lives at sea. At all times the sea must be protected and respected. Safety, ship safety and proper life saving equipment must be top of any agenda.

When it comes to the detail of the Bill, dumping, polluting or destroying our fish stocks must be dealt with in a strong manner. Let us remember that not only are we protecting our national resources but also the resources for the future. Vested interests, like the port company, cannot be allowed to dominate this debate. We have a role, as does the Dublin Port Company Limited, but the bays and seas of Ireland belong to the people and are not for sale. It is as simple as that. We have seen excellent projects, such as the recent Dublin City Council project, attempting to clean up the bay. I welcome these developments as a member of Dublin City Council since 1999. I was involved in pushing that agenda and it was an excellent project and I commend the Minister and Dublin City Council in that regard.

Mr. Broughan: The Labour Party planned it.

Mr. F. McGrath: I am aware of that. We have also seen community and residents' groups involved in clean ups. Groups like Dublin Bay Watch and the Clontarf Residents' Association are to the forefront in ensuring that we have clean and safe seas. I wish to thank them for their magnificent voluntary work. Many people would not be aware that groups like Dublin Bay Watch and the local residents' association in Clontarf have done magnificent work over 20 years on this issue. They are involved in clean ups in different parts of the bay on a regular basis.

We must also remind ourselves in this debate that we are an island economy and we need to protect our seas and bays. Dumping at sea is not an option. We need to protect and preserve what remains of the amenities of our seas and bays. This Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill reminds us all of the need to protect our seas and a great national asset - and it is a national treasure. I hope we do not take our eye off the ball and that we defend our marine and natural resources.

For a long time we have listened to the debate on Sellafield and the dumping of nuclear waste in the Irish Sea. This type of dumping is simply not acceptable. I challenge the pro nuclear groups in Ireland and in the EU. They must be challenged; they cannot have it both ways. Nuclear powers and nuclear interests should never be allowed to set the political agenda. Many of us believe they have got an easy ride over the last number of years. Let us remember that they tried to bring nuclear power to Ireland but the people stopped them at Carnsore. These are the types of issues which should be covered in this legislation. We must constantly be on our guard as there are still nuclear supporters around in Irish society; I am told they are even in the Government parties. However, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, will be glad to know I do not include him in that rump.

While dealing with dumping at sea, it would be remiss of me not to mention our Oireachtas colleague, Deputy Joe Higgins, who has been dumped in Mountjoy Prison because of his efforts to ensure Fingal County Council did not dump rubbish and collected all the bins of the PAYE workers involved in the bin tax protests. Will the Minister of State use any power and authority he has to seek the release of Deputy Joe Higgins and Councillor Clare Daly? We cannot allow them to be dumped in Mountjoy Prison. It is a disgrace that a Member of the Oireachtas is locked up in prison while criminals and tax dodgers are walking the streets.

1 o'clock

I welcome the legislation and the fact that the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will accept progressive amendments. It is now up to all of us to ensure that we have clean seas and bays.

Ms Cooper-Flynn: I, like other Members, welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill as I come from the coastal constituency of Mayo. The Bill is relevant to County Mayo because many of the fisherman on the Mayo coast rely on the quality of our seas for their livelihood. It is important that we maintain that quality by being careful with the type of dumping that takes place at sea. There are many fish processing facilities in the county. Sadly, we still have the discharge of raw sewage into the sea. However, I welcome this year's investment of €303 million by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in upgrading water and sewerage facilities within the county. Areas such as Achill Sound and Belmullet, where currently raw sewage is discharged into the sea, will not see this practice continue.

Mayo is also one of the counties that is affected by exploration companies. The story of Corrib Oil is not news to the House. As many Members will be aware, there has been an accidental dumping into the sea in Pollathomas, very near where Corrib Oil is carrying out its offshore work. Thousands of tonnes of bog, farm animals, debris and, sadly, a graveyard were accidentally dumped into the sea with drastic consequences for a local community. I am raising this matter in the House because not enough has been done to help and assist those people affected in Pollathomas. I recognise that there will be a clean-up operation in due course. However, I am anxious that there should be no delay whenever something of this magnitude happens. It is a national issue which has been reflected in the media reports.

I am also concerned about the impact of the Sellafield plant on our environment. I welcome the legal action taken by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Attorney General in this regard. We would all love to see the closing of the Sellafield plant because of the consequences and the danger it presents to those on this island.

This Bill is a regulatory measure that ensures only material that is adjudged on scientific advice to be suitable for disposal at sea will be disposed of in an appropriate manner and location. This is an important development. In 1996 I welcomed the original Dumping At Sea Act when it was brought before the House by a Member of another party. I now welcome the proposed amendments to the Act. The Dumping at Sea Act 1996 replaced and strengthened considerably earlier legislation for the control of dumping at sea in line with updated international obligations of the State. These were set out in 1992 by the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-east Atlantic. It extended the limit of the Irish jurisdiction for dumping at sea from 12 miles to 200 miles.

I welcome the amendments proposed by the Minister with regard to the changes of responsibility in various Departments so that those relevant Departments will be consulted for these particular permits for dumping at sea. It is important that all relevant Departments would be consulted and the widest possible consultations take place to ensure that no permits would be granted incorrectly without every Department being properly informed.

Section 2 of the Bill deals with the electronic publishing of applications for permits. This is an important proposal in the Bill despite the fact that there was already provision within the Department where applications for dumping were kept in book form and available for free inspection at the Department. However, the key issue here is access to information. It is not always possible for people to view documents based in the Department. That all this information will be based on websites is an important development. It allows people more knowledge of what is going on with regard to applications. I welcome this amendment which I note came from the Seanad. It is good to see the Seanad doing some worthwhile work in this area. Anything that improves access to information has to be widely accepted.

I note there is a proposed statutory obligation, as opposed to a non-statutory one, to advertise such applications in local newspapers. This is about empowering local people in getting the best possible information that nothing is happening in an underhand way. At least, they will feel it is not happening in an underhand way. They will be fully informed of what exactly is happening, particularly for those living on coastal areas where such activities will affect them in their livelihoods and quality of life. It is proposed that they will have 21 days to respond when they see these particular advertisements placed in local newspapers. We know we cannot hold up progress, but it is important that people get an adequate length of time for appeals. This proposed 21 days allows people an opportunity to put in objections or make submissions.

Under section 3 of the Bill, it is proposed that submissions made by people with regard to these permits are also published electronically so that people have access to them. While this Bill makes a number of technical amendments, it proposes to do much for access to information. In this House, we have debated access to information on many occasions. We cannot do enough to ensure that people are adequately informed.

Never was this more relevant than in County Mayo where we had public consultations with regard to the Bellanaboy facility for Corrib Oil. Deputy Ferris referred to a report which stated that it was of no economic benefit to the county. I reject this assertion, as does everyone in County Mayo. Any sensible person would recognise that bringing natural gas through County Mayo can only have economic benefits in the years to come. Sometimes, the economic benefits are not apparent immediately. It is when one looks to the long-term future, they become apparent.

However, no one wants such a facility to proceed without adequate safety requirements being put in place, without all the necessary laws being adhered to and the EPA requirements being met. We still hope in County Mayo that the facility can be put in place and that we will reap the economic benefits. I am not only talking about County Mayo but other counties, as I see Deputy Connaughton from County Galway on the opposite side of the House. There are benefits for everyone, but particularly for the Connacht region.

I welcome the Minister's proposals in encouraging all the relevant ports to draw up five-year plans. It is important that we do not manage our ports and harbours in a haphazard way or that these permits are applied for without adequate thought. That many of the harbours have already submitted and agreed five-year plans with the Minister is to be commended. We hope that this progress will continue in ports and harbours around the country so that we will know what will be happening in the next five years.

The Bill also provides for penalties, which is particularly critical. While one can put in all the rules and regulations with regard to dumping, unless there is an adequate penalty those people will unfortunately ignore the laws and dump, and they must be punished appropriately. In the closing remarks of the Minister of State for Communications. Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Browne stated that he will be bringing forward further amendments on Committee Stage to deal with penalties and the issue of fees. People who apply for permits to dump at sea are imposing a huge cost, particularly if it is an elaborate application, on the Departments concerned. It is only right and proper that those costs be recouped so that the Government is not out of pocket as a result of an application. I welcome those proposed amendments and look forward to seeing them on Committee Stage.

The Bill is slightly overdue in coming before the House. However, it is better late than never. Much thought has gone into it and it goes a long way to improving the rights of individuals and hearing the comments of local people who are affected directly by this legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Connaughton: I am delighted to revisit the Dumping at Sea Bill. I recall contributing to this Act five or six years ago when it was before the House. The Fine Gael Party welcomes the Bill. Anything that aims to ensure the well being of the sea around our coast will get the support of everyone in the House.

There are, however, a number of aspects to the Bill I wish to highlight. The Minister said that early enactment is desirable. I will return to this point later. This is an example of enabling legislation which ties up many loose ends, such as the incorporation of those Departments which were not included in the 1996 Bill. It is one thing to legislate for something but it is an entirely different matter to police it. How well will the legislation be policed? In five or ten years time will we be able to say that the seas are more environmentally friendly as a result of these provisions? What policing measures will be available to the Departments involved in this area to ensure that what we legislate for today will become a reality?

The Bill is primarily a regulatory measure which will decide that only material which is adjudged on scientific advice - that is an important aspect - is suitable for disposal at sea. Material that arises from port dredging must be disposed of in the proper place and manner.

In regard to the protection of important natural and archaeological heritage, the Bill includes reference to the Minister with responsibility for this area. The relevant Minister will be consulted when the need arises by the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. It is reasonable to assume that the office of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will be included since the heritage brief has been added to his portfolio.

The consultative process also involves the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in relation to water quality and radiological protection matters. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment will be involved in so far as this relates to industrial matters.

The remit of the heritage and planning division of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is now more important, or is as important, as that of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources so far as sea permits are concerned. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources will issue the sea permits in concert with the heritage and planning division of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I hope there will be an appeals mechanism for applications concerning natural heritage and archaeological projects. It is extremely important that a balanced approach is taken.

One can readily see the great commercial value of our ports and harbours. If a particular harbour has to be extended, it is not just a case of a few lorry loads of soil; we are talking about thousands of tonnes. There are only two options for the disposal of such soil; it can be sent to landfill or put out to sea. There is no other process for handling it. One would hope that every help will be given to the harbour authorities so that if they need to get rid of huge volumes of earth, debris and so forth, they will be given an opportunity to put it in landfill, if that is that most appropriate course of action. While I am not a scientist, I would question the environmental impact of thousands of tonnes of clay, stones and other debris on the seabed. I assume the scientists will be examining such issues before any permits are granted. While I accept that the ocean is vast in comparison to the land mass, one has to consider the effect on marine life.

It goes without saying that our ports and harbours are extremely important to us from a commercial point of view. As an aside, I was delighted to see from its financial returns last week how well Dublin Port is doing. It is prospering, which is hugely important for our industrial wellbeing. The more activity generated by the port, the greater the volume of traffic using the ports which brings us back on the merry-go-round to the M50, but that is not the primary purpose of today's discussion.

One would hope that common sense would prevail. While huge volumes of debris would inevitably impact on the seabed, it would probably rehabilitate itself over a period of time. This is something which needs to be done to make way for urgently required commercial entities. Many of our harbours and ports, with the exception of Dublin, are in areas that need extra business. It is important that we have good ports and harbours around the country, from the point of view of decentralisation and regionalisation .

A number of technical matter come to mind in regard to the Bill. Having to put prior notice in the paper is a good idea. People are used to doing this due to the various planning laws in regard to houses and other structures.

As regards the five year dredging plan, I do not have much experience of dredging other than that I spent some time as a Front Bench spokesman on Fisheries over the years. I accept that all harbours and ports should have five year plans. I hope it does not necessarily mean that because, for instance, in the case of some substantial development that would not have been envisaged earlier and was proposed within the remit of the five-year plan as laid out, there would be nothing to stop a harbour commissioner or port and docks board from introducing it within the five years. I presume that is the case because it would make no sense if it were not the case.

The policing of the regulations is very important. Many colleagues have spoken of matters that are not within the remit of the Bill and I am sure the Acting Chairman will allow me mention some such matters. Sellafield is a serious problem. While I acknowledge that this Government and every other previous Government has tried unsuccessfully, unfortunately, to have it closed down, it does not appear at the moment that the British authorities have the slightest inclination to do so. It is most important that the pressure is maintained because it is a serious problem on our doorstep. It always was a problem and it always will be one. From a policing point of view it is important that the proper levels are taken and that tests are conducted at regular intervals.

On the matter of nutrient enrichment in the seas around our shores, nobody will deny that for the last ten or 12 years there have been significant contributions made by all Governments. Anything to do with effluent and sewage disposal is extremely costly. The engineering facilities are available and there is no problem in that regard, but there is a problem with money. Until recently it was nothing short of a disgrace and there are still disgraceful spots around the country. Now that the Celtic tiger seems to be almost in the coffin will it mean that over the next nine or ten years there will be a significant slippage again and many of the areas that are simply pumping raw sewage into the sea will take a long time to see the expenditure on investment in the infrastructure?

One's own area always comes to mind. A few months ago I was brought on a tour of beautiful Kinvara in south Galway which is on Galway Bay. It is a small town which prides itself on attracting many thousands of tourists every year. Every bit of sewage created in that town goes straight into Galway Bay. That cannot be good for anybody. While this issue is outside the remit of this Bill, I believe it is important to highlight that fact on this occasion.

There needs to be a planned investment programme for the future in order to cope with good and bad times. This business of stop and go investment where if things are going well the investment is made and if they are not going well then investment is forgotten about, will not be good enough in the future.

As Fine Gael spokesman for regional development I was very upset to observe the problems which have beset the Corrib oil business in County Mayo. Irrespective of where the gas came ashore, it could always be expected that if it did not come ashore in Connacht it would be a very long time before either our big or small towns would be supplied with natural gas. Everybody says it was because Connacht is so far away and that has always been our problem in the west of Ireland. Even when it arrived on our coast we still have problems getting it ashore. It has caused a lot of disruption to those who live in the area. Speaking from a regional point of view I can inform the House that we want the gas and it is needed in our community for industry, particularly to give small towns a chance. I hope the matter will be taken care of eventually.

It is very important for the general public to have an appreciation of the concept of safety at sea and the concept of ensuring that the sea does not become a cesspool. The model of the tidy towns competition could be used. People should be encouraged to take a genuine interest because the sea is for everybody and it is very important. There are many people, it could be nine out of ten people in this country, who do not regard themselves as having any connection with the sea and they are mistaken. We all have a vested interest in ensuring that the seas are clear and unpolluted.

I wish to take my cap off to a man and a programme, Tom MacSweeney of RTE, the "Seascapes" man. Many people who have nothing to do with the sea, other than cross over to Holyhead a couple of times a year, and who have no clue about the issues, listen to that radio programme. Some people tell me they do not know whether it is to listen to the programme or to the signature tune but one way or the other it is a very beneficial programme. I compliment Tom MacSweeney on an excellent job carried out over many years. It is not just a thought that came into his head and was gone in a season. Many people have a genuine interest in that programme.

Deputy Gilmore steered the 1996 Act through the House. The limit of the Irish jurisdiction for dumping at sea was increased from 12 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles. That had a significant effect. I assume it took a year or two for the 1996 legislation to get into top gear. What type of policing was there? Were any companies or individuals found to be causing pollution and, if so, what legal or other action was taken?

I ask the Minister of State to give the House an indication of how the policing arrangements are synchronised. Many people have said to me that this is the best Parliament in the world for bringing in laws but that we seldom if ever see them through. I ask the Minister of State to give the House an indication of the sort of people or groups who broke the 1996 law and the extent of the lawbreaking. I do not condone anyone throwing a plastic bag into the sea but I am referring to a substantial fracture of this law. How did the courts and the policing bodies react to this law? Was the impression given that we meant business? That is most important. When talking about the attitudes towards dumping in a big bad world such as this, it has been represented to me that there are no fewer than 80,000 different types of chemicals in use worldwide.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

CEISTEANNA - QUESTIONS (Resumed).

Priority Questions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Question No. 60 cannot be taken as Deputy Allen is not present. We will proceed to the next question.

Mr. Durkan: I apologise for Deputy Allen who is on his way. Perhaps the House could take the next question and come back to Question No. 60.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We cannot do that. Standing Orders are clear. If the Deputy is not present when the question is called, it falls.

Mr. Durkan: I am aware of that. I thought you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, could facilitate him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Chair does not have any power to create a precedent.

National Stadium.

61. Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the position regarding the provision of a new national stadium; the number of locations which are under consideration by the Government for this development; if a decision on funding for the project has been made; the timescale for the project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22454/03]

63. Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if the Government has now received the Ove Arup report, on the provision of a stadium for rugby and soccer; if it will accept the recommendations contained in the report; when a definitive statement on a way forward will be made by the Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22453/03]

Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism (Mr. O'Donoghue): I propose to take Questions Nos. 61 and 63 together.

At my request, the IRFU and the FAI, supported by Arup consultants, set out their prioritised proposals for stadium development in which they considered five locations, including Lansdowne Road, Newlands Cross and Abbotstown, as to their suitability to meet requirements for a modern stadium to host major international rugby and soccer fixtures in the greater Dublin area. This report has been subjected to detailed examination by the Office of Public Works, which acts as my technical adviser on the project. The OPW engaged international private sector construction consultants, Davis Langdon PKS, to ensure that all matters relating to the proposal were thoroughly evaluated.

I received the OPW report in the middle of September and I am now reflecting on the issues highlighted by it in conjunction with the response to the earlier initiative to secure stadium facilities with the assistance of private sector funds. When I have considered the matter fully, I will present my assessment to Cabinet for decision. Until the Government has decided on the further action to be taken, I do not intend to make any new policy statements on this matter.

Mr. Wall: This issue is of major concern to the IRFU and the FAI. What is the Minister's view of the recent statement by the FAI that if a decision on a stadium was not forthcoming, home internationals might have to be played in UK stadia? That totally unacceptable situation would have a major effect on our standing in terms of soccer in the EU and on the world stage where we have made good progress.

If I remember correctly, during a previous Question Time we seemed to rule out any involvement by the private sector. It seemed to be the case that the Government and/or the two associations would provide the funding. The associations would do so by selling advance tickets and the Government would do so through capital funding. Are we moving away from that position or are we avoiding making a decision? Other spokespersons and I have given the Minister our full support for the stadium. However, we seem to be avoiding making the decision about when it will happen. Will the Minister state when a decision will be made? This matter has been ongoing since I became spokesperson. When will we be in a position to tell the FAI and the IRFU that a decision has been made? I understand the Minister's point that each application must be processed to ensure we make the right decision. However, it is time to make that decision. We know about the disappointment of the associations. We have seen many reports on this issue, but we do not seem to be able to make a decision.

Mr. O'Donoghue: I appreciate Deputy Wall's support for the stadium and that of the Fine Gael Party. The FAI has expressed great concern on the basis that it has been informed by FIFA that it is not a tenable situation in the longer term to have temporary seating placed in Lansdowne Road. At present, 11,000 bucket seats must be brought into Lansdowne Road for international games. The FAI has been informed by FIFA that it will not tolerate that in the longer term or perhaps in the medium term. Meanwhile the IRFU is in a difficult situation. The Lansdowne Road stadium has outlived its age and is no longer an appropriate stadium to host major international events.

As regards the involvement of the private sector, the 23 expressions of interest which arrived in on the last occasion were, for the most part, unsatisfactory. Unacceptable conditions were attached to some of the general expressions of interest. As regards a decision, I have outlined that I received the Ove Arup report. I asked the Office of Public Works to examine that and it did so in conjunction with the internationally renowned consultants, Davis Langdon PKS. We are now evaluating the situation within the Department. I hope to be in a position soon to go to Government with a memorandum seeking a decision. A number of options will be put before the Government. My view is well known. I strongly favour the construction of a new stadium. It is required in the interests of our sportsmen and women and in the interests of the sporting public, not to mention our international standing.

Mr. Allen: I apologise for being absent for the first question. I was in my office writing and did not notice the time.

Does the Minister accept that Government actions over recent years - years before his time, in some cases - have undermined the GAA's democratic process, caused divides in the FAI and left the IRFU sidelined? Does he accept that having had the report since early April, he has no option but to proceed with a stadium now? Will he make a decision as quickly as possible? How much of taxpayers' money has been spent so far on the Abbotstown project?

Mr. O'Donoghue: The suggestion that the actions of the Government have resulted in the sidelining of any organisation is complete nonsense. That simply did not happen - quite the opposite. The GAA has been assisted in all its facilities across the country and €70 million was made available to the organisation by the Government for the wonderful development of Croke Park. The objective of the exercise all the way through has been to make progress on obtaining a consensus. It is necessary in the short term that we reach a decision and, as I have outlined, I have been doing everything possible to prepare the most comprehensive memorandum possible for the Government with a view to obtaining a decision. The decision is one for the Government to make, as Deputy Allen knows. I provide the memorandum but the decision is a collective one. The memorandum will set out a number of options from which the Government will choose.

Mr. Wall: We know from press releases and so on that the current uachtarán of Cumann Luthchleas Gael, Mr. Seán Kelly, is in favour of opening up Croke Park and we are also aware of the problems that exist in the democratic process involved in making a decision on the issue. The serious nature of the matter is reflected in the Minister's answer about the possibility of international matches being played on foreign soil. Could a meeting be arranged between the Minister and the uachtarán to consider these problems? Goodwill is no use unless we try to make use of it. We must make contact and move things forward.

Have there been or will there be any meetings with Mr. Kelly on this matter? I fully understand the problems involved - the Minister and I have spoken in the House about democratic processes in the GAA on previous occasions and it is clear that the council must make some progress on this. Where there is goodwill we should use it. Has the Minister spoken officially or unofficially to the GAA about the opening up of Croke Park? Everybody is committed to providing a stadium - the Minister is obviously committed - we are only talking about an interim measure to overcome the current problems.

Mr. Allen: The Minister did not give a response to my first question about the expenditure to date on the Abbotstown project. Does he agree that the Taoiseach's intervention on the eve of the GAA's vote on Croke Park was gross interference and denied the organisation the opportunity of opening Croke Park? The torpedoing of the FAI project and fracturing of the structures within the FAI was the result of gross interference by the Government and the sidelining of the IRFU was an example of interference with that association. Does the Minister agree that due to this undermining of the democratic structures of the different sporting organisations, which took place before his time, it his now his responsibility to make a decision?

The Ove Arup report has been with the Minister since last April. What discussions have taken place at Cabinet level since then? What discussions have taken place with Deputy Harney and her party representatives about this project?

Mr. O'Donoghue: From June 2000 to September 2003, €85 million has been spent by the Exchequer on the Sports Campus Ireland project. Of this amount, €71 million was spent on the construction of the National Aquatic Centre and €11 on administrative and ongoing costs of CSID, most of which relate to the National Aquatic Centre, including executive services, project management, consultancy costs and VAT payments, although some of the VAT payment may be recouped. The balance of €3 million relates to planning and site survey work in preparation and development of the campus site. A total of €8.4 million was provided in 2003 for the completion of the National Aquatic Centre, to cover both capital and current costs.

In answer to Deputy Wall's question about the GAA, I have had a number of unofficial contacts with the president of the GAA about a national stadium and about the position of the GAA on Croke Park. It is my intention to have a more formal meeting in the near future and Mr. Kelly has indicated that he would be quite happy to come to such a meeting to discuss the various issues.

I am not aware of any interference with the GAA, the FAI or the IRFU.

Mr. Allen: I could spend an hour telling the Minister about it.

Mr. O'Donoghue: All I know is that the question of a national stadium was first put on the agenda by the Taoiseach because he supports the idea of having one. Energy has been expended not on misguiding anybody or trying to interfere but on seeking to bring the idea to fruition. The decision is a collective one for the Government, which has not discussed the issue in recent months for the simple reason that the memorandum has not been ready. It should be ready in the near future and the Government will then make a decision, which will become public.

Mr. Allen: Has the Taoiseach discussed this with the Tánaiste?

Mr. O'Donoghue: I can only give the Deputy the information in my possession.