Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Feb 1965

Vol. 214 No. 7

Supplementary Estimate, 1964-65. - Oil Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Bill, 1964 [Seanad]: Second and Subsequent Stages.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The main purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the amendments of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, adopted at an international conference in London in April, 1962, at which this country was represented. The 1954 Convention was given effect in this country by the Oil Pollution of the Sea Act, 1956. The Bill proposes to amend and extend the provisions of the 1956 Act.

Pollution of the seas and beaches by oil dates back to the beginning of the century when oil began to replace coal as a bunker fuel on ships. It did not, however, become serious and widespread until World War II when a number of ships carrying oil cargoes were sunk. Since the war the transport of increasingly large quantities of crude oil by tankers — 500 million tons in 1963 — has led to a marked worsening of the situation.

While Ireland has not been as seriously affected as some other countries, there have been a number of complaints of pollution of our coasts and coastal waters. Bathing and boating facilities at some of our seaside resorts have been affected which is not only unpleasant for our own people but could become a matter of concern to our important tourist industry. Oil pollution can also cause damage to fishermen's gear and boats and to marine installations. It is a potential danger to fish life and the fishing industry and has resulted in heavy mortality and injury to sea birds.

Gasoline, kerosene and lighter gas oils do not cause pollution since they are volatile and quickly evaporate when discharged. On the other hand crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil and lubricating oil which are known as the persistent oils are only slowly affected by evaporation and persist in the sea for very long periods and can be carried considerable distances by ocean currents and winds. It is these persistent oils which can pollute our beaches, and, of the persistent oils, crude oil forms by far the greatest proportion.

The principal cause of oil pollution is the practice of cleaning the cargo tanks of crude oil tankers at sea and discharging the washings overboard, even though this is normally carried out at a considerable distance from land. After discharging cargo, tankers have to take on board large quantities of water ballast to make them seaworthy on the return voyage. This water ballast, when afterwards discharged into the sea from tanks which may have contained oils of the persistent type, carries with it some of the oil residue which remains in the tanks from previous cargoes. The quantity of crude oil that remains in a tanker after its cargo is discharged varies with temperature, with the characteristics of the particular oil and with the structure of the ship's tanks, but on average amounts to about 0.4 per cent of cargo capacity. A 30,000 tons tanker cleaning all its tanks would, for example, discharge 120 tons of crude oil into the sea.

The only hope of dealing with this problem lies in concerted international action. The first effective steps in this direction were taken in 1954 when an international conference representative of 42 countries, including Ireland, was convened in London to consider the problem. The Conference which was representative of 95 per cent of the world's merchant shipping adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, together with eight resolutions. The Convention prohibited the discharge of persistent oils into the sea by tankers and dry cargo vessels of over 500 tons gross within certain prescribed zones. The Convention also provided for the fitting of equipment to ships for preventing the discharge of oil into the sea and for the provision in main ports of adequate reception facilities for oily residues from vessels other than tankers. Reception for oily residues from tankers would normally fall to be provided at the loading ports. The Convention provided for the keeping of records of oil operations on all ships covered by the Convention.

One of the resolutions adopted by the 1954 Conference recognised that the only entirely effective method of preventing oil pollution was complete avoidance of the discharge of persistent oils into the sea. The Conference urged Governments and other bodies concerned to create the conditions under which it would be possible to achieve this objective at the earliest practicable date and recommended that a further conference should be held within three years to review the position.

The Conference envisaged in the resolution referred to in the preceding paragraph was not convened until April, 1962. The Governments of 41 countries, including Ireland, accredited representatives to the Conference and the Governments of 14 nations sent observers. This Conference reached the conclusion that the complete avoidance of the discharge of oil and oily residues into the sea was not yet a practical proposition but that in the light of experience gained in the working of the 1954 Convention an extension of the provisions of that Convention was warranted and that this might best be achieved by amendment of the 1954 Convention.

The principal amendments of the 1954 Convention which were adopted by the Conference were as follows:

(a) that the Convention be extended to apply to tankers of between 150 and 500 tons gross;

(b) that the discharge of oil or oily mixture should be completely prohibited, except in exceptional circumstances, from ships of 20,000 tons gross or more for which the building contract is placed on or after the date on which this provision comes into force;

(c) that the zones into which persistent oil or oily mixture may not be discharged should be substantially extended;

(d) that Contracting Governments should take all appropriate steps to promote the provision of adequate reception facilities for oily residues and oily mixtures from ships; each Contracting Government shall determine which ports and terminals in its territories are suitable for these purposes.

The amendments adopted by the Conference were signed, subject to acceptance, by the Irish delegation. In accordance with the provisions of the 1954 Convention the amendments will become effective 12 months after acceptance by two-thirds of the Contracting Governments, except for those Governments which within that period indicate that they do not accept them. The present position is that 28 States have accepted the 1954 Convention and of these, 12 have accepted the 1962 amendments. The 1962 amendments will not accordingly come into force until at least seven more States have accepted them. Enactment of the Bill will enable the Government to accept the amendments on behalf of this country. Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Ghana, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Poland, Kuwait, Liberia and the United Arab Republic have already accepted the amendments.

If all ships were to follow strictly the provisions of the Convention and Amendments, pollution of the seas by oil would be lessened considerably but as it will still be permissible to discharge oil in certain areas, observance of the provisions will not entirely eliminate pollution. For this reason it is gratifying to note that Shell International Marine Ltd., British Petroleum Tanker Co. Ltd. and Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. are taking more positive action to solve the problem. These companies have developed a scheme known as the "load on top" system which it is believed will make a substantial contribution towards reducing pollution. Under this system, the oily waste from all tanks is collected into one tank. Here it is left to settle into a layer of oil floating on top of a layer of emulsified oil and water which in turn floats on clean sea water; as much of the water as can be pumped off without including traces of oil is then discharged back into the sea. The oily residue is either pumped ashore or retained on board, depending on circumstances, and the succeeding cargo loaded on top, provided that the residue and the new cargo are compatible. The companies are designing equipment to separate the oily water mixture more efficiently, and hope that other oil companies and shipowners will follow their example. This action by the oil companies is particularly welcome and should have a noticeable effect on the cleanliness of the sea.

I am glad to say that the shipping industry in this country has always given the fullest co-operation in any steps necessary to combat oil pollution. Subsequent to the drawing up of the 1954 Convention Irish shipowners agreed to give immediate effect on a voluntary basis to its provisions providing for the prohibition of oil discharge in prohibited zones and to the keeping of records of oil operations on board ship. Since the Convention came into force there have been no complaints against Irish vessels. The only prosecution in this country under the 1956 Act has been in respect of a foreign vessel.

It will be seen, therefore, that while Ireland suffers comparatively severely from oil pollution our shipowners are not responsible for causing pollution. It is accordingly in our interests that the amendments of the Convention should be brought into effect at an early date. While the 1954 Convention did not apply to ships of under 500 tons gross, the Oil Pollution of the Sea Act, 1956 went beyond the requirements of the Convention and applies to all ships registered in the State which include ships in excess of 15 net register tons. No amendment of the Act is therefore necessary to give effect to the amendment of the Convention which provides that the Convention shall apply to tankers of 150 tons and over as the Act already applies to such ships.

Whilst there are no ships of 20,000 tons gross or over on the Irish register, the modern trend is towards larger ships and it is possible that ships of this size may in time be acquired by Irish owners. Accordingly, provision is made in the Bill for the total prohibition, except in exceptional circumstances, of the discharge of oil into the sea from ships of 20,000 tons gross or more which are ordered on or after the date on which this provision comes into force.

Under the 1954 Convention the prohibited zones for tankers were generally more extensive than those for other ships. The 1962 amendments to the Convention radically alter this position, so that apart from the special provision for the new 20,000 ton ships the same prohibited zones will apply to all classes of ships irrespective of the trade in which they are engaged. It is proposed to give effect initially to this new requirement by section 4 of the Bill which provides that the existing prohibited zones for tankers shall be prohibited zones for all ships registered in the State. Extension of these zones can be effected by Ministerial Order under section 9 of the 1956 Act.

Power is being taken under section 5 of the Bill to require the owner of an oil refinery, shipbuilding or ship repairing yard to provide facilities for the discharge and reception of oil and oily residue from ships where such facilities are necessary or the existing facilities are inadequate. It is not anticipated that this requirement should create any serious difficulty for the interests concerned and in any event there will be the fullest consultation before any action is taken under this provision. The remaining provisions of the Bill give effect to minor amendments of the Convention adopted by the 1962 Conference.

Enactment of the Bill will enable the Government to accept the amendments adopted by the 1962 Conference and, therefore, help to bring these amendments into operation internationally. The Bill will place no significant burden on shipowners or other private interests nor will it involve any additional charge on public funds. I have every confidence that the Bill will meet with the general approval of the House.

We approve of this Bill which is, as the Minister says, substantially for the purpose of giving effect to amendments of existing international agreements for the control of this serious nuisance. The Minister has spoken of the States which have ratified the 1962 Convention but he does not mention the names of the States whose failure to ratify it so far has prevented it coming into force. Perhaps he would find it convenient to do so before the debate closes.

Oil pollution which this Bill is designed to help in checking has not only extremely disagreeable consequences to the foreshore but also deplorable results for sea birds. The extent to which birds are slaughtered by oil pollution is in many areas something approaching a catastrophe.

I think we are bound to admit here, although I understand on the south and east coasts there has been a great deal of trouble from this matter, we are by no means the country worst affected in Europe by this type of oil pollution. The southern coast of England, certain parts of the Mediterranean coast and the Atlantic coasts of Spain and France have suffered very much more severely, and for that we may be proportionately grateful. It would be a mistake from the point of view of our tourist industry to exaggerate the extent of this problem. In so far as we are concerned, for hundreds of miles of our beaches on our west, north-west and south-west coasts, there is virtually no oil pollution. I am happy to think that even here it is not at all on as grievous a scale as other countries have to complain of.

However, we cordially approve of our Government playing their full part in seeking to control this international evil and it is gratifying to learn that the only prosecution we have had to take under the 1956 Act was in regard to a foreign vessel and not one of our own, and that as far as our information goes no ship registered here has contributed to this international evil. I hope that the Government and the Governments of the several countries associated with this Agreement will be able to look forward to further and better regulations.

I agree with the Minister that the companies which he mentioned, who have introduced a system of their own for mitigating this evil, are to be congratulated. I should be glad to hear that some of the international bodies such as the Council of Europe or the United Nations would be invoked to persuade companies everywhere, engaged in traffic similar to that mentioned by the Minister, to follow the good example of the companies to which he has referred.

Mark you, sometimes a body like the Council of Europe has a contribution to make in this regard and I believe that if this problem of oil pollution were brought to the attention of the appropriate committee on the Council of Europe, and the value of the contribution made by the British Petroleum Tanker Company, the Shell International Marine Company and Esso Petroleum Company brought to their attention, they might be able to help in persuading companies in the member countries to follow this example and make their contribution towards the elimination of this evil. Oil pollution of the sea is something that no individual country can itself control. It is eminently desirable that we should continue to be in the forefront of international action for its control. I should be glad to know from the Minister when he expects the additional countries to ratify the 1962 Convention so that it can be brought into force.

One welcomes a provision of this kind for many reasons, mostly because we have such a tremendous coastline and consequently it is possible for oil which has been discharged pretty well anywhere in the Atlantic to end up on one of our beaches particularly in the west, at Connemara, or the south-west or on the north-west. We welcome it also, of course, for the reasons mentioned by Deputy Dillon, the rather horrible sight of sea birds and other birds which are completely disabled by this oil pollution of the beaches. There is also the unpleasantness it creates for people, tourists and so on, using the beaches and that I suppose is the major objection.

The Minister was slightly selfsatisfied—"smug" is the word I was going to use, but I will use "selfsatisfied"—about our shipowners not being responsible for causing pollution. Taken in the context of so many countries with large merchant fleets, I do not think that it is really such a tremendous achievement on our part. It is a pity that so much advance has been made in regard to the Air Navigation Bill with which we have just been dealing and on which there is so much agreement, while there is such relatively little agreement in regard to this one.

The Minister pointed out that the Second World War finished 20 years ago and we have the position that of the 42 countries that attended the Conference, only 28 accepted the 1954 Agreement and only 12 the Amendment to that Agreement. The latest Agreement, the 1962 Agreement, will not come into operation until at least seven more agree to support it. Therefore it looks as if we are making very slow progress in dealing with this problem. I suppose there is very little we, a tiny country, can do to expedite an international agreement.

It is interesting to note the contrast between the progress made in regard to the other Agreement on air navigation and the very slow progress on this Agreement. I suppose there are reasons for that but obviously there are people who are not affected by this use of oil in merchant fleets, particularly since the war. As Deputy Dillon says, the Minister did not mention the countries which have not accepted the Agreement. I was interested in one country, to know whether it had made any attempt to go to the Conference or to make any agreement, that is, Greece, which has a very large merchant fleet. The Minister has not given any indication as to what attitude Greece takes with regard to a measure of this kind.

There is a provision in the Bill regarding the building of ships of 20,000 tons and over which states if the building contract for it has been entered into after the date on which the section comes into operation, the ship shall be prohibited from discharging oil or oily mixture except in exceptional circumstances. Why was this tonnage decided on and why was it decided—while it is very desirable— to impose such a decision on that type of ship and not extend it? If it is possible to make that decision effective in regard to certain ships, what makes it possible for us to impose this condition on such ships and not impose it on other ships? How will that be made effective?

In regard to the zones in which oil is being discharged, who makes the decision? Do the international group make it? Have we been party to the decisions made in regard to the zones in which persistent oil may be discharged? How is agreement reached? I am fairly certain we in this country will try to have all oil being discharged into the Atlantic and the Irish Sea completely prohibited, but who will allow or disallow the discharge into the sea anywhere around our territory? How is agreement on that arrived at? Is it by this conference, this group of nations? Do they decide the zones in which this persistent oil can be discharged? To what extent have people a right to say they do not particularly want the oil discharged in any area near their own country?

In regard to the provision whereby Governments will designate ports at which oil is offloaded, what is the position? Whose responsibility will it be? Is it the responsibility of the port concerned to provide the necessary storage facilities or will it be, from the point of view of the cost, the responsibility of the Government. The same questions apply to shipbuilding and ship repairing concerns. To what extent will they be liable? What does one do with all this persistent oil? How does one get rid of it? It seems to me it will become a pretty formidable task in a very short time. It seems to be quite a difficult problem.

When they bring the stuff in and it reaches the stage of offloading, it is emulsified.

What do they do with the emulsified oil?

Doctors have a use for it, diluted.

The Minister says it is not anticipated this will create any serious difficulties for the interests concerned and that he will discuss it with the various interests. Is it a problem which will create any significant expenditure from the point of view of a port like Galway, or Dublin, of course, with its tremendous inflow of traffic? How is the Convention to be made effective in that respect? Is there some register of the amount of oil taken aboard? To what extent is that Convention enforceable? Has the Minister any reason to believe that there is likely to be any kind of expeditious resolution of the present impasse? If it goes on at the rate at which it is present progressing, it seems to me it will be quite a long time before there will be effective control.

We in this country must have considerable interest in anything that will tend to help in the solving of this oil pollution nuisance which is growing every day. It is of particular interest to us because we are at the receiving end: our waters are being polluted, as the Minister rightly said, not by our own ships but by those of other nations. It appears to me that the 1954 Convention has failed to achieve its object. At the 1954 Convention, the idea was that the oil could be discharged from ships only outside prohibited zones. It was always a rather flexible Convention because it was difficult to prove who was polluting the water and, secondly, if you did know, it was very difficult to prevent its being done.

This Bill seems to be a new attempt to meet the situation by, first of all, dealing with ships of more than 20,000 tons and secondly, by making some sort of legal requirement binding on all nations whereby legal proceedings can be taken against anyone responsible for pollution. The 20,000 ton vessels would not seriously concern us. In the first instance, if a vessel of that size is responsible, it should not be very difficult to nail it down because there are not so many 20,000 ton tankers riding the high seas as there are smaller tankers.

The whole thing is complicated and the Minister dealt cursorily with it. I do not think he has had sufficient technical advice to clarify fully the procedure it is intended to adopt between the different countries. It may well be that science has not reached the stage of arriving at any effective answer. Deputy Dillon spoke about the emulsification of the oil. That is laborious and applies only to the bigger tankers. The little tankers would not be in a position to do this but then, perhaps, the risk from smaller ships is not as great.

Enforcement seems to be the main core of the Bill. If oil is discharged, section 5 gives the right to countries that signed the Convention to enforce the law against anybody responsible for polluting the water within the prohibited zone. It seems to raise the point as far as we are concerned—and it is ourselves we are interested in— first of all, how will we prove who has polluted our waters? That is a difficult question unless we have sufficient naval patrols or air surveillance. Secondly, how are we to enforce the legislative action we propose to take? That, too, will be difficult.

Supposing somebody discharges oil in our territorial waters and is guilty of an infringement of the law. Supposing those responsible are discovered, how will we enforce this? It is true there is an international Convention, but there are many problems involved. First of all, one has to capture the ship, bring it in and make it responsible in the same way as ships which infringe our territorial waters are brought in. Are we competent to do that with three corvettes which can be seen many miles away and which are somewhat limited in speed? They are, in fact, about the slowest fighting ships afloat. I see very great difficulties in this and if the Minister has the information, he should inform us how it will be possible to enforce the law and uphold this suggested Convention. We should all like to know that. We should be glad to learn that he is in a position to enforce the law.

We should also have a little more information as to what the oil companies are responsible for exactly. According to the Minister the big tankers will have to carry out this process of pumping out the water and bringing the residual oil into a receiving depot which we, under the international Convention, will afford to the acceding parties to the Convention. We will have to have certain facilities for these people. Deputy Dr. Browne rightly said that considerable cost would be involved. Considerable organisation will be needed. Of course, the Convention will not become effective overnight. There is no specific date mentioned. Certain preparations will be needed. I presume it will be necessary to have one port as a receiving depot.

No; we have receiving depots in Dublin and Whitegate already.

I presume we have the facilities and the draught in both these ports to accommodate a 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 ton tanker if she comes alongside?

We have all the facilities necessary. We have a floating barge in Dublin.

Have we the draught in Dublin port to take a 40,000 ton tanker?

We have the facilities for any tanker that could come into Dublin.

We have sufficient water?

I am doubtful of that. I have never seen a 40,000 ton tanker in Dublin.

I said we have facilities for any tanker which could come into Dublin.

I am glad to hear that. As I said earlier, I do not know if the Minister has had full technical advice on these matters. The House is entitled to information. The kernel seems to be that we must provide these facilities for tankers of 20,000 tons and upwards so that they can dispose of the residue. We should like to know if the Minister knows what exactly the facilities are. International agencies will be interested in our discussions here in order that they may know exactly how we stand and the way in which we are prepared to fulfil our obligations under this Convention.

Having said that, I think anything that alleviates the situation that has arisen with regard to pollution of our beaches is to be welcomed. In the past few years, the position has been very bad. Bird life and fish have suffered. Our tourist industry has been affected. The position is not as serious here as it is in the United Kingdom. There the waters are narrower and there is a greater volume of shipping. At the same time we are confined to a certain extent. The waters are fairly shallow. Unless something is done under international law, there will be a considerable deterioration in the future.

It seems pretty obvious from the discussion that this problem of oil pollution will not be solved in the near future. It seems equally clear that the cure for this can only be a voluntary cure because it will not be possible to impose penalties over such a wide area on those guilty of oil pollution, either by accident or by design. The Minister is perfectly correct when he talks about the seriousness of this problem as far as the tourist trade is concerned, and not alone tourists coming from abroad but also trippers who visit the seaside.

Nothing can be done in a short time. I wonder has the Minister considered whether it is possible to do something, from the point of view of the tourist industry, to ensure there will be unblemished beaches. Living in a maritime county, I have a fair experience of the local beaches. I know something about the beaches in other counties as well, and have a fair appreciation of what the problem is. I have also an appreciation of what the results of pollution are. It is a worse menace than tar. It sticks to the soles of children's feet. It clings to their legs. People's clothes are destroyed.

Deputy Tully has just reminded me that, when word goes around that Laytown beach is polluted, the people shun it. The same thing happens in Rosslare, Curracloe, Duncannon, Rossmore, Courtown, and all these other places. It is for that reason I ask the Minister has he ever considered what could be done to rid the beaches of this kind of pollution. I do not care whether it is done by hand or not. I am posing the problem to him. Has the Minister seen this pollution?

Yes. There are places where the people pick it up.

It is not buried deeply in the sand; it is visible. Would the Minister consider giving a grant from the Vote for tourism to local authorities to help them rid the beaches of this objectionable stuff? It may be a formidable problem but it should not be an expensive problem because most of the beaches are not very big. In Tramore there is the accepted section of beach. The Minister could well consider with local authorities to find out what could be done during the season to keep the beaches free. The Minister could also co-operate by giving some sort of grant from the moneys allotted to his Department for the tourist industry. If word gets round that this pollution is on any of the recognised beaches, people are inclined to shun them, to the detriment of traders, hoteliers and all those who benefit from the tourist industry.

I do not know whether the Minister has considered that problem. He should not toss it aside, because it is a serious problem. If an effort by his Department or the local authorities or the expenditure of a not unreasonable amount could do anything to alleviate the problem, it would be well worth while.

This Bill is very welcome. We have all seen the damage that can be done to our coasts by oil pollution. This oil is a thick, sticky mess, just as bad as tar. A person goes to the seaside for a day's enjoyment and does not want to come back with his clothes destroyed. It is particularly hazardous for children, who may have to go through it to get to a swimming place. We all know when we change the oil in a tractor on the farm, the mess that remains on the ground for a long time afterwards. That is nothing compared with the crude oil from ships.

I was glad to see that a number of the big companies are experimenting by putting all the waste into one section of the ship and trying to get rid of it in that way. It is startling to learn that, when a tanker of 30,000 tons cleans its tanks, 120 tons of waste crude oil are discharged. You can imagine the way that will scatter over a huge area. It is frightening to think of the amount of harm it can do. At present, the whole trend is towards building bigger tankers. Therefore, we will have to have legislation to deal with this problem.

We have been lucky here in that over the years we have not had as much pollution as other countries. Anybody who has seen it on our coast will never forget it. When the oil is on the strands in Meath, people do not come there. Seemingly, the word gets round very quickly, and there is a loss of income to the hoteliers and other people concerned.

The tourist industry is one aspect of this, but an even more important one is the fishing industry. This oil gets on to the nets and gear of the fishermen and even affects the fish themselves. It puts a complete scum over the sea, so that the feeding and air for the fish are affected. We all know how difficult it is to wash oil off our hands. You can imagine how hard it must be for the fishermen to wash this stuff off their nets and gear and the amount of detergent they must use. It gets completely matted up in the nets and must leave them in an awful mess. The amount of time the fishermen must spend cleaning their nets when they should be at sea earning their livelihood results in a loss of income for them. In some cases they have to go to other fishing grounds in order to avoid this oil pollution.

We know that when an accident occurs at sea and a ship is sinking, if there is a discharge of oil, it hinders people in the water trying to get to lifeboats and rafts. It gets into their mouths and lungs and they cannot swim in it. I read of people having to try to swim around it in order to have any hope of survival.

We have all seen pictures of sea birds caught in this oil. Members of the SPCA have to catch these birds and wash them. I remember a television programme some years ago in which it was stated, I think, that it is a full week before the birds can go back again. They are unable to fend for themselves and, if not assisted, simply die off. Their feathers are stuck together and they cannot preen themselves. Perhaps sea birds do not bring a lot into the country from the economic point of view, but nevertheless those people are doing a great service by protecting and washing them. The number of birds they save is small compared with the number lost at sea.

I was glad to see that we have facilities for those ships to discharge their waste oil in Dublin and Whitegate. They have tankers coming in at all times and, when a 30,000 ton tanker can discharge 120 tons of waste crude oil, it is good to see that we have those facilities in two of our main ports. The ships can go in there, discharge their cargoes and clean their tanks. They have to take in salt water as ballast—otherwise, they would be too high in the water — and I was pleased to hear that at Whitegate they can clear their tanks, take on seawater as ballast and go on their way to collect a fresh cargo. Where these facilities do not exist, there is a great temptation to tankers to clear out their tanks at sea where they cannot be seen. Now they can be doing some of that work in port when they are finishing discharging and the work will not take too long.

Here we are agreeing to an international Convention that has been delayed for quite a long time. It is a pity it has taken so long to get in the other countries. The conference at which the Convention was made was held in 1954 and there were some amendments afterwards. Ireland is one of the countries affected more than most by what we are doing now, but we hope that these discharges will stop now. For that reason I welcome this Bill and I am glad to see that some of the tanker companies are experimenting in an effort to find a use for the waste oil so that they will not have to waste much time in discharging it.

I will make only a brief comment on this matter. I live on the sea coast and perhaps for that reason I have more experience of this matter than most people who have spoken. My house overlooks the sea and the ships coming in and out of the port of Drogheda pass quite close and discharge their crude oil off the coast. This happens all around the year. In the summer time, not many birds of any kind are affected but in the winter the crude oil so discharged comes in in the seaweed. In the normal way, most of that would be carried out again by the ebb and flow of the sea but when it comes in in the seaweed, it tends to become covered with sand and in the summer time children building sandcastles dig it up. Before long the oil which has come in six months earlier has the whole coastline contaminated. The suggestion of Deputy Corish that a grant be given to local authorities to clean up the oil so brought in is a reasonable one, but prevention is better than cure.

While the signing of this Convention is a very good idea, I think there is a lot of wishful thinking about it. It does not achieve very much and unless the necessary number of countries sign it, we will be back in the same position. Much more strenuous efforts will have to be made to prevent pollution of our coast by tankers. These tankers should be made to discharge their waste oil in port. It would cost them less. If the port authorities and the tanker companies co-operated, it should be possible to have these tankers going to sea again without having contaminated the sea or coastline and without any extra cost.

I am amazed at the figure of 120 tons of waste crude oil being discharged into the sea by a 30,000 ton tanker. I am sure that a nought must have got lost somewhere. I suggest to the Minister that he should make every effort to get a conclusion on this issue. If he simply says to the tanker companies that they must not discharge crude oil within a certain area, they will do it at night when they cannot be seen and this can be very expensive for those who are earning their living by the seaside.

The area from which I come has not been badly contaminated over the past two years but up to that time the situation was appalling. Tankers discharge oil within a half mile of the coast and that oil ruins the beach for the whole season. Far more strenuous efforts are necessary to stop this. The signing of the agreement is all right but I believe it will not do very much to help. If there has to be unilateral action taken by the Government to stop this, that action must be taken at once.

In reply to Deputy Tully, while I sympathise with his resentment against the tankers and ships that discharge the oil, we have no power to do anything outside the territorial waters.

The limit is now 12 miles.

We do require international intervention. I understand that ships using Drogheda would be cross-Channel in most cases or near-continental and would not use the persistent oil which is dealt with in this Convention. This Convention applies to crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil and lubricating oil. These kinds of ships use, I understand, a light diesel oil.

For the last two years, we have not been affected. Before that we were very badly affected.

Tankers using Drogheda would be coastal tankers and would not need to clean their tanks at sea at all.

Deputy Dillon asked for the names of the countries which have not yet signed the 1962 Convention. First of all, I think I can give the names of the countries who do not accept the 1954 Convention and obviously they are not going to go ahead on this occasion. They are: Japan, Russia, China, Brazil, India, Peru, Bulgaria, Portugal, Roumania. The countries which at the moment have not yet accepted the 1962 amendments—the fact that they have not yet accepted them does not mean that they will not do so; legislation is probably proceeding as ours is today—are: Belgium, Finland, West Germany, the United States of America, Iceland, Ireland, Australia, Jordan, The Dominican Republic, Mexico, Spain, Panama.

There is no reflection cast on these countries. I am quite certain the vast majority of them will duly subscribe to the Convention. So that that list does not really signify very much. As with our country, legislation has to be fitted in whenever it is possible. I do not think the list is in itself very significant.

One Deputy asked how the zones can be enforced under the Convention. Section 4 of the Bill deals with that and the extension of the present prohibited zones for tankers which is provided for means that the large zones subscribed by the new Article of the Convention will be implemented by me under Ministerial Order, under section 9 subsection (3) of the old Act. This empowers me to make use of a section in the old Act to subscribe to Article 3 of the Convention which has been laid on the Table of the House, which everybody can see.

I cannot describe exactly the 1962 prohibited zone for all ships but there is quite an amount of sea which stretches 1,100 miles to the west of our country and which stretches 400 miles to the north west, 600 miles to the north and 400 miles to the south and south-west. It is not an exactly uniform pattern. I have given a rough indication of the mileage limits.

Deputy Dr. Browne and others asked how this Convention was enforced and the answer is that there are very few prosecutions. Most of the effect of this Convention is that of moral pressure, getting people to sign an instrument to carry out the terms of the Convention, to keep records. There is no prescribed machinery in the sense of ships that watch other ships, but any ship can report another ship. If a ship belonging to a member of the Convention is passing a ship and the captain sees a great flow of crude oil in the water, an obvious discharge, he can report it and if the ship can be identified and if the country admits that that ship of its fleet committed an offence, the owner can be fined. The House knows these international regulations more often have effect through moral pressure than anything else and, as far as I know, there have been very few prosecutions indeed.

Does that mean that oil is not being discharged or that people are not prosecuting?

I think the situation is slightly better. So we understand. But, as the Deputy will realise, if two ships pass each other in a prohibited zone and someone on one ship sees a great pool of oil in the water, it is almost impossible to prove that it came from the ship that has passed. It is very difficult to prove. There is the problem. It is the keeping of records by those who sign the Convention and the fact that the records can be seen and inspected by marine surveyors under the various State administrations that is probably the best compulsive force to try to end this very serious menace to our coasts and to the coasts of other countries.

Deputy Dr. Browne mentioned the fact that 20,000 ton ships that have been built after a certain date may not discharge oil anywhere when this Convention comes into force and asked why could not we extend that provision to existing 20,000 ton ships. The answer is that it is extremely difficult to get agreement. Unless I was to read through the minutes of these meetings, which I do not think would get us anywhere, the answer is that the Convention is the result of the efforts that have been made to achieve the possible. It is extraordinarily difficult to secure agreement in regard to these kinds of shipping problems because freight rates in international shipping have been depressed for a number of years as a result of a huge number of old ships still sailing the Seven Seas and a great number of new ships have come into operation. So, everybody is thinking of perhaps even petty cost to themselves. It has been difficult to get the perfect instrument. All I can say is that we are advancing gradually.

I have already said that facilities exist at Whitegate and Dublin so that I do not have to enforce that part of the Convention which when it comes into operation makes it clear that those who sign the Convention can compel their port authorities to provide these facilities. We have already got them at Dublin and Whitegate.

I understand that the waste oil that is finally discharged in the ports can be treated, emulsified or refined in some way, and disposed of.

Question put and agreed to.

Would the House object to giving all Stages now? This is simply following a Convention. We either have to follow the Convention or not.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Top
Share