Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Mar 1977

Vol. 298 No. 2

Oil Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Bill, 1976 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick,

Cavan): The main purposes of this Bill are : (a) to enable Ireland to become a party to the International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969; (b) to enable Ireland to accept certain amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954; (c) to extend and strengthen the powers of the Minister for Transport and Power in relation to oil pollution of the sea; and (d) to resolve a jurisdictional difficulty in relation to the Oil Pollution of the Sea Acts, 1956 and 1965 and increase the penalties for offences under these Acts.

The problem of oil pollution of the sea is not a new one but it has become particularly serious over the last years or so during which time the volume of oil carried by sea has increased very substantially. In the past, oil pollution of the sea mainly occurred through the practice of dumping oil residues from tankers at sea. Nowadays, however, because of the vastly increased quantities of oil being carried by sea in tankers of ever-increasing size, a major threat is also posed by spillages following marine casualties.

The Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (IMCO), of which Ireland is a member, decided to take the initiative in prompting international agreements to strengthen the hands of coastal states. To date IMCO have adopted four conventions dealing with the problem of oil pollution. This Bill is concerned with two of these, viz.,

the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954; and

the International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969.

Two further conventions—the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, and the International Convention relating to the Establishment of an International Fund for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971—deal with civil liability in cases of oil pollution damage and provide for the setting up of an international compensation fund to meet the cost of major spillages. Legislation to enable Ireland to ratify these latter conventions is at an advanced stage of preparation and I would hope to present it to the House for consideration later this year.

The purpose of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, which was drafted prior to the advent of the mammoth tankers, is to reduce the risk of pollution of the sea by oil discharged from ships. The principal means adopted in 1954 was the designation of certain zones of the sea into which the discharge of oil was prohibited. Amendments to strengthen the convention were adopted by IMCO in April, 1962. Both the convention and 1962 amendments are in force internationally, i.e., they have been adopted by the requisite number of states in respect of their own ships, and are implemented in Ireland by the Oil Pollution of the Sea Acts, 1956 and 1965.

IMCO adopted further amendments to the 1954 convention in October, 1969 and October, 1971. The 1969 amendments will come into force internationally on 20th January, 1978. The 1971 amendments have not yet received the required number of ratifications.

The purpose of the amendments adopted in 1969 is to ensure more effective control of the discharge of oil into the sea by ships. This is done by introducing more restrictive controls and by making the whole sea, rather than certain specified sections, a prohibited area as far as unrestricted discharges are concerned. Tighter restrictions are, moreover, imposed on all discharges including, for example, discharges of ballast, in areas within 50 miles of land.

The ultimate object of these amendments, as expressed in the assembly resolution adopting the amendments, is to enable significant progress to be made towards the achievement of complete avoidance of discharges. The principal amendments adopted in October, 1971 establish requirements relating to tank arrangements and the limitation of tank sizes of tankers in order to minimise pollution of the sea by oil in the event of an accident involving a large oil tanker.

A further amendment adopted in 1971 deals with the protection of the Great Barrier Reef, that great natural phenomenon of coral reefs and cays off the Australian coast. Although the amendment is of no practical significance to us, we intend to accept it as, by doing so, we will be contributing towards its entry into force.

Deputies may have difficulty in relating the foregoing to the various provisions of the Bill. I should explain that the sections dealing with the amendments to the 1954 convention are, basically, sections 9, 12, 13 and 18. These are couched in general terms and the actual implementation of the 1969 and 1971 amendments will be done by way of statutory orders and regulations. For example, the 1971 amendments relating to tank sizes will be implemented by a statutory instrument made under section 16 of the Oil Pollution of the Sea Act, 1956 as amended by section 12 of the present Bill. This section enables me to make regulations concerning the construction and fitting of ships with a view to the prevention or reduction of oil pollution.

Sections 2 to 5, inclusive, provide in detail for the implementation of the International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969. This convention arose from a special international legal conference which was convened by IMCO in Brussels in 1969 in the wake of the Torrey Canyon incident. IMCO accepted that there were serious deficiencies in the powers available to coastal states for dealing with shipping casualties involving large tankers and the consequential risk of major pollution of coastlines. Bearing in mind that existing maritime law embodies the principle of freedom of the seas, IMCO decided that it was essential to adopt an international agreement which would empower coastal states to take whatever action might be necessary to safeguard their coasts. Accordingly, the intervention convention authorises a coastal state to intervene and take measures, e.g. by sinking or towing away offending vessels, to protect its coastal and other related interests whenever such a casualty occurs. The convention stipulates the conditions under which, and the procedures through which, such measures are to be taken. A state which took measures that went beyond what was reasonably necessary to achieve the ends stated in the convention would be obliged to pay compensation for any damage resulting from such unjustified action. The convention also provides for the settlement of disputes which might arise from such measures. It is intended that Ireland will ratify the convention, which came into force internationally on 6th May, 1975, as soon as possible after this Bill becomes law.

I trust that Deputies will appreciate that, while the powers conferred on me by section 2 of the Bill are, on first glance, virtually without limit, there are two effective controls on the exercise of such powers. Firstly, they may only be used in cases where there is grave and imminent danger of major harmful consequences arising from a maritime casualty involving oil pollution. Secondly, section 3 of the Bill provides recourse to the courts for compensation for any person who establishes that any action taken under the Bill was unreasonably severe or unnecessary. I consider that these are adequate safeguards and I feel that I reflect the wishes of the House when I say that I sincerely hope that the circumstances which would make it necessary for me to act under section 2 will never arise.

I should, of course, point out that the convention relates only to intervention in cases on the high seas. As it is within the competence of Governments to enact legislation in regard to intervention within their territories without the sanction of an international agreement, the convention did not concern itself with territorial waters. The Bill is structured so that it will be possible to apply its provisions to Irish ships and to Irish territorial waters in advance of applying such provisions to foreign ships outside territorial waters.

Section 7 of the Bill, dealing with the place of commission of an oil pollution offence, is designed to remedy a defect which has been discovered in the Oil Pollution Acts. Briefly, the problem is that, while the 1956 and 1965 Acts clearly created the offence of polluting the sea by oil, they did not, it has recently emerged, confer jurisdiction on any court to try such offences. The areas of jurisdiction of the District Courts are fixed by reference to the district electoral divisions, and do not, therefore, extend to our territorial waters. As summary proceedings are dealt with at District Court level and proceedings on indictment are initiated at that level, it is clear that, as the Acts stand, no future proceedings could be initiated for offences under them. Section 7 remedies this defect in a manner which is used in many other instances, e.g. fisheries protection and air hijackings.

Finally, the present Bill extends and updates the provisions of the 1956 and 1965 Oil Pollution of the Sea Acts. It grants additional powers to oil pollution inspectors, the most important being that such inspectors will, in future, be empowered to take samples of oil from any ship. This will assist in the sometimes difficult task of assigning responsibility for a particular spillage. A further important strengthening of the law is effected by section 6 of the Bill which provides powers to detain vessels which are suspected of being in breach of the Acts. As regards offences under the Oil Pollution of the Sea Acts, it will be seen that the Bill provides for substantial increases in the penalties for such offences. During the passage of the Bill through the Seanad, I undertook to look again at the penalties provided in the Bill for summary offences with a view to increasing these where possible. Deputies will appreciate that there are Constitutional constraints on the size of the penalties which may be provided for summary convictions. I am advised that, at the moment, the maximum permissible penalty for a summary conviction is £500 or 12 months' imprisonment or both. I have, therefore, submitted a number of amendments, for consideration on Committee Stage, to make this maximum the standard penalty throughout the Bill for summary offences.

To summarise, therefore, this Bill will enable Ireland to ratify and implement the latest internationally accepted law on the subject of oil pollution offences. The Bill recognises the fact that although Ireland is an island, we do not live in isolation. Our interest lies in full support of international measures to prevent pollution. It is only fair to emphasise here that Irish shipowners in general have an excellent record in this field and, indeed, I am satisfied that foreign ships calling at Irish ports also have due regard for the desirability of keeping our seas free from pollution. This Bill and the 1956 and 1965 Acts provide adequate controls and, where necessary, deterrents in the form of fines and possible imprisonment. As such I hope that the shipowners' and the general public's awareness of the potential seriousness of the problem of oil pollution will be heightened and that we may thus move nearer to the goal of a cleaner marine environment.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Barrett

We welcome the introduction of this Bill and we would think it might have been the occasion for introducing also ratification of the two further conventions which the Minister mentioned, namely the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution and the International Fund for Oil Pollution Damage on which he has said he will introduce the necessary legislation in the fairly near future. I agree that our interest lies in the full support of international measures to prevent pollution but we would like to ask what facilities will exist to enable the Minister to implement the powers that he will now have under this Bill when passed by the House.

I understand that there are approximately 85 million tons of oil products passing between ourselves and Britain each year. By any standard this is a sizeable quantity of oil products passing near our coasts and we need to think seriously about what the Minister will be able to do to implement the powers given to him under the Bill. These tankers range in size from 20,000 tons to 500,000 tons and this has to be taken into consideration. The Minister might elaborate when replying on how he intends to tackle this problem. This might be an occasion on which to give serious consideration to establishing some form of coastguard service. It is something that will have to be considered eventually. The policing problems involved with any arrangement for the maintenance of fishery stocks will streth the Naval Service to the full. It is, therefore, extremely doubtful if the Naval Service will be able to assist the Minister in any way with regard to implementing the powers granted to him under this Bill.

Another matter that should be considered is the increased activity in the exploration for oil off our coasts. This activity would suggest greater co-ordination between the State operated coastal services and shore agencies. It is doubtful if our Naval Service would be the ideal unit for looking after this aspect of the matter. The production of oil off the coast, and we all hope oil will be produced, does not seem to be covered. We would like to know what exactly is covered by the word "ship" which is used throughout the Bill. Does it cover drilling rigs and oil platforms, whether static or mobile? Does it cover production platforms, fixed or floating? This is something that should be clarified, something that should be covered in the Bill if not already covered under the word "ship". Perhaps the Minister would elaborate on this.

There are many types of structures that might require to be dealt with in the same way as the conventional "ship". Oil using or oil carrying vessels should automatically, in the context of this Bill, be covered. Does the Minister think he has sufficient powers with regard to jurisdiction over oil carrying pipelines which we may very well have in the not too distant future? This is something that should be spelled out specifically in the Bill. Would the Minister have power to deal with spillages which might occur —we hope they will not—from such pipelines? There was an incident off the coast of California not very long ago involving production platforms and the American navy had to be called out to deal with the matter. While we are all proud of our own Naval Service it may not be equipped to deal with a major oil spillage. Perhaps the Minister would clarify the position.

Could this Bill be used to permit an Irish Minister to deal with vessels carrying other types of noxious materials, such as nuclear waste and chemical effluents of all types? These are capable of having very serious effects on the environment. The Bill would seem to be somewhat narrow but that does not mean we do not welcome it. We would have liked it to be somewhat wider from the point of view of the powers conferred on the Minister. Remembering the small percentage of tonnage directly attributable to this nation there should be some method of obtaining international assistance towards defraying the cost of coastal surveillance through the medium of some convention to which we subscribe. We are entitled to be prepared properly for any eventuality which might be deleterious to the environment and the cost should not have to be borne by either the taxpayer or the ratepayer. Will the Minister make representations or ensure that representations are made for financial assistance to defray the cost of surveillance and for the training of suitable personnel? We would be entitled to such assistance through the medium of some convention to which we subscribe. If the word "ship" does not cover what I have suggested it should cover then, perhaps, we should consider amending the section.

Mr. Coogan

I welcome the Bill and I hope it will, as Deputy Barrett said, include more safeguards. I know the effect an oil spillage can have on a major tourist area such as I represent. I know the millions that can be lost in the tourist season because of such a spillage. I would hope the Bill would go winder than it does. Would it be possible to ensure that these oil tankers carry some sort of material to deal with an oil spillage in the initial stages? There should be some international agreement in that respect. We are optimistic about an oil strike off the west coast. People who come in may benefit but, for example, if a gusher does not operate in the right way the consequences may be catastrophic for a tourist area. On the west coast we are very anxious to see that all the necessary safeguards are provided. This is also important from the point of view of fish life. The major oil tankers carry huge quantities of oil and surely they can arrange to have adequate first-aid equipment. Many of the people concerned are in the business for the fast "buck" and they should be able to provide their own safeguards. I welcome this Bill. I hope it will provide safeguards for our shores. I am conscious of the need for such safeguards, particularly in my constituency which is a tourist area.

Mr. O'Kennedy

All of us welcome the Bill but, at the same time, some of us have queries to ask, if not on this Stage then on Committee Stage. In so far as this Bill is giving effect to the convention of 1969 regarding oil pollution, the question must be asked why we are only now introducing this legislation. Perhaps for once the blame can be attributed to both sides; there was a three-year delay on the part of the previous Administration and there has been three or four years delay on the part of the present Government. If this Bill is to protect our shores against oil pollution from vessels within our territorial waters, it would have been desirable to introduce it long before now.

To the extent that the powers of this Bill will help to protect our shores, our economy and our environment against oil spillages, accidental or otherwise—and many of them are not accidental—we must ask the question: what great sense of urgency exists here? We have not introduced any effective legislation in the past seven years. In 1956 and in 1965 legislation was passed in connection with this matter but the powers of the Minister under this Bill, not simply amendments of the previous Acts, are significant powers. In section 6 there is power to detain a vessel and this does not seem to be merely an extension of the powers of the previous Acts. The other significant powers in relation to penalties and compensation are matters that should have been dealt with before now. It is an indictment of all of us that this was not done. I would be glad if the Minister would tell me it is not quite like that but I do not think that is the case.

We have not been as conscious of environmental protection as have other countries. The fact that we have not a separate spokesman in the Government for the environment—a matter I raised on a number of occasions—is evidence of the lack of concern on the part of the Government. Significantly, we are possibly the only country in Europe that has not a separate Ministry to deal with the environment. In this country the Minister for Transport and Power deals with this matter. We are glad that somebody has the job but, after all, the function of that Minister is to promote transport and power and he has a wide range of responsibilities. He has to deal with organisations such as CIE, the ESB, Bord Fáilte and others but we assume that the environment is another responsibility we can give to him because it has something to do with oil. What we are talking about is not oil used for energy purposes. This matter relates to protection against oil spillage and it is not something that would normally come within the functions of a Minister for Transport and Power. I am not attaching any blame to the present Minister—far from it. He is doing the job that nobody else is there to do. However, it underlines the point I have made more than once, namely, that it is time for the Government to reflect in their personnel and constitution their thinking on the protection of the environment. So far that has not been done.

When the Taoiseach came to office nearly four years ago some of us had hopes that something would be done about this matter because in his first speech he said that the appointment of new Ministers of State would be contemplated. However, four years later nothing has been done. The public are very concerned about the environment and particularly about any damage that may be caused to our coastline as a result of actions of other countries. The introduction of this Bill highlights the present need for action in this area and perhaps future determination but it also pinpoints past carelessness on our part. In this context I mean carelessness on the part of all of us—I am not making a party political point. The matter needs more effective measures than are proposed in this Bill.

Deputy Barrett raised a few significant points. He wanted to know if the Bill covered pipelines and all the other sources of transmission. Does it include chemical waste and all the other things that are major causes of pollution? On the face of it, there is no evidence that the Bill covers all those factors.

This Bill is introduced at a time when the Conference on the International Law of the Sea is in session. As many of us know, that conference has adopted a new concept in its single negotiating text, namely, the concept of the 200-mile economic zone. Many of us, and particularly Deputy Gallagher, are aware of what that means in relation to fisheries in terms of conservation and the right to coastal bands. We are aware that the economic zone concept extends to coastal states, to maximise the development potential of such states and the surrounding waters. Incidentally, I am awaiting a copy of the single negotiating text from the Library; apparently it is rather difficult to come by. However, I recall from reading it previously that it also relates to protection against pollution and this is quite understandable. Coastal states have suffered considerably from pollution caused by ships of other countries and this has not been limited to pollution caused within territorial waters.

With regard to this Bill, the powers conferred on the Minister relate to powers to deal with damage or spillage within territorial waters, namely, up to 12 miles. However, that is not the end of it. I do not know what powers this Bill purports to give to spillages that have been effected outside of 12 miles within the economic zone of 200 miles. This is where the new development is occurring. If the economic zone concept is as is defined in the single negotiating text of the law of the sea, relating to fisheries and all kinds of exploration rights and to pollution and pollution control I want to know where are the powers in this Bill to deal with that outside of territorial waters and within the economic zone?

It is important to note that one of the reasons for the development of the economic zone concept since 1972 —I have to keep stressing that for those who seem to think that it was in existence when we joined the European Community—by the coastal states, particularly of South American and subsequently of North America and Europe, was to protect their environment. They made the point, from the very start, that whatever may be the level of agreement on their right to explore out to 50 miles or 200 miles or their right to exclusive fisheries out to 50 or 200 miles one thing on which there could not be a compromise, generally, was their right to protect their shores within 200 miles by spillages caused, accidentally or otherwise, by ships passing through those waters. They may be high seas in one sense but to the extent that the new concept has brought the 200-mile zone within the control of the coastal state I hope the Minister can explain to me to what extent does he have power under this legislation to deal with spillages outside 12 miles, that is between 12 miles and 200 miles, within the economic zone area, which can some time later damage our coastline in more ways than one. I do not see any powers in this Bill in relation to that. I hope there are. I certainly do not see the same powers in it as relate to the powers conferred on the Minister in relation to territorial waters. Perhaps if I get the single negotiating text before I conclude I might be able to illustrate precisely what my concern has been.

The other point I want to refer to is the whole question of patrol. We are at a stage when powers conferred by this House, even in furtherance of international conventions, are of little consequence unless we have the capacity to implement them. The capacity in this case will obviously relate to the right to detain a vessel even within the territorial waters. That obviously involves a very much increased naval patrol service, over and above what we have at the moment. All of this highlights, as Deputy Barrett mentioned, the need to strengthen our position in regard to patrol generally. Obviously, with proper patrol facilities, we will not confine their activities just to pollution patrol. They will also be concerned with fisheries patrol and all the other elements of it which are so vital to us. That is something which may not be quite as complex, as far as this Bill is concerned, as it would be for fishery infringement. So far as we are talking about the powers this State will have to detain vessels and arrest them for certain offences designated under the Act, it is obviously important that the powers which will be required will be capable of being implemented.

I suggest it is pretty obvious at the moment that we are not in that position. It is less than effective that we should introduce legislation, which everybody welcomes, without being in a position to guarantee that we can effectively implement it to protect our own position. One of the significant things about pollution of the seas, as pointed out by Deputy Barrett, is that generally, as far as we are concerned as an island state, the resources of the seas within our territorial waters and even, as we have been arguing here for a considerable time, within a significant band of the economic zone, belong to the coastal state. That has now become an internationally accepted principle. On the other hand, the damage that can be done to those resources, particularly fishery resources and all other forms of sea and marine life, will be done by other states, whose boats either pass through those waters or outside them and cause the damage. That is particularly so in a case like ours where we have a relatively undeveloped nation that, frankly, does not have a large fleet, whether a fishing fleet, merchant navy or anything else to compare with the major fleets of other nations which pass near or around our shores.

It is vitally important that we have the necessary powers to ensure that our resources are protected against the acts of other nations, accidentally or otherwise, of oil pollution or of pollution from other sources, chemical or otherwise. One always works on the basis that there is an international consensus to prevent such damage and this is why this convention is being introduced but we want to ensure that that convention will be made effective. To the extent that it is not, we will be the losers and not necessarily the polluting states. If the international conventions are concerned to ensure effective action against such damage we should ask to what extent are they prepared financially to support the coastal states in enabling them to have effective patrolling of their coasts and of their waters either to conserve fisheries or otherwise against any pollution of the type we are referring to in this Bill.

It is a matter, in the first instance, of national concern but it is also a matter of international concern. To the extent that the national coastal state will have the bigger obligation and obviously the bigger financial burden it is only reasonable to expect that the international conventions would also provide for some financial assistance for them. The Minister said :

I should, of course, point out that the convention only relates to intervention in cases on the high seas.

To what extent of the high seas are we talking about? How far out are we going?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Has the Deputy adverted at all to section 5?

Mr. O'Kennedy

Which subsection of it? There are four subsections in it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The entire section is a very short one. The Deputy should look at subsection (1).

Mr. O'Kennedy

Section 5 states that the Government may apply :

the provisions of section 2 of this Act to ships to which the Convention of 1969 applies when such ships are outside the territorial seas of the State.

Section 2 gives the power to give directions to prevent, mitigate or eliminate the effects of oil pollution. Section 2 does not give power to detain vessels. Section 6 gives that power. Section 6 says :

Whenever the Minister or a harbour master has reasonable cause to believe that a vessel is in breach of the Act of 1956, the Act of 1965, or of this Act, and the vessel is within the territorial seas of the State, the Minister, or the harbour master concerned, may halt and detain the vessel.

It seems to limit the detention powers of the Minister to a vessel within the territorial waters. Section 2 obviously applies to the right of the Minister to give directions to prevent or mitigate oil pollution, but it does not seem to give powers of detention. I would be glad if the Minister would clarify this point. How far out in the high seas do the powers we are now conferring on the Minister apply?

The Minister said:

As it is within the competence of Governments to enact legislation in regard to intervention within their territories without the sanction of an international agreement, the convention did not concern itself with territorial waters.

Since 1969 the whole concept of territorial waters has been changed, if not made anachronistic by the International Law of the Sea Conference which no longer talks in terms of territorial waters but in terms of economic zones and confers within the 200-mile economic zone powers on coastal states which hitherto they could only exercise within territorial waters. I am concerned as to what our position is between the territorial waters and the 200-mile economic zone. The Minister's script referred to the single negotiating text of the law of the sea. This should be clarified.

I welcome the Bill. It is somewhat belated, perhaps, and the wrong Minister is in the House in relation to it. A Minister for Transport and Power is not necessarily a Minister against pollution. The man who should be dealing with this is a Minister for the Environment, but if he does not exist, we will have to put up with it. I would like clarification in relation to our powers of control. To what extent does this apply outside our territorial waters? It appears that there are matters which need to be discussed in some detail on Committee Stage and I hope we will have the opportunity of doing so.

Mr. E. Collins

Obviously a Bill of this nature is welcomed in the House. I am glad the Opposition have welcomed the Bill. The importance of preserving and conserving the natural amenities of our coastline and the cleanliness of the seas around us is obvious. The terrible damage that can be wrought by modern-day tankers has been brought home to us quite clearly. Not only the sinking of these tankers, but the accidental release of huge quantities of oil can do terrible damage to a coastline. So far we have been relatively lucky; we have had minor incidents but no major incident of pollution on our coast. It is a fair reflection on the attitude of our harbour boards and the Department involved that there is a monitoring system in relation to the spotting of vast oil slicks which we hear about. The monitoring system used in seeking out large oil slicks could be strengthened within our own territorial waters. The Air Corps and the Naval Service should always be very alert in looking for oil slicks in our territorial waters. If they are found in time action can be taken to dissolve or contain such slicks. We should increase our air patrols in this respect.

Within the territorial waters we have full jurisdiction, although the Minister mentioned that the State is confined in relation to summary convictions, where at the moment the maximum penalty is £500, or 12 months' imprisonment or both. Obviously such a penalty is ludicrous. I am glad a number of amendments will be considered on Committee Stage in relation to a standard penalty for summary offences. Far more severe penalties should be enforced where a conviction is obtained in relation to pollution of our coasts. Compensation which would be forthcoming should be spoken of not in hundreds of pounds but in tens of thousands of pounds. This is a real problem which is difficult to resolve, constitutionally and legally, but it must be tackled and resolved. We have legal jurisdiction over our territorial waters. Is the recently declared 200-mile economic zone territorial waters within the meaning of this Bill? Is it reckoned as territorial waters under the complete jurisdiction of the Government, or is it termed as high seas within the meaning of the Act, for the purpose of various conventions to which we are signatories? I hope that the 200-mile economic zone for the purpose of this Bill is reckoned as territorial waters, because it would give us greater powers in relation to detaining and towing away vessels, or taking reasonable action to preserve our coastline. I look forward to having clarification of this matter.

The Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation is an organisation of which we hear very little; yet it has concluded four conventions and some agreements which are of vital interest to this nation. We already have legislation covering the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954 and the International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969. Both of these conventions are already covered by law within the State, and I look forward to legislation coming forth as soon as possible to cover the other two conventions, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, and the International Convention relating to the Establishment of an International Fund for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971.

It is important that these conventions have teeth and that an offending signatory nation should be brought to court and whatever compensation is necessary be extracted from such nation. It is of vital interest to us, especially when we are dealing with matters on the high seas over which we have little control, over which it is very difficult even to establish the culpits, that the penalty for polluting the high seas should be severe. The International Law of the Sea Conference is having great difficulty in dealing with the law of the high seas. It is a conference which seems to be going nowhere fast. It is revealing to me, may I say in passing, to know that the European Economic Community have been making progress in relation to conservation of fish stocks around the western coasts of Europe. It is not an easy task. There are many interests involved, and we know only too well that Irish interests differ from those of other European states. We are far more concerned about the conservation of fish stocks than, say, the Germans or the French. We have our own resources and we wish to keep them; yet we must work within the framework of the EEC Treaty of Accession and within the Treaty of Rome. I digress, but I digress merely to show that it is not easy to deal with international matters affecting different nations in different ways.

In relation to these specific conventions here, there should be an annual report to Parliament on their effectiveness. It is all right to be a signatory to a convention, but although we are members of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, I do not know who represents Ireland. No doubt, it is an expert from the Department, but we are a Parliament elected democratically. The word "assembly" has been mentioned here, so I take it there is an assembly in which conventions and amendments to them are debated. Members of Parliament should be involved in the drawing up of such conventions.

If I may digress slightly again. I would say that apart from Premiers and Foreign Ministers, I am not aware of any Member of this Parliament who has gone to the United Nations General Assembly to contribute to a debate. It seems peculiar to me that in relation to such international institutions there should be no parliamentary representation. I understand that under the governing treaties either a Member of Parliament or a civil servant may represent the country. We as parliamentarians should be more involved in international discussions, in the framing of conventions, in matters affecting us, say, at the United Nations.

Here are four conventions which vitally affect us in Ireland. I wonder how many Members in this House have ever read the conventions, have ever contributed to their evolvement or are even aware of the distinction between our legal powers in territorial waters, in the economic zone and on the high seas. This may be looked on as a technical matter, but to me it is of high democratic principle that Members of Parliament should be deeply involved in these matters.

After the Torrey Canyon incident the IMCO became aware of the serious deficiencies in the powers available to coastal states for dealing with shipping casualties involving large tankers and the consequential risk of major pollution of coastlines. It is only eight years since the problem really came home to us. It was after that incident that the International Convention authorised coastal states to intervene and take certain measures. This was a step forward. I think the House will feel that even greater powers should be given to signatory states. However, a question I want to put is this : if the vessel which causes the pollution is not a flagship of a state which is a signatory to one of these conventions, what right has a coastal state such as Ireland in respect of that ship or in respect of getting compensation for the damage done to the coastline and to the territorial waters by the offending ship? The countries of eastern Europe are not signatories to the convention. Where do we stand in relation to them? Where do we get compensation? To whom do we turn to prosecute?

These are questions which I would like to see answered, not from the point of view of politics—I do not think politics enters into this—but from the point of view of law, of the conservation of our legal rights in respect of our coastline and seas.

I welcome the Bill. I look forward to another being introduced soon in respect of the two remaining conventions, the 1969 on Civil Liability and the 1971 on the Establishment of an International Fund. It appears to be such a recent development that the problem encountered is a new one. Certainly, it has assumed international importance in recent years. It is important that we keep our legislation up to date. It is important also that our civil servants, working within the framework of the Inter-Governmental Maritime and Consultative Organisation, be aware of the problems as they emerge and affect us. We should be ever vigilant in ensuring that whatever steps may be necessary are taken to protect our interests and environment. Environment is something very precious. For instance, under this Bill and a number of conventions, we can only be compensated for oil pollution of our coast. But what about the great damage done to our sea stocks by a massive oil spillage? One must remember what terrible damage has been done even by controlled oil discharges.

I wonder is it now opportune for the EEC to set up a research institute to look into all of these matters affecting the seas around Europe, the effects of over-fishing, of fishing with small nets and with suction equipment which kills off the spawn, the basis of future stocks. Such a research institute might examine the damage done by oil leaks and spillages to the coastlines, to the life and environment of western Europe. These may appear to be very vague problems but they are very real, indeed, to anybody interested in the question of environment. I should like to see parliamentarians in general more involved in discussions and so on in relation to this matter. Unfortunately, too often in this House, we seem to be involved in local politics and our own constituencies, perhaps to the exclusion of such matters. Obviously, our own constituencies are of vital importance to us but, perhaps, too often we play on some party point affecting them while other matters of vital importance—such as those pertaining to environment—remain undiscussed in the House. The question of oil pollution of the sea is a typical subject this Parliament does not discuss sufficiently. Let us hope that some farseeing Minister will evolve a system not only in relation to these conventions, but many others also, of making an annual report to parliament. An annual debate on the subject would keep us informed of what is happening in this sphere.

I look forward to further Bills which will ensure that our interests are always fully protected in relation to our territorial waters and the high seas.

Mr. Gallagher

I, too, welcome this Bill. This is an area in which effective measures were necessary. However, introducing legislation is one thing but its implementation is quite a different matter. I can foresee that we will have a considerable task implementing the necessary provisions when this legislation is passed.

My colleagues, Deputies Barrett and O'Kennedy mentioned the question of a coastguard service and suggested that, in the implementation of this Bill, we might take a new look at this question and possibly have some tie-up with the naval and fishery protection services. I agree that it is time we did so and, perhaps, examined what has been happening in America and Norway where coastguard services are provided on a completely different basis from what we seem to have thought was the only possible one. We are inclined to consider a Naval Service only. We think always in terms of a navy rather than a localisation of the services. Such could be done by providing smaller boats, with more of them distributed around our coast, in that way ensuring a more effective service than obtains at present. The question of funding such a service would be considerable. Perhaps the Minister would inform us if any international bodies have suggested any means of assisting member states in the funding of the provision of boats and other equipment necessary to make this legislation effective. One might ask also: what part do the oil companies or shipping magnates play in the provision of an international fund in which they could play their part in assisting states affected by oil spillages? It is well known that they reap huge profits. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to ask that they make some contribution towards such a fund to be used in the event of any serious oil spillage.

I should like to ask the Minister if any survey has been carried out on what it might cost us to provide the boats, the materials and the training of personnel for this kind of work. I am sure the figure would be quite considerable. All this will have to be considered in the light of the new legislation now before us. We all realise the serious consequences an oil spillage can have on fish life. We were horrified at what happened in the Bantry area some years ago when the livelihood of fishermen was endangered. Any measures taken to try to prevent an occurrence of that kind are very welcome and should have the support of everybody. One shudders to think what might happen if a tourist area were affected by an oil spillage.

This whole question suggests something we are not dealing with in this Bill but when we consider oil drilling and the possibility of oil being brought into our coast in the not too distant future, we hope, we also have to consider the possibility of having an overall plan to designate areas for harbour development, to designate oil areas, and tourist areas, and fishing areas. I do not know whether this would come within the Minister's field or the field of the Minister for Local Government, but it highlights the need to have some kind of overall plan for coastal development. I would ask the Minister and the Government to give serious consideration to this matter. It should be looked at fairly urgently. It has to be dealt with fairly quickly.

It strikes me that the penalties mentioned in the Bill do not seem to be adequate. They should be far more severe. In the light of the experience we had off our coast it would seem some of the trouble was caused by carelessness. It is hard to understand why, when oil was being taken from a ship to a refinery, we should have suffered damage to the extent we witnessed in the south at that time. If we had very drastic and very severe penalties they would ensure there would not be the type of carelessness there was on that occasion.

Those are a few of my ideas on this Bill. We on this side of the House welcome it. It will not be too easy to implement this legislation. I sincerely hope the Minister has studied that aspect carefully and that we will have a follow-up in the provision of the services which will be necessary to make the legislation effective.

Mr. Taylor

This Bill has been welcomed particularly by people in our maritime counties, by people who reside in tourist areas, and by people who live in a county like Clare which is practically surrounded by the Atlantic and the Shannon and where oil pollution has caused some concern. This Bill makes adequate provision to extend the Minister's powers in relation to oil pollution of the sea and to increase penalties for offences. The most important reference made by the Minister was his reference to the regulations concerning the construction and fitting of ships with a view to the prevention of oil pollution. Taking precautions is a sensible approach because if you do not take adequate precautions you cannot have a very effective remedy.

Because of the increase in the use of oil over the past 20 years, the risks of spillages and of pollution have increased. Dumping of residues from tankers at sea has caused much concern particularly to our fishermen. Recently many methods of mopping up oil slicks have been successfully introduced. Strangely enough, some of the new methods have not been utilised effectively for some reason or other. There are methods of controlling and encircling oil slicks which have not been explored effectively. The method of using an inflated boom or raft which encircles the slick is much more effective than the use of detergents which seriously affect our fish life. Thank goodness spillages are few and far between around our coast. The risks have increased because of the increased use of oil. This legislation to give some authority to the Minister is absolutely necessary. The Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, of which we are a member, have taken the initiative in the promotion of international agreements to put teeth into or to strengthen the legislation of coastal states.

This Bill is absolutely vital. People who depend on tourism will also appreciate that they will now have less to worry about. Previously they were very uneasy about the precautions taken to control oil pollution of the sea. They were conscious of the fact that there was the danger of an oil slick destroying our beaches during the holiday season. In other areas we found a great deal of concern about the establishment of industries which dealt with oil storage, oil refining or the unloading or refining of oil. Panic had been created by people who were misinformed about the methods of controlling pollution. This discouraged the promotion of industries in areas where industry was vital.

This Bill will give the Minister authority to introduce the statutory orders and regulations which are vital if we are to have effective control. This control is internationally acceptted. I hope it will not be necessary for us to have recourse to our courts. At the moment they do not seem to have adequate powers to deal with this type of problem. If this Bill is accepted by all Members, it will give a much needed assurance to people who are unduly worried about pollution and the effects of pollution. For that reason this Bill will be accepted by all.

Mr. Moore

Like other Deputies, I welcome this Bill. We must first ask ourselves if it is the powerful instrument we need to play our part in preventing the pollution of our seas. If it is, can we implement the provisions of this legislation? In recent years everybody, especially those who live on an island, have become more and more aware of the dangers of oil pollution. I regard this Bill as important as the legislation on fishery control and preservation.

One of the biggest menaces to marine life is oil. I wonder if we are really tackling this pollution problem properly. We must realise that some oil companies are more powerful than national governments. Their colossal profits would make many a national budget appear tiny. These people have a very vital role to play because we depend on oil to maintain our standard of living.

First, I will deal with the oil companies. There should be an international conference where governments could point out to them that they have their part to play. They have great wealth and power. Oil pollution could destroy our seas and could kill not alone life in the seas but also in the estuaries.

We will have difficulty patrolling our seas but this country, small as we are, can play a very big part showing the world that we are 100 per cent behind this legislation and will do everything we can to make it effective. I would ask the Minister to look around our coast and ensure that every port authority has an effective anti-pollution unit. I doubt if we would find many ports with such a unit. The Dublin Port and Docks Board have a reasonably efficient unit to control pollution when a tanker is being loaded or is transferring its cargo from one ship to another.

I want to congratulate the Thames Authority who have done such a fantastic job cleaning that river. A few years ago marine life in that river had died and if at certain points a human being fell in, it meant almost certain death. That river has been cleaned and there is marine life there now. Unlike London, we do not have such badly polluted waters but we can learn from their mistakes.

The oil companies have a responsibility to play their part. To prevent the seas being destroyed by oil pollution we want these companies to invest large sums to help us preserve our seas. I am sure we would have the goodwill of many of these oil barons if we asked them for help. As I said, some of them are more powerful and have more money than national governments.

While the Minister must have power to prosecute people who break the law, we should seek the goodwill of these companies and make sure they do their part by ensuring that their ships will reduce the possibility of pollution should an accident occur. Human nature being what it is, there may be some oil cowboys who may not want to pay the necessary attention to anti-pollution.

Therefore, I suggest we make every endeavour to establish an effective coastguard service composed of our Air Corps, our Naval Service and all Irish registered vessels, big and small, in an all-out endeavour to fight the pollution of our waters. If we can show to the masters and crews of the tankers who bring oil to our ports that we have a clear conscience as far as our rivers and estuaries are concerned, I feel sure we will get co-operation from them to keep the high seas free of pollution.

The Minister referred to the penalties to be imposed on offenders—for a summary conviction, a fine of £500 or 12 months' imprisonment or both. It is all very well to talk of penalties but we must set about prevention rather than cure in this matter. On the east coast our people show great awareness of the possibility of pollution as, I am sure, do the inhabitants of the west coast of Britain. That is to the good, but we must have an efficient corps of protection vessels, as well as planes, to combat the possibility of pollution of our seas. Our fishery protection vessels could participate in spotting pollution and reporting it. We would need also a large type vessel to haul away any tankers which become beached in our ports.

We welcome this Bill but we should like to be assured that we will be prepared to spend sufficient money to build up a pollution fighting service. Posterity will not thank us if we show neglect in this matter. If the human race is to survive, there must be coordinated efforts to fight pollution at sea as well as on land. If we do not spend now in this desirable pursuit, it will cost us much more later.

The River Liffey at times was heavily polluted and great efforts were made to cure it. These days, because of heavier traffic and other things, the type of pollution is much more deadly. This is mainly because there are so many careless people who have no respect for clear water. We must be seen to be very much in earnest in administering the provisions of this Bill and we must impose the full rigours of the law on those who break it. As I said earlier, particularly in matters involving pollution, prevention is the side of it we should concentrate on and this can be achieved by the establishment of the type of efficient observation corps I suggested earlier. This is now an international matter and most nations have come to appreciate the importance of the preservation of the environment as a means of ensuring the survival of the human race.

If we are to follow up the enactment of this Bill by effective action this means allocation of adequate moneys to give us proper anti-pollution forces. I emphasise that we must have the goodwill of all the people involved, and perhaps the Minister would call on the oil companies here to co-operate with him and the Government in this field. The oil companies make vast profits every year and might well be induced to provide endowment scholarships not alone in our schools and universities but also in the military college at the Curragh and the naval base at Cork to enable them to train their candidates and their crews in the prevention of oil pollution on the seas. If possible an institute should be endowed which would have as its sole task the study of pollution and how to prevent it, or perhaps a chair at some university could give itself over to that task entirely. It is important that this be done, otherwise we will have disease and destruction from the polluted seas. When we remember that two-thirds of the world's surface is covered by water we realise what a gigantic task this is. In our educational establishments at all levels we should emphasise that, being an island, our vital interests lie in the seas around us and these have to be preserved. Although oil has brought many benefits, at the same time it can be a destroyer of marine life and then human life. This Bill keeps us in line with international requirements, but with the pollution menace growing all the time more legislation will be needed in the future. That is why I ask for an investment by the oil company giants in the establishment of an institute for the detailed study of possible measures to prevent pollution. There is goodwill among the oil companies and among the national Governments.

This Bill is much more important than one might think at first. There is hardly a Deputy or a person living on this island who in some way or other is not involved in this vital matter of prevention of pollution. The pressure on our fishing grounds has become great in recent times and we rightly have taken steps to protect our fishing rights, but unless we can control pollution there will be very little fish left in ten or 15 years. We have to start at the beginning and ensure that our measures for the prevention of pollution are as adequate as we can make them.

I welcome the Bill and hope that the Minister's amendments, as promised, on Committee Stage will make it an even more effective Bill. The Irish people, being an island race, are very jealous of their seas and would subscribe to any effective measure which would ensure that those seas are kept free from oil.

Mr. Dowling

I want to raise the subject matter of Question No. 2 of 16th March, 1977, on the Adjournment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Ceann Comhairle will communicate with the Deputy.

Mr. J. O'Leary

I welcome the Bill, but I believe that the Minister should have availed of the opportunity in introducing this legislation to deal in a more comprehensive fashion with the pollution of the sea and coastal waters generally. Oil pollution of the sea, coastal waters, harbours and beaches is causing increasing worldwide concern. It arises from systematic, deliberate discharge of oil waste from vessels at sea and from accidental escapes resulting from collisions or inadvertency. The Irish small shipping fleet is not a serious cause for concern in this regard but in the light of the existence of major world shipping lanes off our south and south-east coasts, the constantly increasing volume of oil traffic and the growing size of tankers, our coasts and beaches may at any time be subject to serious pollution. Sporadic instances have been detected and reported.

We must also bear in mind that pollution of the sea is caused by the discharge of substances and matters other than oil. I would like the Minister to state what exactly is being done about these matters and the prevention of this form of pollution. For example, there are discharges overboard of rubbish, waste and plastic containers which are most damaging. There is the escape, deliberate or otherwise, from cargo vessels of toxic materials and waste. This Bill deals solely with the ratification of a convention and with oil, but in bringing this Bill before the House the opportunity should be availed of to cover in a most comprehensive fashion all forms of pollution of the sea.

Oil pollution of the sea is a most serious matter, far more serious than the ordinary man realises. One should see and experience for oneself the effects of oil pollution on strands and beaches as was evident within the last few years on a few occasions on the beautiful coastline around Bantry and west Cork. It is of vital importance that our beaches and strands should be kept clean, free from all forms of pollution, particularly pollution from oil spillages. In order to retain our amenities and maintain our high standards of cleanliness generally every effort must be made to ensure no damage is done to our beaches by oil spillages. Even adverse reports abroad about spillages could affect our image from the point of view of tourism. A good environment is essential to the promotion of tourism.

Local authorities should be compensated as well as being better geared to deal with oil spillages. They should be constantly on the alert. As previous speakers have said, we are an island state and the necessity to take all the necessary steps to prevent oil pollution of our seas and beaches is more important to us than it is to any other European country. Some of our great natural resources, such as our fisheries, could be adversely affected apart altogether from our amenities.

I cannot understand why it took close on two years to bring in this Bill ratifying the convention which came into force internationally in May, 1975. The penalty proposed is too low. A maximum fine of £500 with the possibility of a jail sentence will not be a serious deterrent to big shipping companies or to those who may be prepared to take a chance.

The discussion here and in the Seanad on the Local Government Water Pollution Bill clearly showed that there should be a Department for the Environment. The time has come when such a Department should be set up. There are 13 different agencies dealing with environmental matters. A number of State Departments and Ministers also deal with these matters. There is bound to be overlapping and duplication. There should be one separate Department dealing with environmental matters.

The problem of clearing oil pollution has been under examination for a number of years. The overall responsibility is assigned to the Minister for Local Government. Immediate practical responsibility for initiating action is placed on coastal local authorities with, if necessary, outside assistance. It now appears that the Minister for Transport and Power is responsible for legislation and control as regards pollution of the sea, particularly oil pollution.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Shipping.

Mr. J. O'Leary

All environmental matters, including anti-pollution campaigns, should be under the control of one Department and one Minister. The Minister may argue that this Bill deals with shipping. I believe it deals with pollution and the control of pollution. It is vitally important to protect and preserve our environment and there is a grave responsibility on us to ensure that that environment is protected for the benefit of future generations. The environment does not belong to any one generation and steps, legislative and otherwise, must be taken to ensure the environment is not damaged. I believe this Bill should cover in a comprehensive pattern the pollution of the sea from all forms of pollution and not just oil pollution.

Mr. C. Murphy

I welcome the Bill. I regret its introduction was delayed. Efforts to control pollution over the years have met with varying degrees of success. They have been limited to some extent by problems of legislative jurisdiction. Conventions help to spread the area of jurisdiction and, hopefully, the result will be the further control of pollution. Although many communities have enacted legislation, the problem of pollution continues. In 1881 the Chicago City Council were very worried about smoke pollution and they enacted the first smoke ordinance in the United States. It and other ordinances successfully reduced pollution from smoke, but the problem persisted because of other contaminants.

Today New York, and London to a lesser degree, are seriously involved in the problem of smog resulting in emphysema or, to use the Irish term, múchadh, with resultant deaths. Continuing efforts must be made to control pollution. This Bill deals with oil pollution of the sea. Water is our most abundant resource. Most of that water is in our seas and oceans and the waters carry a wide variety of dissolved salts in relatively high concentrates which makes it difficult to use these waters to the full. There are certain industrial processes which desalinate these waters. Many of these processes depend on petroleum fuels. This Bill relates entirely to oil pollution of the sea and we see a direct link-up there because in any process of desalinisation of the sea oil would be vital.

Chicago introduced regulations in 1881 to control smoke. Of course, the difficulty is that while this may happen polluted air or water does not respect any kind of city, state or continental boundary and this emphasises the need for international conventions. While one state might make great efforts in this matter, unless the efforts are continued by neighbouring countries and by all states eventually the effort will probably prove futile.

With regard to rivers, especially long rivers that flow through national boundaries, unless there is co-operation from riparian owners in the various countries there will be pollution. Rivers are a vital economic lifeline to the sea. Many years ago a regional abatement plan was adopted for the Ruhr river in West Germany. This was an example of a co-operative venture. In June, 1964 the 17 countries who were involved in the Council of Europe linked up with the United States and Japan at a meeting in Strasbourg to plan a common offensive against oil pollution. Immediately after that we had the International Hydrological Decade which promised to develop further international co-operation and control of water resources.

It may be appropriate to recall that 10 years ago on 18th March there was the terrible disaster of the Torrey Canyon in the vicinity of the Scilly Isles and Land's End. The Torrey Canyon was carrying 117,000 tons of crude oil and was bound for Milford Haven when the disaster occurred. It resulted in some 30,000 tons being released initially into the sea. Many of us can recall the efforts made to control the extent of the damage and to safeguard the beaches. From this disaster we can learn a lesson to be ever vigilant. On 25th March 100 miles of beach were affected by oil. At the time the options were to pump out and transfer the remaining oil to another tanker, to refloat it or to burn it off.

Eventually it was decided to bomb the ship in order to burn out the remaining oil in the holds. At the time efforts continued on the coastline with the aid of sprays and absorbents of all kinds to safeguard amenities, both living and still. We can recall that a boom of neoprene blocks was assembled and it was attempted to utilise this to enclose the ship and its dreadful spillage. However, the seas were too rough and it was decided to use this aid instead to protect harbours and coastlines. Perhaps the Minister would tell the House if we have stockpiles of this vital material to protect our coastline. Is it stocked centrally? I know local authorities put aside a certain amount each year in their Estimates and on them falls the primary duty, along with the Minister for Local Government, to protect the coast. Around that time local authorities were afforded demonstrations on various beach-cleaning methods. This poses the question whether there is need for similar demonstrations now. Are we sufficiently up to date with modern techniques?

We gather from a British White Paper on the Torrey Canyon that deep water fishing was not affected—that was their opinion at the time—but that shellfish and lobsters were affected in the shallows. We saw the tragic photographs and newsreel shots of bird and marine life as they suffered. We should take full stock of the situation and be vigilant. Conventions are good in themselves. They are vital because legislative boundaries are not considered by pollutants of the air or sea. There are certain things we can do and while they may be outside the scope of this Bill they are akin to it. Perhaps the Minister in his reply will be able to deal with some of the matters I raised. We know of the tragic pollution of some of the great lakes in the United States—Lake Michigan and Lake Erie—where marine life is being killed. Some of our own rivers at home are affected by various forms of pollution.

On the local front, what precisely is the role of the local authorities? How are they aided through central funds to prevent a disaster? I should hate any of the beautiful beaches in my constituency to be affected by pollution. Certainly it would affect very many people because those beaches are used extensively by many of the large population of Dublin. I repeat my question: have we the most modern equipment and up-to-date techniques to deal with an emergency?

Other speakers have said that in the context of the tourist industry cleanliness is very important. By its very nature oil tends to destroy. We must protect our heritage, both still and living. I assume that the Civil Defence would have a large role to play in the event of any disaster where there was a subsequent washing up of pollution on our coasts. They are geared to this type of thing. We have the benefit of sea currents. Where would we be without the Gulf Stream? Let us hope that those currents will not bring pollutants to our coastline. Conventions can help but vigilance and an educational involvement and awareness of people are also vital.

The penalties mentioned in this Bill should be a deterrent as a last resort. We should have many other hurdles there before the final one of penalties. Continuous vigilance and an involvement by the State, by other states and by international companies who use the seas are important to ensure that our heritage is protected and that oil pollution of the sea will be kept to a minimum. We know that accidents occur but we should try to ensure that pollution is kept to a minimum and that our people will have the benefit of our amenities for many years to come.

Mr. Molloy

Would the Minister indicate clearly to the House if an oil spillage takes place, whether from a vessel which is broken up as a result of an accident or from exploration work for oil off our coasts, that, when clearing up the oil spillages, materials will not be used which are toxic to fish life? There is very great concern about this along the west coast in particular. Because of the prevailing winds, they could cause an oil spillage as far out as 200 to 300 miles off the coast. There is every possibility that if the prevailing winds were 85 per cent south west and west the oil would reach the inner fishing grounds.

Tourist interests are also concerned about oil spillage on the shores. There is a great possibility that an oil spillage far out at sea would not drift off to some other location and be lost out in the Atlantic but that it would turn in our direction. I am anxious about the danger to fish life. Chemicals have been used in the past which have been toxic. Can the Minister give a guarantee that such chemicals will not be used in the event of a serious oil spillage either from a maritime accident or oil exploration?

Mr. Crowley

In common with the other speakers, I consider this is a very important Bill. I give it my whole-hearted support and welcome it to the House but I feel it does not go far enough. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction. As a Deputy who represents a constituency where a considerable amount of oil spillage has taken place, I appreciate the various aspects of this Bill which will help in the future. We always have a situation in any developing country where there is an invasion of the environment when development takes place. We have to ensure that a proper balance is struck in that invasion. The people are becoming more and more aware that while jobs are obviously the very necessity of life, nevertheless, the quality of life is also very important.

I feel that any conservation Bill is worthy of the greatest possible support from all sides of the House. This is one thing we can be non-political about. We have an obligation to work together to provide a better quality of life for all our people in the future. President Kennedy said in a message to Congress in 1962:

Conservation is the wise use of our natural environment. It is in the final analysis the highest form of national thrift, the prevention of waste and despoilment while preserving, improving and renewing the quality and usefulness of all our resources.

That is very important. The word "conservation" to some people has very unacceptable connotations. They look on it as something against change or disliking change. We have all sorts of pressure groups representing their views who wish to preserve the status quo.

We cannot emphasise enough here that communities in this technological age are dependent on technological and scientific advances and that we, through our Government, should do everything possible to gain from the vast amount of research being carried out in this field at the moment. We are all aware that it is increasingly realised that natural resources are not inexhaustible, whether they are minerals, timber, oil or the products of the sea. They are dependent on proper husbandry and looking after. As far as one can see in a lot of other countries it is probably too late to start the cycle of renewal. We should learn from what has happened through this type of haphazard development where there was no foresight at the planning stages. We must remember also that the waters of the world, especially the seas, are an essential part of nature's equilibrium. We as human animals, are very much dependent on nature. I am of the opinion that the seas probably contribute towards our life cycle more than any other single asset we have in the world.

Nobody stops to think how oxygen is provided. Without being a scientist or understanding it, we are all aware that there is a wonderful cycle in nature, in which the seas and the green lands and plants play an important part. If we allow any aspect of that to be eroded we are putting the continuance of civilisation in peril. Any pollution of the seas, especially oil pollution, threatens the existence of this cycle. It is established that the oceans contribute a considerable part of the oxygen we breathe. When we take into account that already man has destroyed vast tracts of land in various parts of the world let us ensure that we do not destroy parts of the ocean for which we have direct responsibility.

When the Minister is replying he might let us know what happened in relation to the research that may have taken place after we signed the agreement on the implementation of the European project on pollution. The name of the project was Analysis of Organic Micro-Pollutants in Water. We brought this before the House before the election in 1972. Have we had any playback, or visits from people abroad as a result of the passing of that important legislation? If we do not actively pursue the terms of these agreements it is a waste of time bringing them before the House. The Minister should consult more with marine biologists and in the aftermath of these consultations he could occasionally issue a Press release about what action he has taken, the state of our oceans at present, and the dangers, and a proper education programme could be conducted through the media to ensure that people are aware of the assets that our oceans give us. I read a report recently where a marine biologist was of the opinion that at the end of the century the seas may be dead. We could have a situation as we had in the Mediterranean where all the vitality of that sea was destroyed. None of us wants that situation. We are not being alarmists when we point out that if proper steps are not taken we could have a situation in the Atlantic similar to that which we had in the Meditterranean. Apart from the tremendous loss in revenue so far as the State is concerned in relation to the fishing industry we would have a serious imbalance in nature as a result.

Historically the ocean has always been the sink where we disposed of all our waste. It has done a relatively successful job of converting that refuse into something more important and in restoring it. Are we now arriving at the stage where a saturation point has been reached in relation to what we are asking the sea to absorb? It is no longer the effective sink that it was. On occasions like this it is useful to point out the vast material losses that can accrue to the State as a result of the lack of a proper conservation policy. The fishery industry is a very important part of the livelihood of our rural communities. In these rural communities we also have a thriving tourist industry. In Bantry due to the unfortunate spillages we had there not alone were fishermen affected but the tourist industry was affected as well. These industries were equally affected by the use of detergents in cleaning the oil spillages which in some cases were toxic. The utilisation of peat moss rather than these powerful detergents could be implemented. Maybe a non-toxic detergent has been invented since which does not cause the type of mess that has been created in the past few years.

Over a considerable period there was an agreement among shipowners that any discharging or dumping of oil and petrol from their tankers would be done not less than 50 miles from any coastline. As we know, that is no protection, depending as it does on the prevailing winds and currents for the various coastlines involved. Even if oil is dumped way out at sea inevitably it seems to get back to the coast. Everybody who has been on the beaches around the country will recall seeing filthy lumps of tar on various beaches. Most of these tar-like substances on our beaches come from oil tankers transporting crude oil. Very often after they discharge their contents they move out loaded with water to serve as ballast but they still retain oil products which mix with the water and which are eventually put into the sea. Even after this sort of cleaning a sticky mess remains. I have seen this first hand, where hot steam has to be put through and it comes out as lumps of tar discharged into the sea. This sludge has to be treated with steam and hot water under pressure to liquify it. Once it is liquified it moves out into the sea and solidifies again. Nothing is being done about it. I cannot make any concrete suggestion on how we can monitor the situation. This type of situation is occuring on a sufficiently large scale to cause a lot of dispute to those who are aware of it.

There is a certain amount of carelessness by the captains of tankers. Where small leaks occur they do nothing about repairing them, and there may also be unknown leakages of oil and grease into the sea. The penalties imposed by legislation are not stringent enough in respect of such offences. Our life style and, indeed, our survival are eventually dependent on the sea and the health of the sea, and no penalties would be too great for such offenders. Not alone are these leakages and the sludge that goes into the sea destructive in themselves, but they are evil-smelling. Even if people were not aware that this sort of pollution was taking place they would be well aware of it from the dreadful smell that one gets in the vicinity of these spillages, and they cause considerable annoyance to people who come in contact with them. The only way to put an end to the situation is to impose severe penalties. Some of these offenders take liberties when they know the consequences are not going to be too harsh. Captains of tankers work under very severe commercial pressure. They have to meet heavy schedules. They must load, unload and clean out as fast as possible, and some of them when under that type of pressure take short cuts. We should have a monitoring service to ensure that that does not happen.

I do not know how best that can be done, and I am not convinced that the local authority are the right people to do it. I do not know how else it can be done unless we involve ourselves in a great deal of expense. May be this is not the best time to start on that kind of proposition; nevertheless, it is so important that thought must be given to the idea of an absolutely separate arm of the State looking after the quality of our life and preventing the pollution of our waters.

It is important also that there should not be a repetition of what happened with Gulf Oil where there was what could be described without exaggeration as a massive spillage. They tried to con us into thinking it was only about 150 gallons when anybody who was down there or who was even within five miles of the spillage could see it was on a far greater scale. We should ask for honesty in relation to the extent of spillages. If we get honesty and an open admission that a spillage has occured and the quantity of the spillage, that should always be taken into account in any legislation that is enacted. The cover-up in Bantry was fairly dramatic, but in fairness to Gulf, I think that at the end of the day they did give all the relevant facts. Maybe it was the fault of people thinking they were doing a favour to Gulf; they were not doing a favour to anybody, least of all to Gulf.

On the whole question of oil pollution, we cannot be too vigilant. A situation cannot be allowed to occur again as happened with the Torrey Canyon. Where spillages occur there should be immediate notification of them. Not alone that but the personnel and the techniques must be available to go into immediate action to ensure that the minimum damage occurs as a result of the spillages. As I said at the outset, where there is development there is a certain amount of destruction. A balance must be kept at all times. I wonder if the Minister would not see his way to extending the scope of this Bill not alone to include oil pollution in the seas but to bring in a comprehensive Bill to cover all types of pollution and what would be a sort of almanac of conservation. More and more situations will arise like that in Cork lately in regard to the establishment of an asbestos industry where the debate was fairly wide——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is departing from the pollution of the sea which is the subject under discussion.

Mr. Crowley

This has to do with the pollution of the sea because in the siting of the dump for the disposal of the waste people feared there would be seepage into the sea from that dump. When one takes into account that here is waste that has to be buried eight feet under the ground in concrete in plastic containers, one can imagine how toxic that substance must be, and any seepage into the sea would have disastrous effects on marine life.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not what we are dealing with now.

Mr. Crowley

Possibly I can concede that, and that is why I am suggesting that the Bill is a bit narrow and should be extended to cover a far wider range of the aspects of conservation. Nevertheless, I think we all welcome the Bill. We hope it is the first of many and that the Minister may, in his own time, introduce a Bill which will cover the broader aspects of pollution and conservation.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick,

Cavan): I want to thank the Deputies from both sides of the House who contributed to the debate and for the general welcome they extended to this measure. Although this Bill has been introduced to deal with three or four specific matters on which I will elaborate later, it was not surprising that a fairly wide field in the pollution area was covered by Deputies who spoke. All of us are concerned about the preservation of the environment so that the quality of life on this island may be maintained. We are particularly concerned that our seas remain clean and that all reasonable steps be taken to avoid pollution.

Deputy Crowley introduced the aspect of striking a fair balance. Pollution is a very emotive topic. I suppose some pollution is the cost of development and progress. Again, I suppose we could ensure that this island remains absolutely free from pollution of any kind but the result of that might be that we would be deprived of a lot of what people might regard as amenities, of a lot of wealth-producing operations and activities. And while this island might then be a very beautiful and highly desirable place to live nonetheless it might be difficult because we would not have the wherewithal to afford us the standard of living we would like. On the other hand, it would be quite easy to turn this island into a place where a lot of wealth could be generated, with a lot of manufacturing operations going on but which would also render it a comparatively dirty place. None of us would want that. Such would render it a place where people could make a lot of money but where they might not want to settle down or rear their families because of pollution. That is why, in approaching the subject, we must strike a reasonable balance. We are not a fully developed country; we are, perhaps, a late developer. As a result we can benefit from the examples of other countries and from what has happened to them. We should be careful, as we shall be, to ensure that our environment is not damaged, that pollution does not destroy the quality of life here. But, at the same time, we must strike a reasonable balance.

I was not surprised that the question of the setting up of a Department of the Environment, with a Minister in charge, was raised early in the debate. Quite frequently there is one or other lobby suggesting that there be a separate Ministry for this, whether it be termed tourism, the environment or anything else. In that respect we must have a reasonable approach also. We are a small island with a growing population and not a very wealthy community. We are restrained by the Constitution in the number of Ministers that may be appointed. Apart altogether from that we are not an Empire and cannot afford to behave as if we were. After considerable consideration it was decided that the best way to deal with the question of environment was to place it under the charge of the Minister for Local Government. I feel that was the correct decision because he oversees many activities that could be damaging to the environment. Under the aegis of his Department there are the local authorities throughout the country— whether they be in maritime or inland counties—operated by elected representatives who surely have the concern of their areas at heart, who should be able to strike at least a sensible balance between the provision of employment and the generation of wealth on the one hand and the value of the environment, a pleasant countryside and the anti-pollution aspect on the other. For those reasons the Minister for Local Government is the correct person to have overall responsibility for the environment. Of course, he will have to consult with and rely on other agencies in implementing such overall environmental policy.

I come now to the Bill itself. I do not propose to follow the very many points raised because, while I can understand them having been raised, I do not consider them relevant to this measure. The Bill before the House sets out to accomplish a number of objectives. The first of those is to enable Ireland to accept certain amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954. We subscribed to that convention and have ratified it. But, since 1954, a number of amendments have been introduced to that convention. I should tell the House that the organisation responsible for that international convention is the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, known as IMCO. That organisation promoted the convention in question as far back as 1954, to which a number of amendments have since been made, the last being those in 1969 and 1971. During debate in the House complaint has been made that we delayed unduly in some way in introducing this Bill in order to implement those amendments. It is right that I should put on record that the 1969 amendments do not come into operation until next year and that, even had the Bill been on the Statute Book last year or the year before, it would not have had any effect in regard to them. Furthermore, the 1971 amendments to the 1954 convention have not yet been ratified or received sufficient signatures to make them law. We do not know when they will become law and we are not dealing with them in this Bill. Therefore, it will be seen by the House that, so far as the 1969 amendments to the 1954 convention are concerned, no time or anything else has been lost.

Debate adjourned.

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