Cavan): Before the adjournment of the Second Stage debate I had dealt with a number of matters raised by Deputies including questions of pollution and progress and the idea of establishing a Ministry for the Environment. Before proceeding any further in my reply I should like, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to remind Deputies that the present Bill is basically designed to extend and strengthen the powers of the State in dealing with pollution of the sea by oil, where such pollution arises from ships. The Bill does not deal with such matters as pollution arising from offshore exploration work, which is a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce under the Continental Shelf Act, 1968, and the question of maritime jurisdiction, which is a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Arising out of pollution from offshore exploration activities, it might be proper to explain at this time that, while we could have a very interesting debate and probably a very useful debate on the blow out in the North Sea recently, which is causing so much anxiety and possible damage, such a debate would not be in order, with all due respect, a Cheann Comhairle, or relevant on this Bill. The blow out in the North Sea is a matter for an entirely separate convention and it is a matter for consideration by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I thought it better to explain that, lest it might not be understood why I did not refer to the blow out at length. As I say, it is a matter for an entirely different convention and an entirely different Minister. Clearly this Bill deals only with pollution caused by spillages from ships.
Other matters raised which do not come directly within the scope of the Bill included the pollution of the sea by toxic substances other than oil and the practical arrangements for dealing with oil pollution, both onshore and offshore. I hope that Deputies will bear this in mind during the Committee and subsequent Stages.
Turning now to the outstanding points raised during the debate, I should like to deal firstly with the suggestion for the establishment of a coastguard service to enforce the provisions of the Bill. I presume Deputies would have in mind the setting up of a body on the lines of the United States Coastguard Service. This is admitted to be an extremely effective service, but it should be pointed out that it covers many aspects dealt with in other countries by different agencies. In so far as fishery patrols are concerned, this is discharged in Ireland by the fishery service. The enforcement of merchant shipping laws and safety regulations is effected by the Marine Survey Service of my Department. The saving of life at sea is principally carried out by the lifeboat service, and lights and buoys are provided by the Commissioners of Irish Lights.
Not surprisingly, the cost of the US service is very high. It has, for instance, the seventh biggest naval fleet in the world. Very many other factors would need to be carefully weighed before taking such a radical decision as to introduce a counterpart service here. May I give my impression that Deputies have only considered the matter from the point of view of pollution law enforcement? I am reasonably satisfied with existing arrangements for enforcement of the law in relation to oil pollution. For instance within harbours, either the harbour authority or myself may initiate a prosecution. Offences outside harbours are normally detected by reports received from ships' masters or pilots of aircraft who report the sighting of an oil spillage. Where the spillage can be traced to a particular ship, proceedings can be taken when and if she enters a port within the jurisdiction.
The question of obtaining financial assistance towards safety measures from an international fund or from oil companies was raised by several Deputies. The Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, known as IMCO, has adopted two international conventions to provide for the payment of compensation for oil pollution damage. I referred briefly to these during my Second Stage opening speech. The first convention—the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969—places liability for pollution damage on the owner of the ship from which the oil escaped and provides for ships carrying oil as cargo in bulk to be covered by appropriate insurance or other financial security. It came into force on 19th June, 1975, but because of a number of shortcomings in regard to the limits of liability it became necessary to adopt a supplementary convention. The supplementary convention is entitled the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971. This convention provides for the setting up of an international fund made up of contributions from the oil industry for compensation for oil pollution damage. The main effect of the convention is to ensure that the oil industry will share the cost of pollution damage. The fund will be administered by the IMCO secretariat on a repayment basis. Legislation which would enable this country to ratify both conventions is being prepared and will be introduced in the near future.
Many references were made by Deputies to the state of preparedness or otherwise of both the Naval Service and harbour authorities to deal with an oil spillage. For clarity, I would point out that while clearance of oil pollution at sea is a matter for the Department of Defence acting through the Naval Service, clearance of oil pollution on shore or immediately offshore is a matter for maritime local authorities and harbour authorities with technical back-up and assistance from the Department of Local Government. These authorities have prepared plans for oil pollution clearance and development of these plans continues.
There is a Liaison Committee on Oil Pollution which meets regularly under the chairmanship of an officer from the Department of Local Government and is composed of representatives from my Department and the Departments of Defence, Justice, Fisheries, Industry and Commerce, Posts and Telegraphs, as well as from the Office of Public Works, the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, the County and City Managers' Association and the County and City Surveyors' Association. Briefly, the role of this committee includes ensuring that plans for clearance of oil pollution are made and kept under review, that action is taken in the event of a spillage and that the plans of the various bodies involved are co-ordinated.
Guidelines have been established on the minimum stocks of materials and equipment which should be available in each area having regard to the risk of pollution from the main types of oil spillage which may affect the coastline. These guidelines have been prepared on the basis that stocks held in any area can be shared by all the interests concerned and also made available, as necessary, to any other area where they may be required so as to avoid duplication and to obtain the most comprehensive coverage. In regard to the specific question of stockpiles of neoprene blocks used in booms for containing oil spillages, I understand that this material, a form of rubber, is now dated and that stocks of newer and more effective types of boom are held in a number of our major ports.
I have dealt at some length with the state of readiness of all concerned in the event of oil pollution and the degree of awareness and commitment to anti-pollution measures so much in evidence in the respective bodies. It is essential that in combating the oil pollution we do not further pollute the sea with chemical dispersants which could themselves destroy life. The guidelines to which I have referred stress the necessity for the identification, in conjunction with the Department of Fisheries, of areas of fishery interest where dispersants should not be used, having regard to tidal and other factors for part of, or all, the year round. While no final solution to the safe and clean dispersal or recovery of oil pollutant is as yet available, it should be put on record that already the types of detergent recommended for use in specified areas under controlled conditions are very many times less toxic than their counterparts of some years ago.
During the debate much discussion centered on the concept of an economic zone of 200 miles as discussed at the Law of the Sea Conference. The extent of the powers under the Bill to deal with spillages outside the territorial limit of three miles but within the 200-mile economic zone area was questioned. This Bill is designed to give effect to two conventions—one which ensures more effective control of the discharge of oil into the sea by ships including restriction on all discharges, including ballast, in areas within 50 miles of land—the other convention relates to intervention on the high seas. This second convention authorises a coastal state to intervene and take measures to protect its coastal and other related interests in the event of oil pollution on the high seas. Because of the ramifications of international law, however, this intervention may only take place with the consent of the offending ship's country of registration. This arises from the internationally accepted view that a ship proceeding on the high seas represents effectively an extension of the territory of her State of registration. The necessary consent is implicit in the adherence by a country to the convention. In short therefore, intervention by this country is permissible within our territorial waters, that is, three miles, to any ship; outside this limit we may intervene with any Irish registered ship or ship whose country of registration adheres to the convention.
Finally, the matter of what Deputies considered to be low penalties for offences under the Bill remains to be explained. There was an impression during the previous debate and immediately afterwards that we were only increasing the fine to £500. In fact, what we were talking about then was increasing the fine to £500 from £200 in the case of a summary conviction, a conviction in the District Court. Even at the increased rate of £500, the fine might appear small but I repeat that it dealt only with summary conviction, namely, conviction in the District Court. The position is that it was not and is not possible to increase fines on summary conviction beyond £500 because of the provisions of the Constitution. We are advised that an Act that sought to impose fines on summary conviction higher than £500 would be held to be unconstitutional.
However, there are very heavy penalties provided in the Bill for a conviction on indictment, that is, conviction in the Circuit Court. The Bill proposes to increase those fines from £5,000 to £100,000, plus £10,000 per day. According to any standard that is a substantial increase and a very substantial penalty. In addition, where a ship is guilty of polluting the sea with a discharge of oil the owners are open to claims at civil law, claims for damages which could be very substantial. They would be measured by the amount of damage done by the ship.
I should like to make the position clear with regard to penalties because after the debate on Second Stage had concluded I think there was an idea that we had power only to impose fines of £500 which, I concede, would not be a real deterrent. I repeat that the fines on indictment are £100,000, plus £10,000 per day, in addition to the civil rights of the offended country or individual.
That deals with all the points raised on Second Stage. I should like to thank the House for the general reception given to the Bill. The usual point was made that it did not go far enough but I do not think the Deputies who made that complaint realised that this Bill deals only with pollution caused by oil escaping or being discharged by ships. The general range of the debate was due to the fact that this point was not appreciated. There are other conventions to deal with other matters and we will bring legislation before the House to enable us to ratify them.
