Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 May 1977

Vol. 299 No. 2

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

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I understand that the term "ship or its cargo" is not meant to cover an oil rig or platform. Because of the recent blow out in the North Sea which caused such trouble and worry, it is important to be clear that they are not covered here. This section refers to a ship or its cargo. Could a platform or oil rig not be described as a ship? After all, it has to be towed out to sea like any other vessel. From the Minister's reply on Second Stage it would seem that the 1969 convention was not meant to cover such an eventuality. This is 1977. It seems a long time to wait for a Bill to come before the House. I am not saying the Minister or his Department are to blame for this but is a further Bill to be brought before the House which will cover such an eventuality? The blow out in the North Sea and also off the west coast of America have proved that a danger exists.

The Minister said that this matter came under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and that it would be his job to introduce a Bill. It is time for us to examine the structure of the two Departments with regard to issues such as this. The Minister for Transport and Power should have the responsibility for all these matters rather than two Departments being responsible. It would be more businesslike and more workable to have it under the responsibility of the Minister for Transport and Power. I realise that this would involve a reorganisation of the duties and responsibilities of that Ministry. I presume that when the Ministry for Transport and Power was set up nobody visualised we would have such threats facing us.

I understand that there is a convention covering a blow out such as that which occurred in the North Sea but that legislation is needed. How soon can we expect such legislation? The Minister might give us some idea of this even though it is the responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce at the moment.

I agree with Deputy Barrett. There is a great deal of apprehension about this problem on the west coast. I am surprised Deputy Barrett did not mention his own area but I will mention the major area—Galway. Tourist resorts, which could be more valuable than oil to people in a particular area, could be wiped out by such an accident off our coast. While it would be a national asset to strike oil—and there is great optimism that it is there—every safeguard possible should be included in this legislation.

, Cavan): I can easily understand and appreciate Deputies wishing to discuss the North Sea blow out which took place recently and its consequences and effects. However, when I replied to the Second Stage debate a short time ago I went out of my way to make it perfectly clear that the Bill we are dealing with seeks to enable us to implement amendments to a 1954 convention which deals exclusively with the pollution of the sea by oil from ships. That is what this Bill seeks to do.

Naturally we are all concerned with pollution in all its forms. It is natural too that we would be particularly concerned with the North Sea blow out because it is a recent occurrence and an in-topic. Might I request Deputies not to pursue this, because it is simply not relevant on this Bill. The responsibility for dealing with pollution, such as that caused by the North Sea blow out, falls under another convention which has not yet even been finalised and we are only one of very many countries involved in that convention. That convention, as I say, has not been finalised. As things stand here at the moment the responsibility for making a contribution towards the finalising of that convention does not rest with my Department but rests with the Department of Industry and Commerce. Therefore, may I summarise by saying that the pollution caused by this blow out is not a matter for this Department, nor is it a matter for this convention.

Deputy Barrett raised the point when he intervened first as to whether an oil rig or its platform could be regarded as a ship. My answer to that is, in no way could an oil rig or its platform be described as a ship or fall into the category of ships. That is my advice. I might venture a layman's opinion: a ship, I imagine, is something that propels itself, not something that is dragged out or hauled out and left in position. I think that deals with the point raised by Deputy Barrett.

Unfortunately, the name of the ship escapes me; I have mislaid my note; but there is a case which would come under this section, the case of an oil tanker which is breaking up and despite the efforts of everybody there seems to be an inability to discover the names of the owners. What would happen in similar circumstances here where ships are in some cases sailing under flags of convenience and where it is not possible to pin down the owners?

(Cavan): Deputy Calleary raises the point where a ship is breaking up and which it may not be possible to identify. I refer the Deputy to section 2 subsection (5), which meets the point he raised, which says:

Without prejudice to the provisions of any other enactment relating to the service of notices, the Minister, or any person authorised in that behalf by the Minister, may give directions—

(a) to the owner or person in possession of a ship, by serving the direction on the master of the ship,

(b) to the salvor, by serving the direction on the person in charge of the salvage operations.

That would be acceptable in probably 99.9 per cent of cases, but this case to which I have referred seems to be the other 0.1 per cent. I am sure the Minister and the officers of his Department have full particulars of the case. There was an Irishman serving on the ship. This ship has for a number of years been condemned by most of the marine insurers. The ship is now lying somewhere off the American coast and it has not been possible, despite the fact that the ship has been there for some years, to discover who the owner is. I understand that there is a possibility that the oil from that ship could reach our coast. I will look up the details and pass them on to the Minister, because this is something that could affect us.

I do not want to Labour the point that I raised and which the Minister said is not a matter for his Department, but I do say that it is time our Departments were completely reorganised. We are now in the last quarter of the 20th Century and there have been unforeseen developments in technology. We are told that within the next few years all along the west coast will be a considerable source of oil. The prevailing winds are from the west, and the west coast which, as Deputy Coogan said, is a highly intensive tourist area, would be within a couple of days of a major oil spillage. It is time the question of reorganising Departments was considered so as to bring them up to date.

I was watching BBC News last night and saw an oil rig three times higher than Big Ben being towed by five tugs. It makes one worried. It is time that we started to update all our law. It goes back to what Fianna Fáil have been saying for a long time. Pollution should come within the control of a Department of the Environment which would be responsible for all types of pollution. This would help the Minister and his colleagues, who have to look over their shoulders to find who is responsible for various types of pollution.

Is it feasible that oil tankers would carry detergents to deal with a spillage immediately it occurs? Could this be arranged by convention or otherwise? Tankers that can carry millions of gallons of oil should be capable of carrying a few hundred tons of detergent to deal with an emergency. This would remove a great deal of worry for people living along the coast.

(Cavan): This question about a separate Department for the Environment with sole responsibility for pollution is raised frequently. First of all, the number of Ministers is limited by the Constitution; secondly, the arrangement at the moment is that the Department of Local Government is the Department with overall authority in respect of pollution, and by and large that is reasonable because the Department of Local Government has responsibility for many facets of local administration which could cause pollution. That does not mean that several other Departments have not an input into the prevention of pollution.

This whole matter was recently considered by a committee from various Departments and a good deal of thought and consideration was given to it. The result of that consideration was that the present system of dealing with pollution by the Department of Local Government is the most workable and the most effective.

I would remind Deputy Calleary, who raised the point about an unidentified ship, that we must be clear as to what we are dealing with here. Within our territorial waters we have authority under this Bill to deal with any offending ship. Outside our territorial waters we have authority to deal only with our own ships or ships belonging to or registered in one of the 23 countries that have subscribed to the convention. We have no authority over a ship registered in a country which is not bound by the convention.

The boat I am referring to is outside our territorial waters and, fortunately, is far enough away from us, but if it were 150 miles off the west coast what would be the position?

(Cavan): It would depend on where the ship is registered.

That is the problem, because the ship is not registered in any of the countries that subscribe to the convention. However, I should like to know how we can stop the oil polluting the west coast. This matter has got a lot of publicity and I understand that a Dublin man is a member of the crew. The American authorities have made extensive efforts to trace the owners and have discovered that ownership is tied up in a number of holding companies.

(Cavan): This Bill will mean a vast improvement on the present position. It is important that things are done step by step. We are taking measures to deal with all offending ships within our territorial waters and we are taking authority to deal with the ships of more than 20 other states, some of the biggest in the world, when they offend outside our territorial waters. We will always come across the ship registered in a country that has not subscribed to the convention, and that ship will not be bound by the convention or this Bill. I understand that there is a second convention which authorises this country to take action against a ship where that ship is obviously polluting or affecting our shores.

What would happen if the ship I am talking about was inside our territorial waters and we could not find the actual owners?

(Cavan): We could do what we liked with it: we could sink it.

The ship is on its way down and sinking so that will not do much to solve the problem.

(Cavan): We can take any steps to render it harmless if it is inside our territorial waters.

Can we seize the ship in order to get back the cost of any anti-pollution measures we might have to adopt?

(Cavan): If it is inside our territorial waters we can take steps to render it harmless, but if we cannot find the owner it would be impossible to recoup the cost of any anti-pollution measures we might adopt.

Would the State have to pay the cleaning-up cost?

(Cavan): That happens in many walks of life. The state is called upon to spend a considerable amount of money to prevent somebody causing damage, but if that person causing the damage is not a mark it is not possible to recover the expenses from him. In the case the Deputy is talking about we can render the ship harmless if it is inside our territorial waters. If the owner or those in control of the ship cannot be located the state will have to bear the cost involved.

Could we not insist that ships like these are not allowed to trade with us?

(Cavan): If a ship drifts inside our territorial waters and is abandoned, like an old car on the road, what can we do? If the owners can be located and they are a mark the damages can be recovered, but otherwise nothing can be done.

Territorial waters is a delicate question at present, and I should like to know if the Minister is referring to 12 miles or 50 miles. The Minister has not told me whether it could be arranged to make it compulsory for the big oil tankers to carry detergents.

(Cavan): Territorial waters covers a distance of three miles. The second point raised by the Deputy will be dealt with in a later section.

On the definition of a ship, the Minister maintains that a ship is self-propelled. The definition of a ship could be very important when we bear in mind oil rigs and platforms. Could they be described as ships? It should be borne in mind that canal barges, which were horse-drawn, came under the definition of ships. Surely, there is a precedent for including oil rigs and platforms as ships under this section. It would be important for us to do so. The importance of doing this was stressed recently when there was a blow out in the North Sea. Exploration is being carried out in the Porcupine Shelf and we are hopeful that oil will be discovered, but what happens if we were unfortunate to have a blow out such as occurred in the North Sea?

This is something we all appreciate can happen a lot quicker than we would have anticipated a few years ago, the consequences of which would be enormous. I am not saying we should not have exploration or exploitation. It is important that we get this under way with the minimum of delay. However, we must consider other eventualities in view of recent happenings.

From what the Minister has said it appears that matters such as these will be covered under a separate convention not yet finalised. In due course a Bill will be brought before both Houses by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to cover such matters. However, experience has shown that the time lag between the signing of such convention by the different parties to it, the passage of legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas and its implementation can be as much as six or seven years. If such a blow out occurred in the next two or three years—and it could happen that technology could be devised that would establish a well at depths on the Cork Point shelf on stream faster than we can anticipate at present—there is no action we can take before such a convention is ratified and legislation passed by these Houses. Therefore we would be left, so to speak, with our flank completely exposed in that respect. We could eliminate many potential dangers if it were possible to describe a rig or platform as a ship even though the Minister has said that his definition of a ship would be a vessel that is self-propelled. I have given the example of a canal barge dragged by a horse in the old days. Surely such— and there are still some in existence in England—could have been defined in those days as a ship. If we could so define a rig or platform it would eliminate a lot of difficulty, delay and danger that might otherwise occur because of the time lag involved before the introduction of legislation to cover such an eventuality.

Would a floating buoy be included in that category?

I do not know. I am concerned about a rig or platform and the inherent dangers.

On the lines the Deputy is taking a buoy would have to be included because it is floating.

A buoy does not carry cargo or people; an oil rig or platform can.

We do not want the legal wigwams in here now.

It all revolves around the definition of "ship".

(Cavan): I am advised that the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 defines a ship and that in no way could an oil rig or platform be taken to be a ship or fall within the definition of such. I have not got that Act before me but I am assured that a ship is therein described as a vessel used in navigation, not propelled by oars, that is, a sea-going vessel not propelled by oars.

Specifically a seagoing vessel?

(Cavan): Yes, I am so advised. The Bill before the House is limited in its effect of implementing a convention which deals with pollution of the sea by oil from ships. Any efforts on our behalf to legislate for occurrences outside our three mile limit, which did not fall within that convention, would be simply a waste of time. We have the power and authority to deal with the type of incident or catastrophe about which Deputies speak provided it occurs within our territorial waters.

If such a blow out occurred before we have the legislation resultant on the next convention is it the case that the Minister or the Government will be unable to take any action? For instance, who will be empowered to take action? This is a very serious matter. Somebody must invite the "Red" Adairs and such people to deal with these matters. It is most important that we be in a position to take some action or, apart altogether from these conventions, should we introduce some Bill in order to be in a position to take the necessary action?

(Cavan): I hope I shall make myself clear but, if a blow out occurs outside our territorial waters there is nothing that any Bill we might introduce here, per se, could do to enable us to deal with that because we have no control over the high seas. They are free to the world and we can get control over them only by way of convention. We have taken control over ships on the high seas that pollute by oil, by virtue of the Convention of 1954, as amended by the Convention of 1971. It is futile to suggest that we, as a country, by putting a Bill through the Houses of the Oireachtas could suddenly get possession of and control over the high seas, because we cannot. We can do that only by convention. There is no use suggesting that there is something that the Department of Transport and Power, or the Department of Industry and Commerce could do, no matter who may be the Ministers involved, to give us authority over the high seas. Again, we can do that only through international convention. Hopefully the international convention which will deal with these blow outs will be negotiated by 20 or 30 nations. As a nation we will do everything to encourage the finalisation of that convention. Those are the realities of the situation.

When the prospecting licences were granted surely our Government could have inserted clauses in them to cover some of the eventualities about which Deputy Barrett speaks. I understand that Britain have now insisted that companies prospecting in the North Sea, within their limits, are and have been told that they are responsible.

I have allowed fairly wide reference to oil rigs, blow outs and such like primarily to facilitate Deputies for clarification purposes. However, it must be clear to the House that these matters are not relevant to this Bill. They cannot be dealt with under this Bill and are the responsibility of another Minister. While I have allowed reference to it I want to disuade Members from assuming that they may debate the matter of oil rigs, blow outs and such matters under this measure. It is not appropriate.

I accept what the Minister has said, that no legislation will empower us to deal with outside waters, that this has to await an international convention. The worrying thing is whether, if an oil spillage occurred, we would be powerless to do anything about it. I would refer to the occurrence in the North Sea which was far outside Norwegian or British territorial waters, yet the Norwegian Government seemed to be in a position to take action and the British Minister, Mr. Benn, went to the spot and immediately got involved. Does the Minister visualise that we could get involved immediately if such an eventuality occurred before the necessary convention and resultant legislation is brought before the House?

(Cavan): Deputy Barrett has come nearer to reality. I understood him to have been asking what I am doing in the Bill, or could do in any Bill, to take power to control or to prevent pollution by blow outs. I can do nothing but of course most things can be done by agreement. The intervention by the Americans, the British and others in the Bravo blow out to try to render it harmless was obviously done by agreement between the countries concerned and the owners of the oil rig who did not want to pollute the seas and who were very anxious to have help.

In similar circumstances we would use our international influence and diplomatic connections all over the world if such an accident affected us. Furthermore, we would be prepared to lend our help, by agreement, to render such spillages harmless. It would be unsatisfactory to get into a very wide discussion on conditions to be laid down for lessors or lessees in regard to steps to prevent pollution. My belief is that they take preventive measures, but it is very difficult to involve ourselves in a debate on such matters. In any event, that does not concern my Department and is not relevant to the Bill.

The section refers to "maritime casualty" and the actions the Minister can take. Is it correct to say that this includes such cases as the Torrey Canyon—that we are not talking about ships discharging waste?

(Cavan): It refers to casualties.

Subsection (4) refers to the directions the Minister may give and paragraph (a) provides that action taken by or on behalf of the Minister may include the removal of a ship beyond the limits of a harbour or the restraint or control of its movements. If there is spillage from a ship, its removal from a harbour would not be the proper action to take because it would spread the spillage over a wider area. Paragraph (d) refers to the sinking, destruction or taking over of control of a ship. We are dealing with pollution caused by oil spillage from a ship and there would not seem to be much point in sinking a ship which is spilling oil on to the sea. An effective way would be to use booms and suction pumps immediately and to have the oil transferred to another ship or to shore storage tanks. Paragraph (b) refers to the unloading or discharge of oil or other cargo.

(Cavan): The section sets out:

Without prejudice to the generality of any power conferred on the Minister, or on any person authorised by the Minister to act on his behalf, by this section, any directions given, or action taken, by or on behalf of the Minister may include—

The Minister may give other directions, and when Deputy Barrett was dealing with the subsection he picked out paragraphs (a) and (d) and simply ignored the remainder. I propose to read to the House the directions the Minister may give. He may direct the removal of the ship beyond the limits of the harbour or restrain or control its movements. He may direct the unloading or discharge of oil or other cargo. That is a very effective step he can take. He may give directions regarding the taking, or restriction on taking, of specified salvage measures. Not alone may he give a direction with regard to the sinking of the ship but he may also give a direction regarding the destruction or taking over of control of the ship. Those are all very effective steps he may take. If sinking stood alone there might be something in what Deputy Barrett said. If removal beyond the harbour stood alone there might be something in what Deputy Barrett said but taking the subsection and its four clauses together, it is very effective.

I accept what the Minister says, but to me it seemed a bit ridiculous to go sinking a ship that is spilling oil.

(Cavan): There might be circumstances in which that would be necessary.

Booms form a most effective measure and the Minister is satisfied, I take it, that booms can be used. Could the Minister give us some idea as to whether this equipment is available throughout the country? Have we got the equipment? Would we have to hire it? The Minister might give us some idea of the availability of such equipment. Suction equipment might be required. In the spillage in Bantry Bay booms were not involved, as far as I recall. It was an emergency situation and I saw people—I think they were from Holland—trying out new suction equipment. We did not have equipment available ourselves on that occasion when there was this oil spillage from a tanker unloading in the bay. Booms could have been used most effectively then. The important thing now is the availability of equipment to cope with a spillage.

(Cavan): Deputy Moore raised this matter on the Second Stage and I am in a position now to deal with it more fully. I am informed that the ports of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Bantry have booms. Generally speaking, the types of boom now available are suitable to surround the oil tanker during loading or discharging or they can be put across the harbour mouth to prevent the incursion or excursion of oil.

May we take it that, apart from Limerick, there is nothing along the west coast? Galway does not have facilities?

(Cavan): I am not in a position to say it has, but I am told all these appliances are shared between ports.

If there were a need, then, in Galway or further north facilities would be available?

(Cavan): They would be made available.

Is the Minister satisfied that subsection (6) does not limit his powers? The powers may be exercised if, and only if, the Minister has reasonable cause to believe. Would he not take out (1), (2), (3) and (4) and leave the powers strictly to himself and not have these limitations here?

(Cavan): If I were to do what the Deputy suggests I would be out of line with the convention and then this legislation would not be binding outside our territorial waters.

The Minister has told us that subsection (6) covers an oil tanker such as the Torrey Canyon. If a tanker is abandoned by its crew just outside our territorial waters, which is quite possible and probable, could a Minister take action? There could be a long delay in reaching agreement with the registered owners.

(Cavan): If it is a convention ship I do not want any authority because it is subject to international law. It is subject to the convention. It is subject to this Bill.

Does the Minister feel he is limited in any way by subsection (8)? In a prosecution it will be a defence for a person to establish that he had reasonable cause to believe that compliance with the direction would involve a serious risk to human life. Has the Minister any idea as to what circumstances might govern a case like that? Has the convention set out any guidelines?

(Cavan): I cannot offhand visualise a situation where compliance with a direction might involve a serious risk to human life. I suppose it could if someone gave a direction to sink a ship immediately and there were people on board waiting to be taken off and that might take some hours. The court would interpret the situation in a reasonable way. Much as we cherish freedom from pollution we cherish human life more. It is as simple as that. I think it is a reasonable safeguard.

The Minister gave us the names of a number of countries which have signed this convention. Are Panama and Liberia signatories?

(Cavan): Belgium, Fiji, Japan, Monaco, New Zealand, Senegal, Syria, Arab Republic, USSR, Denmark, France, Lebanon, Morocco, Norway, Spain, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia, Dominican Republic, Germany, Liberia, Netherlands, Panama, Sweden and the USA. It is a fairly formidable list.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.

(Cavan): I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 9, after "pollution" to insert "or the risk of such pollution".

I am advised that this amendment is necessary to clarify and confirm the right of a person to recover compensation from the Minister for unnecessary expense incurred as a result of compliance with a direction given by the Minister under section 2 which was subsequently held by the court to be an unreasonable direction. The amendment is in line with Article 6 of the convention in regard to compensation rights.

Amendment agreed to.

(Cavan): I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, line 14, after "damage" to insert "suffered or unnecessary expense".

There are two amendments involved in this. I dealt with the second amendment first. The first amendment involves the addition of the words "or the risk of oil pollution" to this section and is to ensure full compliance with Articles 1 and 6 of the convention, which stipulates that any measures taken must be reasonably necessary to prevent, mitigate or eliminate grave and imminent danger to the coastline or related interests from pollution or threat of pollution of the sea by oil.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Subsection (1) states:

Any person who establishes that any action taken pursuant to section 2 of this Act, or in pursuance of a direction given pursuant to section 2 of this Act——

and paragraph (b) of the subsection says:

was such that the damage it prevented, or was likely to prevent was disproportionately less than any expense incurred or damage suffered as a result of the action,

I wonder how one could satisfy the subsection in regard to that phrase "disproportionately less than any expense incurred or damage suffered as a result of the action". Surely the purpose of this Bill is to act quickly to prevent the escalation of damage or pollution resulting from a maritime spillage. The quicker the Minister or the people involved get this done the less it will cost. The quicker it is done the better it is also for the owners of the vessel without having access to the courts.

(Cavan): We are implementing a convention here under which more than 20 countries have agreed to come together and agree to be bound by rules and regulations and to bind their ship owners and nationals by these regulations. In order to get those 20-odd countries to come together and be bound in this way, it was of course necessary for them all to be satisfied that the regulations would be reasonable. One of the safeguards that was built into the convention was that any ship owner who was given an unreasonable direction or regulation which caused him damage or loss should be entitled to compensation. In deciding whether or not a ship owner is to be entitled to compensation for having complied with a regulation which cost him substantial loss, the convention and the Bill propose to pose the question: was the damage caused or likely to be caused by pollution out of all proportion to the damage or loss which was caused to the ship owner by the direction? If it was then the ship owner is entitled to compensation.

I must take an extreme case to demonstrate the point. Suppose there is a trivial amount of pollution and some Minister directs that the ship be abandoned and be sunk. That would obviously be a stupid thing to do, imposing a loss on the ship owner which would be altogether out of proportion to the amount of the damage that was being done to the sea. It would be only reasonable, in my opinion, that if the ship owner carried out the direction he should be entitled to compensation, and that is, in effect, what is built into this subsection.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

This section deals with something we have been already discussing, that is, the application of the legislation to ships outside territorial waters. It reads:

(1) The Government may, by order made under this section, apply, in whole or in part and subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the order, 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.

(2) An order made under subsection (1) of this section may contain such transitional and consequential provisions as appear to the Government to be necessary or expedient.

Subsection (4) of the section says:

In this section "ships to which the convention of 1969 applies" means ships registered in—

The Minister will have no power to act in relation to ships from countries that are not part of the convention. Deputy Calleary referred earlier to the abandoned ship whose ownership nobody would be able to trace. A ship which has been abandoned and whose ownership cannot be traced to a country which is participating in this convention or whose ownership cannot be traced in any way could be lying immediately outside our territorial waters slowly spilling oil into the sea and the oil could be blown towards our coasts, thus seriously affecting the environment not to mention all the other effects which are involved in such a spillage. Is it envisaged in future conventions or future legislation that anything can be done about such matters?

To come back to something to which I referred some time ago, could this country take action against a country which is party to the convention if the ship which is causing the pollution is registered in that country?

(Cavan): Section 5 gives the Minister power to extend section 2 of this Bill, which is the effective section, to the high seas, and it is proposed to apply that section to the high seas with all possible speed. The Deputy opposite has asked what will happen, if some ship that is not a convention ship——

Deputy Barrett asked about a ship that is not a convention ship. I am talking about a convention ship. Does that give this country the right——

(Cavan): Yes, if it is what I call a convention ship we can deal with it. Deputy Barrett posed the question, what will happen if it is not a convention ship. Up to this minute we have no legal authority unless by agreement, as took place in the North Sea, to deal with any ship outside the territorial waters. By virtue of the convention and by virtue of this Bill we will get control over the ships of 23 other nations, some of the most important nations in the world. That is a big step forward.

I am asked what will happen if the offending ship is not registered in a country which subscribes to the convention. There is nothing we can do about it unless international law is changed. There is an ongoing conference on the law of the sea and perhaps it will come up with a solution. It would be a good thing if it did. Perhaps the international law of the sea will be changed so as to give all countries power to deal with an offending ship, irrespective of a convention. That is another step forward. We are now achieving very wide control. That is not to say that I complain about Deputies asking for perfection. We should all aim at the ultimate perfection and the ultimate measures for preventing the pollution of the sea. Under this Bill we are taking a major step forward and I would ask the House to accept it.

We agree completely with the Minister that it is a tremendous step forward, but we are raising matters which may be catered for in future legislation and the Minister accepts our right to raise such matters. We are not perfectionists.

I should like the Minister to give us some information as to how advanced the next convention is at present. Is it likely to be finalised in the not too distant future?

(Cavan): I am afraid I cannot give this information. It is something we have no control over and I want to put the record straight on this. Governments should take the blame when they are blameworthy; they must take some responsibility when they have a function to perform. This is an international convention which must be negotiated freely between innumerable countries. It is also bound up by the international Law of the Sea Conference. I am not in a position at the moment to say when the next convention will be finalised or at what stage it is, but I certainly will make inquiries through my Department and pass on the information to Deputy Barrett.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

This section deals with the power to detain vessels and the means by which the Minister would exercise the powers vested in him under this Bill. At present it would appear to be correct to say that the instrument of power would be the Naval Service. Due to the fisheries dispute this Service will be over-extended from now on. In the Second Stage debate on this Bill we mentioned that a coastguard service should be considered. Some people may have got the impression that we were speaking in terms of a separate service independent from any existing service, such as they have in the United States. We do not support the creation of a new service with all the administration costs which that would entail. It is not the appropriate time for more public expenditure, but nevertheless it must be agreed that some type of service is necessary.

We are an island country and we have many interests associated with the sea. We should consider the setting up of a coastguard unit within the present Naval Service. The duties of this unit would not be solely confined to arresting ships or enforcing the laws and the powers vested in the Minister under this Bill. We would visualise their duties going far outside this area. There are numerous fishing vessels operating along our coasts from places such as Killybegs and there have been accidents from time to time. It would seem that there is no communication between these vessels and the mainland. There are two radio stations that can be used for this purpose, one at Valentia Island and the other at Malin Head, but once the fishing vessels go beyond a certain area they have no contact with either of these stations. A properly run radio communication service could be operated by a coastguard unit within the Naval Service.

This unit would not have to be as expensive as the Naval Service because a much smaller type of vessel could be used. The number of personnel would not be too great and the present Naval administration could be slightly augmented to deal with the extra tasks. We must face up to the fact that we are an island people. We have a very extensive coastline. In the past we thought in terms of the three mile limit. The kind of service required to police this area was quite small but with the extension of the territorial waters we will need an expanded service. The exploration for oil and gas and, hopefully, the exploitation of these resources will mean more and more activity off our shores and this is the appropriate time to consider the establishment of some service within the framework of the present Naval Service. A small type of vessel could be used, and this unit would be responsible for an extended radio communication service for the protection of our fishermen. At present it would appear that these men, when they go beyond a certain distance from Valentia Island or Malin Head, have no radio contact other than with some passing vessel using the VHF system. It is an appropriate time to consider this no matter what Government are in power and whatever Department are involved. We should streamline our service along our coast and have it as a unit within the present Naval Service. It may be called perhaps a coastguard service.

I concur with Deputy Barrett on this. The present situation is not satisfactory. If we want to implement, under this section of the Bill, the power to detain vessels it is necessary to think along the lines suggested by Deputy Barrett. The Naval Service are doing a good job considering that we do not have the resources to provide what we would like in this regard. For possibly a much lesser sum we could provide a coastguard service which would be under the control of the Department of Defence, perhaps by using smaller launches and having them in ports at various points along the coast. They could play a great role apart entirely from patrol work and assisting in this kind of work mentioned in the Bill. On the northwest coast we have no lifeboat from Arranmore in Donegal to the Aran Islands, and this is quite a large stretch of coast without a rescue service.

The whole question of communication has to be taken into account here. For instance, with regard to the radio service, at the moment the Valentia radio messages cannot be picked up even in Cork and the same problem arises in trying to pick up messages from other areas along the coast. This is something to be taken into account if we want an efficient service. I would not like to think in terms of huge expenditure in this but I recall the war years when we had coast-watching by Army personnel who possibly did not have boats or anything like that to help them in this activity, but they did provide the service at the time. If we based the service we are talking about on something on that line we could be doing a very worthwhile job. This is something that comes under the Minister's Department. What might be taken into consideration is the fact that a great number of people seem to be getting boats for pleasure, speed boats, yachts and so on. These could play a big role in the service we are mentioning in the event of accidents at sea or matters of that kind.

(Cavan): The ability of this country to enforce this Bill when it becomes an Act has been raised and it has been suggested on Second Reading Stage and now that we should have a coastguard service. I would like to come down to the realities of the matter and to deal with what is required under the Bill and what this country has proved itself capable of doing in this regard.

First of all I should thank and congratulate our Naval Service for their display and the action they have taken in the recent past in regard to both the Russian trawler and the Dutch boats. It is obvious that our Naval Service is respected and obeyed. They have equipped themselves magnificently and deserve the height of credit. The action in regard to the Dutch boats following on the action regarding the Russian trawler has demonstrated that this country means what it says in regard to the enforcement of the law applying to fishing as we see it, and our directions and commands have been obeyed. It may be that the validity of these will be determined in one court or another, but that is another day's work. The fact is that we were able to arrest, detain and bring into port a huge Russian trawler and we stopped and brought into port the ten Dutch boats. That is evidence that we are capable of enforcing the law as we see it and that our directions are respected.

Let us see what is involved here. We will be dealing under this Bill with convention ships, that is ships registered or under the control of countries who have subscribed to this convention. These ships will be guilty of a breach of the law in their own country as well as on the high seas, because each country which has subscribed to the convention will be introducing a national law on this matter which will make it an offence for their ships to do abroad those things that we would be complaining of them doing on the high seas. Therefore, we will be dealing with the ships of a friendly country and we will be enforcing a common law, a law that will be common to this country and the country of registration of the ship. That is clearly the present position in regard to the fisheries matter, because neither the Russian boats nor the Dutch boats are in breach of their own national law when fishing inside the 50-mile limit, but they are in breach of our law. As they see it, I suppose we could not expect help or co-operation from ships that are not in breach of their own national law. However, here, ships which are polluting the sea will be in breach of their own national law as well as our law, and they will not be too difficult to deal with. I hope there will not be much pollution. Ships that are causing pollution could be in the harbour, and there would be no problem there. If a strange ship was polluting the high seas outside our territorial limit, Britain would likely have a common case in preventing the pollution. If it happened to be a British ship that was polluting the water, being nearer home we could complain or France might have a common cause in relation to that pollution. I can understand Deputies using this debate as a platform to raise the question of the coastguard service, but when one analyses what is involved here it will be found that there will not be a very severe onus on this country in implementing this measure, because we will be acting in common with various other countries who have a common cause. There may be a case for having a coastguard service, if we could afford it, but we are not an imperial power and we have not endless wealth and we must operate within our limits.

We appreciate the great work done by the naval service and we are not being critical of this service. We also appreciate the extension of their duties as a result of the new fishing limits. Whereas they would have been operating within a 12-mile limit they will now operate over a far wider area. We are not thinking solely in the context of convention ships from whom we would expect the greatest co-operation. Non-convention ships which may be registered in a country which is not a party to a convention could cause pollution and oil spillages. If such a ship caused pollution within our territorial waters the Minister would have power to take action.

As far as I know, we have four naval vessels on active duty at the moment, and they would be operating over a very wide area. Oil pollution must be dealt with quickly. A coastguard service could be far more effective in dealing with matters such as this. In relation to the cost of a coastguard service, I believe that five smaller vessels than the ones at present being used by the naval service could be purchased for about £1 million each. The vessels being used by the naval service at the moment cost about £4½ million or £5 million each. These smaller vessels could be widely spaced and could be utilised when necessary to deal with pollution, and the Minister's power would be more effective. The question of cost is not a serious question when one considers that some extra naval service vessel will be necessary to cover the wider area. The Minister and his Department should seriously consider the extension of the naval service by the inclusion of a coastguard service comprised of these smaller vessels. The coastguard service could have patrol duties and life saving duties. They would be on the spot to protect fishing vessels in the event of a disaster such as the one we had off the Donegal coast. This suggestion is worth considering seriously.

The provisions of section 3 could be used against the Minister. Quite a number of our harbour masters are part time, and if one takes into account the number of offences that can be committed under section 13, the owners, masters or skippers of boats could take action against the Minister unless the harbour masters around the country are fully briefed. I do not mean they should be circulated with a copy of the Bill. They should be taken into regional centres and the provisions of the Bill should be explained to them. When the pollution officers begin to operate will they be seconded at times to help harbour masters? The Minister explained earlier that various Departments do not feel there is any need for this. I believe pollution officers could be of help to harbour masters many of whom are part time and have not got experience, and will not get the experience unless the Department of Transport and Power briefs them fully on the Bill.

This section says that the Minister or the harbour master concerned may halt and detain a vessel. In order to be in a position to implement that section it is necessary to do something along the lines suggested by Deputy Barrett and myself. We do not expect that we will have many cases of oil pollution but we know how serious oil pollution can be from our experience in the last few years. We should try to ensure that under the terms of the Bill we can control it effectively.

(Cavan): Deputy Calleary feared that section 3 might be invoked against the Minister or the harbour master for acting under section 6. That could not happen because section 3 only relates to action taken under section 2. Control of the coast is always under consideration. Our patrolling strength is greater now than it was some years ago. We have now planes searching out for offending ships. A discussion in regard to the strength of fishery protection boats—I again want to congratulate all those concerned—is hardly relevant to this particular Bill. The offending ships under this Bill will usually be going in and out of harbours. We are acting here under convention with over 20 other countries, who will be coming together with a common purpose. They will be assisting us and we will be assisting them. That is the object of the exercise. I do not see any of the fears expressed by Deputy Calleary.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.

(Cavan): I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, line 25, to delete "Agriculture and"

This amendment is necessary consequent on the dissolution of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries into the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries respectively and the assignation of the fisheries responsibility to the latter Department. It is purely a technical matter.

Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.

(Cavan): I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, lines 1 to 4, to delete "the owner or master of the vessel, or the occupier of the apparatus, from which the discharge occurred shall forthwith report the fact and cause of the occurrence to the Minister in such a manner as the Minister may by order direct" and to substitute "the owner or master of the vessel, the occupier of the place or the person in charge of the apparatus, as the case may be, from which the discharge occurred shall forthwith report the fact and cause of the occurrence to the Minister in the prescribed manner".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are cognate so, by agreement, these amendments might be taken together.

(Cavan): I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, line 7, to delete "two hundred pounds" and to substitute "five hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.".

The effect of this amendment is to increase the fine which was proposed in the section from £200 to £500 and, in addition, to give authority to the court to impose imprisonment up to 12 months as an alternative or an addition to the fine. Some people think that even the fine of £500 or 12 months imprisonment is not sufficient. We have a written Constitution and, by virtue of it, these are the severest penalties we can prescribe for summary conviction. It is proposed for the offence of pollution itself, to increase the penalties up to £100,000 and £10,000 later on in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.

(Cavan): I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, line 2, to delete "two hundred pounds" and to substitute "five hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.".

Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.

(Cavan): I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, lines 23 and 24, to delete "two hundred pounds" and to substitute "five hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.".

Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 16.

(Cavan): I move amendment No. 8:

In page 7, line 32, to delete "two hundred pounds" and to substitute "five hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.".

Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 17 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take remaining Stage today.
Top
Share