Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Dec 1987

Vol. 376 No. 7

Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill, 1987 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine (Mr. P. Gallagher)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Since earlier this year when I took up office, I have been very aware of the pollution risk to the Irish coastline from oil tankers. Ireland is in an especially vulnerable position because of it proximity to the major sea routes, the length of its coastline and the very severe weather which can affect the seas around our coasts. For these reasons I am very anxious to take whatever steps are necessary to reduce the impact of oil spills in the sea which might happen in the future. There is a serious need for legislation covering liability for compensation for oil pollution damage caused by oil tankers and I have taken the necessary steps to have this Bill covering this area introduced at the earliest opportunity.

The main aims of this Bill are, first, to ensure that oil tankers entering or leaving Irish ports have adequate insurance to cover their liability for oil pollution damage, secondly, to provide supplemental cover where oil tankers owners' liability is exceeded and, thirdly, to establish a legal framework for recovery of costs connected with oil pollution incidents. The Bill and consequential regulations will enable Ireland to ratify the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969 and its 1976 Protocol and also the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971 and its 1976 Protocol. These Conventions are generally referred to as the Civil Liability Convention. For the information of Deputies I have placed a copy of a booklet which includes both Conventions in the Library of the House.

The Civil Liability Convention obliges owners of ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo to have appropriate insurance to cover liability to a specified limit for oil pollution damage. The liability limit is £116 approximately per ton up to a maximum of £12 million approximately whichever is the lesser. The equivalents of these figures are set out in section 10 of the Bill.

The Fund Convention provides for the establishment of a fund financed by oil companies for payment of compensation for oil pollution where shipowners' liability is exceeded up to a current overall maximum of £46 million approximately. This limit has now been increased to approximately £52 million from 1 December 1987, and it is the equivalent of this figure which is referred to in section 21 of the Bill.

The units of account mentioned in sections 10 and 21 are Special Drawing Rights of the International Monetary Fund and the actual equivalent in punts will be governed by the exchange rates applying on a particular day. The unit of account for both Conventions was originally gold francs and this was changed to Special Drawing Rights of the IMF in the 1976 Protocols to both Conventions.

At present Ireland is reliant on voluntary international schemes for compensation in the event of oil pollution damage from ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo. These agreements are the Tanker Owners Voluntary Agreement on Liability for Oil Pollution — TOVALOP — and a Contract Regarding a Supplement to Tanker Liability for Oil Pollution — CRISTAL. TOVALOP and CRISTAL were intended to be interim solutions and to remain in operation only until the Civil Liability and Fund Conventions had worldwide application. While the scope of TOVALOP and CRISTAL is similar to that of the international conventions, it is not possible to incorporate their provisions into national law.

Sections 7 and 8 outline the liability of oil tanker owners for pollution damage and the circumstances under which they can be exempt from liability. In the event of damage from oil pollution, owners of laden oil tankers will have strict liability for such damage except in a few particular cases, namely when the damage results from an act of war or a grave natural disaster, or the damage is wholly caused by sabotage by a third party or the damage is wholly caused by the failure of authorities to maintain navigational aids. If the oil pollution damage is proved to have been due to the personal fault of the tanker owner, he will not be able to limit his liability. Sections 20 and 21 of the Bill cover the liability of the Fund Convention.

The Fund Convention becomes operable if claimants are unable to obtain full compensation under the Civil Liability Convention for one of the following reasons: no liability arises under the Civil Liability Convention; the owner is financially incapable of meeting his obligations under the Civil Liability Convention and his insurance is inadequate; or the damage exceeds the owner's liability under the Civil Liability Convention.

However, the fund is not liable for pollution damage if it is proved that the discharge of oil which caused the pollution resulted from an act of war or was caused by oil which has escaped or been discharged from a warship or resulted from the wilful misconduct of the owner of the ship.

In relation to those claiming compensation under this legislation, I have included a provision in section 12 whereby, after a court has decided that a shipowner is liable for oil pollution damage, the court may order the payment in court of the amount of the owner's liability. I feel that this provision will be a useful safeguard to claimants. Furthermore under section 13 where a ship has incurred a liability for oil pollution damage, any other ship in the State which has the same owner may be detained.

Section 16 outlines the provisions in relation to the insurance of Irish registered ships carrying 2,000 tonnes or more of oil in bulk as cargo and all other ships carrying these quantities of oil to or from Irish ports. All these must carry insurance certificates showing that the vessels have appropriate insurance cover.

Inspectors appointed by the Minister for the Marine, surveyors of the Department of the Marine, sea fisheries protection officers and harbourmasters may carry out inspections of ships to ensure that the required insurance certificates are carried on board. If a ship does not have the required insurance certificate, it may be detained.

I wish to stress here that the Bill covers liability and compensation for oil pollution damage from laden oil tankers, irrespective of whether the spillage is from cargo oil or bunker oil. There is no international convention covering liability and compensation for pollution from non-laden tankers or vessels other than oil tankers.

The detection of defective tankers is now carried out among participating States of Port State Control (PSC) of which Ireland is a member. Inspections are carried out at all ports of call and any vessel found to be defective is not allowed to put to sea until repairs are carried out to the satisfaction of the inspecting surveyor. Regular exchange of information on the findings is communicated between the states and this greatly reduces the risk of damaged vessels arriving in our waters without the port authority concerned having prior notification.

The fund of the Fund Convention is financed by persons in the contracting states to this convention who receive crude oil and heavy fuel in these states after sea transport. Section 19 provides for receivers of these types of oil in Ireland to make the appropriate subscriptions to the fund.

The penalties in section 38 are divided into two categories. The greater penalties of a fine up to £1 million and/or imprisonment of up to five years in the first subsection are for offences such as a ship ignoring a detention order, a ship not having the required insurance cover and an oil receiver failing to make the required payment to the fund. The lower penalties in the second subsection are for persons who impede inspectors and harbour master in the exercise of their functions under the Act.

I believe this Bill will greatly improve the position in relation to liability and compensation from oil pollution damage caused by oil tankers and I hope it will have a speedy passage through the House.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mrs. Doyle

I welcome this Bill and agree that it is long overdue. I find it is a reasonable balance between the interests of oil tanker owners and the public at large. During the passage of this Bill in the Seanad, Members underlined the importance of protecting our 2,000 miles of coastline as we are adjacent to the major sea routes and often prone to adverse weather conditions. I can only echo their sentiments having recently been present in Cork at a seminar on water pollution organised by Sherkin Island marine station, where I witnessed most vividly and graphically, from the Cork county engineer, details of the clean up operation of the Kowloon Bridge disaster. I am only too well aware of the cost and effort that has to be put in to restore coastline damaged by oil pollution.

Although I welcome the Bill for what it does, it is, in fact, very limited. It applies only to oil tankers carrying 2,000 tonnes or more of cargo oil, and the Kowloon Bridge would not have been covered as the offending oil in that case was fuel oil. I understand other legislation is in the pipeline to cover other aspects of pollution and other pollution sources.

The main objectives of the Bill are to provide compulsory insurance for all oil pollution damage from oil tankers in Irish waters, to provide extra cover where owners' liability is exceeded, and to provide the legal framework for the recovery of any costs involved in that clean up operation. The Bill allows us, most importantly, to ratify two conventions, the Civil Liability Convention of 1969 and the Fund Convention, as well as the 1976 protocols which amend the original conventions.

May I ask the Minister why we are not using this opportunity to ratify the 1984 Civil Liability Convention? We are among the last of the nations which sat down at the Brussels international legal conference on marine pollution in 1969, in the wake of the 1966Torrey Canyon disaster, and drew up the draft Civil Liabilities Convention, to ratify it. Why can we not, for once, consider early ratification of this latest protocol? I accept that while this protocol deals with many issues not dealt with in this Bill, such as paying for the clean up operations outside territorial waters or damage caused on a ballast passage, it does create other problems, such as the introduction of special drawing rights in place of the units of account as per section 10 of this Bill, and we could have difficulties with the absence of index linking, together with the provisions of the 1984 protocol, of increasing liability and the provision of breaking the limit.

However, problems or not, for us to ignore the 1984 protocol as if it did not exist, and to enact legislation, in many respects already outdated, needs an explanation from the Minister. Will it take us another 17 years to ratify the 1984 protocol? Why not consider it now in conjunction with this legislation?

In the United Kingdom they ratified the Civil Liability Convention in 1971 and in doing so used the precise language of the draft conventions. The same applies to other countries which have ratified the conventions we are discussing this evening. Concern has been expressed in many maritime legal circles about this Bill departing from the precise wording of the conventions in question. I ask the Minister for an assurance that he is satisfied beyond doubt that the drafting of this Bill will, in fact, allow us to ratify the conventions in question. If there is any likelihood of our legislation being challenged on these grounds, we need to amend the wording while we have the opportunity rather than run foul of the International Maritime Organisation.

These two conventions were intended to bring about a degree of unification in international maritime law so that the courts may reach the same decisions on the same facts in different jurisdictions. If, in this Bill giving effect to these two conventions, we depart from the text of the conventions, it may not be possible for us to ratify them without being in breach of our obligations to other contracting states. I await the Minister's assurances on this most important matter. I do not express just my own concern, but that of many eminent people in maritime legal circles. They are far from satisfied in relation to the wording in some of the texts in the Bill.

While awaiting ratification of the two conventions, this country has been covered by two voluntary international schemes for compensation in the event of oil pollution damage from ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo. These are the Tanker Owners' Voluntary Agreement on Liability for Oil Pollution known as TOVALOP and the contract regarding a supplement to tanker liability for oil pollution, better known as CRISTAL. TOVALOP and CRISTAL were intended to be interim solutions until the civil liability and fund conventions had worldwide application. I am advised, however, that even when this legislation is enacted the option to claim a gratuitous settlement from TOVALOP will still remain, if an action under the new Act has not already been instigated. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that this is so. The explanatory memorandum with the Bill indicates that this would not be the position but I am reliably advised that the option will still remain to claim from TOVALOP rather than to proceed under this Bill if and when it is enacted.

I will look briefly at the different sections of the Bill and, if the Chair will bear with me, I should like to indicate as I go through the Bill some of the areas about which I have particular concern and about which I hope to table amendments. If I do that we might reach agreement in advance of Committee or Report Stages in relation to some of the areas about which I have misgivings and thereby help to speed the passage of the Bill through the House rather than producing amendments "cold" before Committee Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy appreciates that unless she goes into great detail I will allow her to proceed. I assume it is not her intention to do so.

Mrs. Doyle

I will not go into great detail. However, it would expedite the passage of the Bill particularly as we have a little time in hand——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of time does not alter Standing Orders, they are as constant as the Northern Star.

Mrs. Doyle

I fully understand that. On page 6 of the Bill there is a definition in relation to "owner". It is most important that it is beyond any doubt in the context of the Bill as to what the State means by the owner of a tanker. I should like the Minister to recall the Amoco Cadiz disaster. In that case, when the matter of damages, etc., was being considered it was discovered that there was a parent company to which the owning company belonged. There was also an operating company and finally the ship had been chartered out to a different company. In terms of the operators of the ship or those responsible for any disaster, you could have had the pick of four companies. I am not quite sure that our definition of owner would cover all four possibilities, for instance, in an Amoco Cadiz type disaster. Could the Minister please assure me — and the House — that he is satisfied that the definition of owner is sufficiently comprehensive to ensure that nobody would slide out from under their responsibilities because of the wording in the Bill?

I propose an amendment to the second line of section 8 that before the word "damage" the word "such" should be inserted. I do this quite deliberately because the section deals with the exemption from liability for pollution damage and there may have been no intention to do this particular type of damage by the operator of a ship, they may intend to do a different type of damage and so slide out from the responsibility we are trying to nail them with. The "such" damage referred to oil pollution damage specifically and perhaps the Minister will consider accepting that amendment. It is rather simple and of a technical nature but it is very important.

Section 10 concerns the limitation on liability for pollution damage. As the Minister is aware, the right to limit liability is given to ship-owners because of the enormous risks to which a ship-owner is exposed in the modern world. The ship-owners insure their liability in mutual protection and indemnity associations known to us as the P & I Clubs. The London P & I Clubs who, between them, insure more than 90 per cent of the world's tonnage each bear the first $750,000 of any claim against any of their members. Claims are then pooled between the clubs, up to $12 million, after which the excess of any one claim falls on reinsurance underwriters with whom the London group of P & I Clubs have placed their insurance. The London group of the P & I Clubs are now insured for 1,000 million US dollars in excess of the 12 million dollars for any one claim.

So great are the risks to which ship-owners are now exposed that the professional managers of the P & I Clubs are discussing whether they can continue to offer unlimited cover which has always been a feature of P & I. P & I Club managers seriously believe there is a danger that some day they will be faced with a claim which will go through the present limits of cover which is over 1,000 million dollars. The limitation of a shipowner's liability has to be considered against this background and the right to limit liability should be virtually unbreakable to provide the element of certainty which is necessary when attempting to negotiate adequate reinsurance cover.

The test which is applied in section 10 for an entitlement to limit liability is the absence of actual fault or privity. As the legal profession will confirm to the Minister, these words have been a fruitful cause of litigation for many years. As I said, if limitations of liability is accepted in principle — which it is — the right to limit should be more or less unbreakable to ensure that certain risks are in fact insurable. For that reason, the more modern tests applied in recent conventions is that the entitlement to limit liability should be contingent on the ship-owner, that he or she did not commit an act or omission with the intent of causing the damage which gives rise to the liability nor that he acted wrecklessly or with the knowledge that such damage probably would result. Perhaps a lot of these issues will be cleared up when the limitation convention of 1976 comes before us for ratification. I await the Minister's response to the particular difficulties in that section and the interpretation of fault or privity and its relationship to the Bill.

I also have grave misgivings about section 13 which appears to usurp the role of the Admiralty Marshal. The IMO could again find us in breach of the CLC which, to my knowledge, does not include such a detention power.

One of the main purposes of the Bill is to ensure the compulsory insurance of any oil tanker in our waters. If in such a case where the tanker is insured an oil pollution accident occurs, can the Minister say in what circumstances an inspector or harbour-master would be entitled to detain the ship? Effectively indefinitely, as the procedure for court determination of the entitlement to limit liability could last for months under this section. What if the ship owner is not entitled to limited liability as per section 13 (2)? According to this section, the ship could never be released but left to rot in port. I also question the word "and" on page 11, section 13 (2), line 30. Would it not be better to substitute the word "or" for the word "and" so that the section would read: "Where the court has determined that a person, who has incurred a liability for pollution damage under section 7, is entitled to limit his liability or such person has paid into court a sum of not less than the amount determined by the court to be the limit of his liability ...? In other words, if the polluter concerned had discharged his obligations in terms of paying for any damages done, surely he would be entitled to have the ship released even if he could not prove he was entitled to limited liability? I would rather "or" than "and" in that case; we are protected either way.

A ship, if insured, has done all required of it under the Civil Liability Convention. This detention provision could be considered penal. There is, incidentally, no provision in UK law, the 1971 Act specifically, for such detention and it shows a misunderstanding of what the Civil Liability Convention is all about. I would draw the Minister's attention to this entire section which I feel is superfluous and unnecessary. I have no difficulties at all in relation to the detention of ships under section 13 in criminal cases, I support that fully, but the detention of ships in civil cases, I do not accept as necessary and I am of the view that it is penal. I await with great interest the Minister's detailed explanation as to why this section is necessary in the Bill.

I mentioned that I felt this section usurps the role of the Admiralty Marshal. In fact, the Admiralty Marshal would need a court order for a ship's arrest in the first place. He would also need a sworn affidavit in court effectively a prima facie case, before he could detain a ship and finally a ship owner could lodge a caveat against arrest by undertaking to pay a bond in the case of the action by the Admiralty Marshal. We intend to proceed in a far more penal manner, which I do not find acceptable in a civil action.

Section 16 deals with the insurance of the ships in question. As I have said, the power of detention in section 16 is most important where there is no insurance, in other words, in a criminal case, and I support it entirely. It is only in civil cases as envisaged under section 13 that I oppose the power of detention as outlined. However, further complications arise in this area under section 34. I will deal with that section now, if I may, because it is directly related to the two sections detailing the powers of detention.

Under section 34 an inspector who detains a ship will have to go to the District Court and indicate that there is a contravention of the Act when, in fact, there will be no contravention of the Act, because the Act provides that, if the ship is in fact insured, we are dealing with a civil action and there is no contravention. Either the ships owner's liability will be limited, as per the insurance terms, or in the case where the claim goes over and above the limit of liability, the fund convention comes into action and takes the surplus claim on board. In section 34, we are asking an inspector who wants to further detain a ship to go to the District Court and prove there is a contravention of the Act when, in fact, there can be none if the ship is insured. On the other hand, the harbour-masters do not have to apply to the District Court under section 13 for the continued detention of a ship. I refer the Minister to the wording of the first three lines of section 34:

Whenever an inspector, in exercise of his powers under this Act, or a harbour-master, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 16...

The harbour-master has no powers to go to a court under section 13 by the wording in the first three lines of section 34. The drafting of section 34 leaves a great deal to be desired. Perhaps it can be explained, but I doubt it because I have checked in detail with informed sources the point I am now making.

The harbour-master does not have to go to the District Court under section 13 for continued detention of a ship. Again, in theory, the ship could be left in the port to rot if it had been detained by a harbour-master under section 13. To my knowledge, there is no way of getting the ship out of detention as per section 34. If an inspector detains a ship under section 13, there is a way out, providing he can convince the court that it is in contravention of the Act which cannot be so under section 13 in a civil case. Providing he can do that Houdini trick, in theory the ship can be released but if a harbour-master detains a ship under section 13 he can never get the ship released through a District Court or otherwise because the provision is not there for him to do so. The whole idea of allowing power of detention when a ship is insured must be completely reviewed. Powers of penal detention in civil cases are totally against the spirit of the Civil Liability Convention which we are trying to ratify here today.

I will now deal with section 28 (1) (c). In certain political circumstances it might not be possible to gain entry to defend a case. For example, if an Israeli was trying to defend a case in a Syrian court, politically this would not be possible. This eventually should be provided for by amending section 28 (1) (c). Such an amendment, in fact, was accepted from the Israeli delegates during the drafting in 1969 in Brussels of the Civil Liability Convention. We need such a provision in our own law and I ask why it is not there. I ask the Minister to take this point on board and amend section 28 (1) (c) to allow for any political difficulties that may arise for the claimant or defendant in putting their case before the courts under this Act.

I would like, if I may, under section 32 (2) (i) to give the Minister notice that I will be proposing an amendment which I feel is essential in view of the fact that as yet we have no civil evidence Act here. For the sake of clarity I shall read the paragraph into the record:

copy an entry in any document required by this Act or by the Oil Pollution of the Sea Acts, 1956 to 1977, to be kept and require the person by whom the document is kept to certify the copy as a true copy of the entry;

It concerns evidential requirements when eventually we get to court under this Bill. As I have said, we do not have any civil evidence Act. We rely on common law for what may or may not be admitted as evidence in court. This, as we know, will lead to obvious difficulties and in cases likely to be brought under this Bill, they will be particularly acute. Technical reports and what may be considered as classified documents would not have evidential value in court. Our legal system has survived to date, notwithstanding these difficulties, as virtually all maritime claims of this nature have been settled out of court.

The Kowloon Bridge case illustrates the difficulties that may arise under this type of provision in the section. In the Kowloon Bridge case the receiver of wrecks drew up a report for the Department, having interviewed the captain and all the crew. This report by the receiver of wrecks was not for public dissemination and, therefore, will not be available as evidence in court for the fishermen who are pursuing a claim against the owners of the Kowloon Bridge. Likewise in the Betelgeuse inquiry, if this had proceeded here, Justice Costello's report would not have had evidential value in court.

I wish to indicate the content of the amendment I will be circulating on Committee Stage. I feel we might possibly get agreement on it because I do not think it is contentious in any way. I would like section 32 (2) (i) to continue in this way. After the semicolon following "entry" it should read as follows "the said copy shall have same evidential value as the original and may be proved to the court by the inspector who made the copy." That is the exact wording of the amendment I should like to circulate on which I hope to have the Minister's agreement. The reason I am proposing this amendment is quite clear. A ship which accidentally causes oil pollution damage and which is covered by insurance might have long since left our territorial waters by the time the case gets to court. If we do not accept copies of the original evidence, such as the logbook, which displays the discharging and the offloading of the oil at different ports it may be nigh impossible to get the captain, the crew or whoever the relevant member is back into our Irish courts to give first-hand evidence or to produce the original logbook as the original evidence. My amendment seeks to make provision for the fact, as we do not have evidential law in this country, that certified copies of the evidence may be produced in court by the original copier of that evidence and that that would be accepted as evidence in the particular case.

In relation to section 33 (1) (c) I will also be circulating the same amendment, substituting "harbour-master" for `inspector". One deals with the inspector's role and the next one deals with the harbour-master's role. Effectively section 33 (1) (c) would continue to read as printed in the Bill. There is a colon at the end of paragraph (c), not a semicolon for some interesting reason; there were semicolons in the previous section but after the colon which would have to become a semicolon we would insert the same amendment except giving the same powers to a harbour-master who may have made a copy of the original document. In view of what I have outlined I feel this amendment is essential. The original logbooks kept by captains in relation to the loading and discharge of oil could long since be gone out of our jurisdiction and it may not be possible to get them back in court.

Finally, I would like the Minister to consider the wording of section 34 (b) extremely carefully. I would like him to tell me what it is envisaged the harbour-master shall in fact do. We cannot leave this section without reading it. I do not know whether it was ten, a dozen or two dozen times I read this most convoluted sentence and, without any shadow of a doubt I have come to the conclusion that words are missing from it. It is sufficiently long — 12 lines — so I must be forgiven for being confused by it. I think I have studied it long enough and hard enough to say with some conviction that it is not just confusion but that in the drafting of paragraph (b), words have been left out. As I said earlier I have grave misgivings about the drafting of this section. This is my second point in relation to section 34. I might, for the benefit of the Minister, read the section and perhaps he will be able to agree with me. Section 34 specifies the provisions which shall have effect and paragraph (b) reads:

where an inspector or harbour-master has, in the exercise of the powers conferred on him under this Act, detained a ship, he shall, as soon as may be, if proceedings for an offence under this Act have been, or are about to be, instituted before a District Justice and thereupon the District Justice shall,...

At that point we depart from what the inspector or harbour-master shall do because the rest of that paragraph refers to what the district justice shall do. We are told what the district justice shall do but at no point do we find out what the inspector or harbour-master shall do. I would draw the Minister's attention to that. Perhaps he will be able to solve the riddle on Committee Stage, put in the missing words and make sense of the provision, not only for me but for those who will be trying to operate it. Unless we clarify it it will be a fruitful source of litigation and escape from the whole point of this Bill.

In conclusion, the deficiencies which will remain after the passage of this Bill are comparable to those which exist generally in maritime law. This Bill will be complemented by the other pieces of pollution legislation and by the limitation convention which I hope will be before the House fairly soon. The Minister has my support for the Bill.

Mr. P. O'Malley

It is not my intention to make a detailed section by section analysis of the Bill at this stage. That is much more appropriate on Committee Stage. I just want to deal with the general principle of the Bill and to say that I welcome it. I am sure that all parties in the House will welcome the introduction of this measure which should go a long way to ensuring that the consequences of oil pollution at sea can be more effectively dealt with. There is now a much greater public awareness of the necessity for keeping our environment free of pollution, from all sources, and this awareness certainly extends to the sea and the horrendous consequences that can arise as a result of oil pollution.

The Bill will fill a major gap in our legislation when it comes into operation. There will be legally binding requirements covering liability and compensation for oil pollution damage from oil tankers. The Minister in his opening remarks, quite rightly, said that we are vulnerable to this kind of damage as we are located adjacent to major sea routes and we are subjected to very adverse weather conditions which greatly affect the seas around our coast and, consequently, increase the risks of accidents at sea. We have had a reputation for being a pollution free country but unfortunately we have had bad experiences with land, sea and air pollution in recent years. We must take whatever steps are necessary — particularly measures that are within our own control — to ensure that we minimise the risk of pollution in all these areas so that the consequences of pollution can be dealt with effectively and speedily and indeed prevented from happening in the first instance.

As a result of the Kowloon Bridge episode we are only too familiar with the damage that oil pollution can cause to our beaches and bird life. Fisheries and tourism are two very important industries in this country but their potential can be greatly affected by oil pollution and environmental damage generally. It is unfortunate that the damage caused by oil leaks from a ship cannot always be compensated for purely in terms of money because it can give rise to environmental problems that would have long ongoing consequences and indeed might never be resolved so it is not just the money issue that is at stake — the compensation for clean up and so on — it is also the continuing difficulties that would remain and which might never be resolved.

Apart from the compensation aspects of the Bill I am glad to note that Part V provides for wide powers of inspection of tankers. This is very welcome. A high standard of inspection of ships is most important to ensure that they comply with all necessary maintenance requirements and particularly at present when the oil industry is not as prosperous as it was and when the oil transportation business has not been as profitable either in recent years. I have no doubt that there are unscrupulous operators operating tankers which are defective and that they are not spending adequate amounts of money in maintaining those ships. I hope that the inspection powers provided for in this Bill will be fully utilised and that the Minister will make sufficient personnel available to ensure that full and adequate inspections are carried out.

This raises another point because I understand that the coming into operation of this measure will not necessarily result in any additional costs to the Exchequer. If that is the case, is the Minister satisfied that the personnel he has already available to him are adequate both in terms of numbers, ability and competence to carry out the necessary inspections and other monitoring functions? Does the Minister think he will require additional staff for this purpose and, if so, can he redeploy them from other Departments if they are not available within his own Department? This is an important matter and I would like the Minister to address it because proper inspection of these tankers is the only real safeguard we have against spillages occurring at sea. I am sure the Minister will agree that in this case prevention is much better than cure particularly when dealing with the aftermath of an oil spillage.

At present Ireland is reliant on voluntary international schemes for compensation in the event of oil pollution damage from ships carrying oil as cargo and this is not satisfactory. The main purpose of this Bill is for Ireland to give effect to two international conventions, the Civil Liability Convention, 1969, and the Fund Convention, 1971. As the Minister has stated, the Civil Liability Convention obliges the owners of ships to have appropriate insurance cover up to a specified limit for oil pollution damage and, in addition, the Fund Convention provides for the establishment of a fund which is financed by the oil companies and this is to provide cover where ship-owners' liability under the Civil Liability Convention is exceeded. These are two comprehensive measures and we should ratify these conventions as speedily as possible. Like Deputy Doyle, I feel it is regrettable that we have not done so before now as we might have been in a much better position to cope with and indeed to prevent some of the problems we have experienced in this area in the past. As I have said, I do not understand why we have not given effect to these conventions before now. At least it is to be welcomed that we are about to do so now.

It is a comfort to know that with the passing of this Bill oil tankers which enter our territorial waters will have to have adequate insurance to cover their liability for oil pollution damage. I am also pleased to note that the Bill provides a legal framework for the recovery of costs in connection with oil pollution incidents. In the past the hard pressed local authorities had to find resources to cope with the aftermath of an oil spillage and they may or may not be able to bring a claim successfully to recover the costs of a clean-up operation against the owners of these vessels. It is also very useful to have a measure in the Bill where, if a ship has incurred a liability for oil pollution damage and has left the jurisdiction, the State has the power to detain any other ship which is owned by the same company if it comes into Irish territorial waters.

Mrs. Doyle

If it is not insured.

Mr. P. O'Malley

That is right. There are weaknesses in this Bill as is to be expected. One of them is that the measures in the Bill will not apply to ships which are not registered in countries that have ratified the conventions. I think I am right in putting that interpretation on the Bill and I ask the Minister to confirm it in his reply. If that is the case we do not have total control over the situation. I would like the Minister to tell us how many countries which are involved in the transport of oil have signed these international conventions and whether there are any countries whose ships will be continuously using sea routes near the Irish coast that have not yet ratified these conventions. I fully accept that we cannot compel such countries to join the convention because that is outside our control but does the Minister have any plans, either at EC level or at international level, to encourage countries that have not yet ratified these conventions to do so?

I am glad to note that in the case of oil rigs which are operating in Irish waters a condition of their exploration and production licences is that they are required to have substantial insurance cover to meet any liabilities that arise as a result of oil spillage at sea. In that case we have direct control over the matter. In relation to the last point, I presume that if a ship spills oil in international waters and ultimately that oil pollutes the Irish coastline, if we can prove that the oil spillage came from a particular ship the provisions of this Bill would apply to that ship if it was registered in a country that had ratified the conventions. I would like the Minister to clarify that point.

I would also like the Minister to clarify the position in relation to exemptions for liability that are given in particular cases, namely, when the damage to a ship results from an act of war or from a grave natural disaster. I would like to know what constitutes a grave natural disaster. Is a violent storm at sea which results in the loss of a vessel and the consequent pollution of the sea be exempted? Do we have to define the severity of storms to determine liability or who decides this? Does the court make the decision in that case and, if so, are there any precedents the Minister could cite that would enlighten us further in this area?

I wish to raise the position regarding the Kowloon Bridge disaster. I understand the insurance provisions laid down in the conventions apply only to ships that are actually laden with oil. The Minister has stressed this point in his speech. I understand the situation regarding the pollution from a ship such as the Kowloon Bridge which was caused by the vessel's engine oil leaking into the sea after the vessel had gone down is not covered under these conventions. I further understand that new legislation is at present being prepared to deal with that type of problem. When does the Minister expect to bring that legislation before the House because obviously it is very badly needed?

In conclusion, I would like to confirm my party's support for the principle of the Bill. We will certainly be voting for it at the end of Second Stage. We will of course be giving detailed consideration to the various sections on Committee Stage and we will be addressing many of the technical points raised by Deputy Doyle in her contribution.

Mr. Stafford

I fully support this Bill. Anybody who has an interest in the environment of his country could not possibly see anything wrong with a Bill which attempts to protect the environment and to punish those who do not so wish. Like Deputy O'Malley, one matter that concerns me is the fact that bunker fuel is not directly covered in this Bill but it will be covered in subsequent Bills. There are two matters concerning this, firstly, the fuel of the ship and, secondly, the cargo. A certain problem has arisen in relation to that matter. For many years many of the eastern European countries insisted that in each port they had a facility to ensure that when ships were carrying oil and they took on board water for balance they had a facility to filter the water before putting it back into the sea. Many of the western European and eastern countries did not have that facility and this ballast fuel was pumped into the sea and this created untold pollution. Oil pollutes the beaches and the shores where it affects fish. It is essential that we bring in legislation to deal with this matter and this legislation seems to cover it in many ways.

I have a great interest in the environment of our country. As an island State it is absolutely essential that we bring in this type of legislation and the more severe and critical it is the better. The ownership of many of the ships of today is rather dubious. It is extremely difficult even to check the ownership of these ships. Any powers we can give the harbour-master in the major harbours are agreeable to me.

Minister of State for the Marine (Mr. P. Gallagher)

I thank Deputy Doyle, Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Stafford for their contributions. All of those contributions will be most helpful on Committee Stage. I will look at the various amendments which no doubt will be circulated and if they improve the Bill we will accept them.

This Bill ratifies two conventions. Deputy Doyle referred to the fact that it took 17 years to ratify this convention. I agree that this is much too long. When the Department of the Marine was set up we became acutely aware of the necessity to ratify these conventions. Since the conventions of 1969 and 1971 the Government have accepted in principle the duties and liabilities of both conventions subject to the legislation being introduced. It has taken a long time but it is now being dealt with. This Bill could well pass through this House this evening depending on the amendments which we may receive on Committee Stage. It is vitally important to enact this legislation because our coasts, particularly the west coast is extremely vulnerable. There was no cover for the many vessels carrying cargoes of oil. The only cover was from the voluntary contributions from the fund. We were very fortunate that at least that type of insurance was there and that many interested parties, in their own best interest, contributed towards that fund. However, it is important to have this Bill enacted so that there is complete cover.

The Members present in the House are fully au fait with the situation in relation to the Kowloon Bridge. While this does not cover a Kowloon Bridge-type disaster it is very important. The Kowloon Bridge disaster is covered under the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Bill 1977. We are pursuing the insurers in this case for £1.75 million approximately and we are confident of success in this claim. I take this opportunity to thank the many people who were involved in the Kowloon Bridge mop up, the officials in my Department, in the Department of the Environment and Cork County Council who did an excellent job. That disaster impressed upon me the necessity to have this legislation enacted as quickly as possible. In the Kowloon Bridge disaster we were only talking about bunker oil or fuel oil, whereas this refers specifically to cargo. It also includes fuel oil. A spillage from a cargo vessel carrying crude oil is also covered.

I hope to be able to bring in a further Bill shortly to tie up all the loose ends and further strengthen the legislation. The 1984 Convention protocol includes some worthwhile provisions, which are not as high a priority as the provisions proposed here. When this Bill is implemented we hope to return to that and include the 1984 protocol. We did not wish to delay this Bill any further by including the 1984 protocol at this time. We had waited 17 years and did not consider it wise to delay this Bill further. We will not have to wait 17 years to deal with the 1984 protocol. We will deal with it as quickly as possible.

I fully agree that the wording of the Bill is not the same as the wording of the Convention. Here I am entirely in the hands of the Parliamentary Draftsman who advises me that a simple translation of the text of the Convention into legislation would not be sufficient but that in this Bill the exact same effect is achieved. I can confirm that it will not be open to affected interests to apply to TOVALOP as well as to seek compensation under the Bill.

The definition of "owner" is as comprehensive as the draftsman could make it. Between now and Committee Stage I will certainly have a further look at it.

Mrs. Doyle

With reference to the Amoco Cadiz?

Mr. P. Gallagher

Certainly. Deputy O'Malley questioned the inspectorate. I have no doubt that there are an adequate number of inspectors at the moment. The inspectors and harbour-masters have adequate experience to deal with this. If pollution is caused some distance from our coasts but it affects our coasts, we will be in a position to pursue the owners of the vessels responsible.

Deputy Doyle referred to section 13 and her comments will be taken into account on Committee Stage. I will be happy to consider the Deputy's points and include them as necessary. We have waited 17 years for this and we might be wise to wait a further seven days, and possibly take this next week, when we have further legal advice in relation to the inspectorate and any other inspector who may be appointed by the Minister for the Marine to take a case to the District Justice for decision. There appears to be some ambiguity certainly in relation to section 34 in relation to the powers of detention, and it will be cleared up. We have no intention of detaining any vessel for a very long period. Indeed there are difficulties in all of our ports due to insufficient berths. We certainly would not be over-enthusiastic about some of these ships using berths needed for our boats.

In relation to the question whether the original as against the copies would be accepted these are all matters which we will tease out next week on Committee Stage if it is being taken then. I assure Deputy Stafford that the Kowloon Bridge situation will be tightened up with further legislation that will be brought before the House in the near future. At the moment legislation is being drafted in relation to the pumping of waste oil or sewage from boats. All that comes under another Bill which we hope to bring before the House in the next session.

Deputy O'Malley asked about the number of countries which have ratified the Convention. As of early October 1987, 36 countries had signed the Convention and I hope that next week we will be added to that list. A list of countries involved will be available to Deputies. All those in the business of carrying oil will be included. When a claim exceeds the limit we can fall back on the Convention fund.

Deputy O'Malley also referred to the question of exemptions. That will be a matter entirely for the courts. An example would be a severe hurricane occurring without warning, such as the one which struck southern England a few weeks ago.

I appreciate that Opposition Deputies would be prepared to continue and take Committee Stage but I would have grave reservations in so far as there are references to international law. We have waited 17 years and I believe we should wait a further seven days. We will have a look at the amendments which may be circulated and give them every consideration.

Mar fhocal scoir, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Teachtaí a bhí anseo chun an Bille seo a phlé. Tá súil agam go mbeimíd ábalta Céim an Choiste a thógáil an tseachtain seo chugainn.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. P. Gallagher

Next Tuesday, subject to the agreement of the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 15 December 1987, subject to the agreement of the Whips.