I apologise, Sir, for keeping you waiting. I was expecting the Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection) Bill next as per our Whip.
Oil Pollution of the Sea (Civil Liability and Compensation) Bill, 1987: Report and Final Stages.
If the Deputy and the Whip looked at the Order for today they would see it was proposed on the termination of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill to resume the Order. The Order would have required us then to move to item No. 18, given the satisfaction of an earlier presence of Deputy Avril Doyle as one would have expected. We now proceed with Report Stage and amendments in the name of Deputy Doyle.
First, let me fulfil a commitment I gave on Committee Stage to Deputy Doyle. It was mentioned specifically that I would refer to this at the commencement of Report Stage, and it is very short.
If that reference was made and that agreement was reached I take it that the Minister of State will be in order now.
It was in relation to prescriptions before the commencement of the Bill. I indicated that the regulations which may be made under certain sections of the Bill would be available before the commencement and I agreed that I would refer to it at this stage. As soon as is practicable, following the enactment of the Bill the Minister will make orders and regulations pursuant to his powers to do so under certain sections of the Bill, which I believe is the normal practice. It is the one commitment I can give.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are cognate and amendment No. 1 is consequential on this group. It is proposed, therefore, with the agreement of the House, to take amendments Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 together for discussion. Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, to delete lines 34 to 36, and substitute the following:
"`harbour-master' includes a person appointed by a harbour authority to enforce the provisions of section 33 of this Act;".
I refer to the considerable contribution I made on Second Stage on the involvement of harbour masters. On Committee Stage I withdrew very similar amendments pending consideration on Report Stage. I do not propose to go over all the arguments again but I draw the Minister's attention to the points I have already made and I hope he will take them into account when responding.
I am not satisfied with the role being given to a harbour master within the Bill generally. Harbour masters are not State employees and we should be very reluctant to extend their role without deep and considered investigation. They should have very wide powers in relation to operational matters concerning their own harbours. New legislation is urgently required to achieve this but amending this legislation will not achieve what we need.
I have proposed a further amendment to section 13 which would mean that the detention of a ship for purposes of civil liability would be initiated by the plaintiff's solicitor and the harbour master's role would be merely functional in that case. The dangers of making the harbour master a prime mover in a civil process would thereby be obviated and the major objection to his involvement could be withdrawn.
Some of the amendments we are taking together come before my amendment to section 13 and others come after it. This makes it a little difficult to know what line to take pending the outcome of my amendment to section 13. Regardless of that, we would still be left with the general question of the harbour master's role in relation to inspection of certificates of insurance. Undoubtedly as many officials as possible, including perhaps harbour masters, should have authority to inspect such certificates. However, it is far from clear in the Bill who will have had this duty if it turns out afterward not to have been done. Who will routinely inspect the insurance certificates of ships carrying a bulk cargo of 2,000 tonnes or more of oil when they arrive in the State? I feel this ought to be the officer of customs but the Bill does not adequately provide for all customs officers, not just those specifically appointed as fishery inspectors, to have this duty and power. I have tabled this amendment and the others which we are discussing with it because of this point and the other points which I reiterated on Second and Committee Stages.
If I accepted this amendment it would mean that the harbour master would have powers only under section 33. In effect he would have powers of inspection only. I believe it is absolutely necessary that the harbour master should have powers of inspection under sections 13 and 16. Sections 13 and 16 deal with powers to detain, while section 33 deals with powers of inspection only. Having discussed the matter with my officials and obtained the advice of the Attorney General, we are absolutely convinced that if this legislation is to be of benefit then the harbour master must have the power to stop and detain vessels in his own port. It is important that he be empowered under section 16 to demand from the master of a ship that he produce a certificate in relation to the existence of a contract of insurance and that if a ship attempts to leave a harbour in contravention of section 16 it may be stopped and detained by the harbour master and by many other officials who are named in the Bill.
These powers of detention are not new for harbour masters. They are given to them under section 6 (1) of the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Act, 1977 and under section 4 (5) of the Dumping at Sea Act, 1981. Section 6 (1) of the Oil Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Act, 1977 states:
Whenever the Minister or a harbour master has reasonable cause to believe that a vessel is in breach of the Act of 1956, the Act of 1965, or of this Act, and the vessel is within the territorial seas of the State, the Minister, or the harbour master concerned, may halt and detain the vessel.
Thus it will be seen that the power to detain is not something new.
Having given the matter very serious consideration since Committee Stage on 2 March, I regret we are unable to accept this amendment and the other amendments grouped with it. It is vitally important that the harbour master should have power in his own port. There is one difference between the harbour masters and other officers in so far as any of the other officers appointed by the Minister has this power in any part of the State but the harbour masters have it only within their own harbours. I am referring to a harbour master as someone appointed by the harbour authority or by the Minister for the Marine as a harbour master for the purpose of this legislation.
We went through these points in very great detail on Committee Stage and Deputy Doyle agreed to withdraw her amendments, subject to putting them forward again on Report Stage. Following full consideration and the seeking of advice, I regret I cannot accept amendment No. 1. That has a knock-on effect in amendments Nos. 6 to 10, inclusive, and 12 to 20, inclusive, and I regret I am unable to accept this change.
I do not intend to protract the debate any further on this because we have spent a lot of time on this point at the different Stages of this Bill. The reasons for my proposals have already been quite clearly put on the record of the Dáil over the time we have been discussing this. The Minister's concern to give harbour masters the powers he underlines is understandable, especially in fishery harbours. However, I would ask him to recognise that the role is anomalous. Why should we allow only this certificate to be inspected by harbour masters? Why not all other important certificates carried by merchant ships? We are opening up an area here without going into it fully. It is an ad hoc extension of the powers of harbour masters to suit whatever Bill is before the House instead of looking at the whole role of harbour masters and extending their role comprehensively if that is what the House feels we should do.
My concern will still remain that the official who will routinely inspect the documents of ships arriving in the State is the officer of customs. In principle, I think he or she should be mentioned expressly and in practice I do not think it is correct to say that all officers of customs are sea fishery protection officers by virtue of section 220 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959 because the sea fishery protection officers have to be authorised in that behalf by the Revenue Commissioners. I will leave my point, having made it. I regret very much that the Minister does not feel able to take it on board and I will withdraw the amendment we have been talking about.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, to delete lines 33 and 34, and substitute the following:
"(c) an owner of a ship which is liable under this section shall not incur any liability for pollution damage otherwise than under this section;".
Perhaps this was submitted inadvertently. I would draw the Deputy's attention to the debate on amendment No. 3 on Committee Stage which was withdrawn. The wording in this is somewhat similar.
Provided the Bills Office correctly read my longhand it was not inadvertently submitted. The amendment is as I submitted it and I would just like to make a few points in relation to this section. Section 7 (1) (c) states:
An owner of a ship shall not incur any liability for pollution damage otherwise than under this section.
The exemption comes into play when pollution damage is caused by a ship carrying oil in bulk as cargo. It is important to note that the word "caused" means simply "done" and is not used in its legal sense relating to causation. Also the word "ship" in the Bill has a wider meaning than in the convention. Consider a collision between a passing supertanker and, say, a passenger ship in the Irish Sea due to the fault of the passenger ship. The tanker sinks and there is no trace of any insurance; the passenger ship makes it into Dublin port; there is widespread pollution. In these circumstances section 7 (1) (c) would seem to prevent a person suffering pollution damage from proceeding directly against the passenger ship. I wonder does the Minister understand exactly what I mean in that example? To ensure that the right of direct action is not lost in such a case I wish to press my amendment again as it now reads in the list circulated on Fourth Stage that an owner of a ship that is liable under this section shall not incur any liability for pollution damage otherwise than under this section. I would ask the Minister to take that on board as it clarifies what his intentions are and protects in the situation I have just mentioned.
I do not fully appreciate the example which the Deputy has given in relation to a passenger ship. This legislation refers to ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo.
I have pointed to the example of a passenger ship and an oil cargo ship colliding, the fault being with the passenger ship. What is the position in relation to liability then?
In this case the cargo ship would have the right to pursue a third party in the event of a collision.
If the oil tanker had sunk without trace and there was no insurance there is no comeback for those who have suffered pollution damage as a result of such a collision.
That is a very extreme example.
Hopefully we will never have to decide on such an issue but, in our multi-usage ports it is a logical example.
I understand that in that unlikely event sufficient evidence would be available to obtain details of the vessel which had sunk. The necessary details in relation to ships coming into or leaving our harbours are available to the authorities and we have shipping lanes. I will look at this and if we feel it is absolutely necessary I would be prepared to amend this in the Seanad.
My example is hypothetical but it highlights a gap in the section we are discussing now. If the tanker sinks after a collision with a passenger ship, insurance certificates and all have gone down and there is widespread pollution damage, how do those who suffer pollution damage get redress according to the strict terms of the section here? As it is here, section 7 (1) (c) says that an owner of a ship shall not incur any liability for pollution damage otherwise than under this section. It defines quite specifically under what circumstances liability can arise. My amendment extends that and ensures that in no circumstances that we have envisaged at this point anyway could the situation arise. I accept that the Minister is prepared to look at it in detail and come back to the Seanad if necessary on it and perhaps we could leave the debate on this amendment for the moment. I call his attention to it because while the example I gave may be hypothetical it is not beyond the bounds of possibility, given the type of trade we have on our seas at the moment.
In the situation——
I would like to explain to the Minister and to Deputy Doyle that this nautical tete à tete while interesting is somewhat inappropriate to Report Stage where Standing Orders require that the person in whose name the amendment appears moves it. Contributions may be made by other people and only the mover of the amendment can make a second contribution. This is somewhat different from Committee Stage in so far as the Minister and Deputy Doyle are pursuing a matter of vital importance where we have not reminded them before now of the requirements of Standing Orders. Because they have been reminded I know they will abide by it.
Deputy Doyle referred to a boat which may have caused the damage to the boat carrying oil as cargo. We would be pursuing the insurers or the owners of the vessel which caused the pollution.
But not under this legislation.
We would be pursuing them and they in turn could pursue the third party's insurers. Our responsibility would be to pursue the vessel which caused the pollution and not the one which actually sank. It would be a matter for the vessel which caused the pollution to pursue the vessel which damaged the vessel which caused the pollution. The Deputy is making a case for the boat which caused the damage to the boat which in turn damaged the environment.
Yes.
We would not be pursuing the third party. We would be pursuing the second party and they in turn could pursue the third party if they so wished.
Oil pollution damage caused to our coastline in such circumstances could not be pursued under the legislation we have before us today. This Bill deals only with pollution damage caused by the 2,000 tonne plus oil tanker cargo.
That is correct.
The Minister is saying that there will be other legislation, which we have been promised for some time and should be seeing shortly, which will nail responsibility for such an incident.
As it is so important——
I would ask the Minister of State not to go out of order again.
The fact is that this matter is of vital importance. There are three different pieces of legislation involved in this. The Oil Pollution of the Sea Act, 1977, covered the Kowloon Bridge which was carrying other materials rather than oil as cargo. This legislation covers bulk oil and we will be introducing to the House, at the earliest possible date, the Sea Pollution Bill which by and large will refer to discharges of waste oil from vessels at sea. I believe that the other legislation which the Deputy has referred to would cover a situation——
The Minister has assured me that he will re-enter the amendment in the Seanad if he thinks it is necessary to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, to delete lines 35 and 36, and substitute the following:
"(d) the servant or agent of the owner of a ship which is liable under this section and is registered in a Convention Country shall not be liable for pollution damage caused by that ship.".
This amendment to section 7 (1) (d) also arises out of the wording of the Convention. We discussed on Second Stage and on Committee Stage the necessity to strictly adhere to the wording of the Convention particularly when the rights or obligations of ships registered in Convention countries is concerned. However, this is not true when the ships of non-Convention or flag of convenience countries are concerned. Accordingly the privilege of exemption from liability conferred by the Convention on the servant or agents of the owner need not be extended to non-Convention countries. We must remember too that the word "owner" has a very restricted definition under this Bill and the Convention also and it may be necessary in certain circumstances to go after the agent of the registered owner such as an operating company or a chartering company. During the earlier discussions we referred to complications in relation to the ownership of boats such as the Amoca Cadiz and how difficult it would be to define “owner” in relation to the legislation we are talking about today. That is why I would like the Minister to accept my amendment 7 (1) (d) to read that the servant or agent of the owner of a ship which is liable under this section and is registered under a Convention country should not be liable for pollution damage caused by the ship.
Deputy Doyle is asking us to accept the insertion of the words "which is liable under this section and is registered in a Convention Country". The converse of that is that a vessel registered in a non-Convention country shall not be liable. In relation to who should be responsible — the servant or agent or owner of a ship — we are extremely anxious to ensure that we can pin the responsibility on the owner instead of possibly exempting him and making the servant or agent responsible. One of the objects of the Bill is to enable us to become a party to a Civil Liability Convention and a Fund Convention. The intention behind these funds is to bring about a measure of unification in international maritime law. It is a fundamental part of our Constitution that we have an Act in accordance with international law. We referred to this many times during the course of Committee Stage. I want to reiterate that this section, more than all the others, mirrors the appropriate part of the Civil Liability Convention of 1969, and it would not be acceptable to amend this section as we could exempt the owner from non-Convention countries and hold the servant or agent responsible. If one looks at the converse — as I said at the outset — it would leave us in a very difficult position and that vessels in non-Convention countries shall not be liable.
While I have only the one opportunity to refer to this amendment it is important to say that we cannot, even by legislation, make it compulsory. We have the voluntary arrangements which will cover cases where it is not compulsory to have it covered by legislation. I appreciate that there are many countries not covered by the Convention but the voluntary arrangement should cover countries that are not party to the Convention. I said that at the time, and Deputy Doyle could not accept it. She did reluctantly at the end and withdrew the amendment but got leave to submit it on this Stage. As this is vitally important legislation, and bearing in mind the long coastline which we have and the number of ships using the west coast in particular, we want to make absolutely certain that there are no flaws in it. It would take some time to come back before the House, perhaps when it is too late, to close any loopholes which may be there. We had an opportunity to study this at length over the last number of weeks. I am convinced, having discussed it with my officials and with the Attorney General's Office, that while amendment No. 3 on Report Stage, which is by and large the same as amendment No. 5 on Committee Stage, may be well meaning, it does not in any way improve the legislation.
The intent of my amendment I thought was abundantly clear. The immunity from suit given to the servants or agents of the ship under the COC Convention, need not be extended to ships registered in non-Convention countries. This amendment keeps that benefit from them. It is a point of principle. I do not intend to press it further, but regret that the Minister considered himself unable to take it on board.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
We come to amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 21 is related. I suggest that they be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 11, to delete lines 21 to 27, and substitute the following:
"13.—(1) Without prejudice to any power to detain a ship contained in any enactment, an inspector may stop or detain a ship in any harbour in the State or wherever such ship may be in the State, or a harbour master may detain a ship in his harbour, on the application of any solicitor practising in the State who has been instructed to institute proceedings in rem to arrest the ship in respect of a liability incurred under section 7 for pollution damage caused by that ship or any ship in the same ownership.
(2) A solicitor having made such an application shall, at the first opportunity thereafter, file notice of the detention in the Central Office of the Court in the form of a caveat against the release of property and thereupon a caveat against the release of the ship shall be entered in the "Caveat Release Book" maintained pursuant to the rules of the Superior Courts for the time being in force.
(3) A ship detained under this section shall be dealt with in like manner to a ship arrested in an admiralty action by a third party who has withdrawn the warrant.".
It is in order to discuss amendment No. 21 with this amendment. As section 13 goes forward to Report Stage, a ship may be detained under section 13 (1) in respect of a civil liability and under sections 13 (3) and 16 in respect of a criminal liability. I have made the point many times during the debates on Second Stage and Committee Stage that we are confusing criminal and civil law and criminal and civil law procedures right through this Bill. I find that to be one of the major criticisms of the Bill generally. The Minister has bravely tried to defend and justify his reasons for doing this. Generally the Bill, and particularly section 13, adds a further layer of confusion to the already very confused arena of maritime law. This Bill will do nothing to streamline or clarify maritime law at all, but will add another layer of confusion to this most vexed arena. Due to the Minister's amendment on Committee Stage, the District Court procedure on sections 35 and following sections is rightly restricted to detention under sections 13 (3) and 16. However, it is not clear how a speedy release is to be obtained from detention under section 13 (1) in respect of civil liability. I should like the Minister to address that point particularly. Bearing in mind the Minister's argument in favour of detention during the Stages of this Bill and my own previous arguments in favour of admiralty arrest — we have been through this at length, so I need hardly go over it again — it may be that everybody will be satisfied with the amendment I have now proposed. I would ask the Minister seriously to consider it. There is no need to go down through the different aspects. It stands as read.
The proposal contained in the amendment generally allows an intending plaintiff to short circuit the admiralty procedure to arrest. The plaintiff would only have to contact the appropriate inspector, or harbour master, as the Minister has won the day on that argument, and file a simple notice in the Central Office. The full admiralty procedure would then come into play to protect all parties. The dispute remains firmly in the civil domain of the courts and State officials are kept clear of involvement. Again, I remind the Minister of my contribution on that point during Second Stage debate. Furthermore, there will be no breach of the liability convention or the convention relating to the arrest of sea-going ships or of property rights enshrined in Bunreacht na hÉireann and international law. This is an area where we must tread very carefully. I know that I do not have to remind the Minister about that.
Amendment 21 I have proposed as a new section, that is, section 47. The Minister will recall that on Committee Stage I made the point that the purpose of this section was to remove any doubt as to the right to arrest a ship in a civil action for oil pollution damage and that in most countries the right is similarly reinforced by Statute. The reason that those countries have reiterated the right in Statute is that Halsbury's Laws of England cast doubt on the right in maritime law. The better view, I am advised, expressed in Thomas's On Maritime Lien, is probably that the right to arrest in the admiralty division of the High Court for pollution damage does exist without statutory authority. It is far better to be safe than sorry and I would like this amendment, which effectively adds a new section, section 47, to be inserted in the Bill so that there is no doubt at all in relation to our intention.
We have had a long debate on the question of whether the powers of detention should be with the harbour master or officers appointed by the Minister or whether we should follow the practice which I understand pertains in the UK in relation to the admiralty division of the High Court. If a ship causes pollution, we must act as expeditiously as possible. I repeat, with the greatest respect, that to follow the road suggested by Deputy Doyle would be somewhat more cumbersome. Let us take an example, of an oil spill on a Friday afternoon when, under the legislation proposed by me, the harbour master or an officer appointed by the Minister could detain the ship immediately. That would be an example of the civil law to which the Deputy has referred. While we both differ at the outset, we meet further down the road in so far as the case would go to the High Court. We put the onus, as far as the civil liability is concerned, on the owner of the ship to go to the High Court in order to have the boat released. That can be done very speedily.
By creating these new powers I am firmly convinced that we are not usurping the existing powers of the admiralty marshal. The admiralty division of the High Court which is the successor of the Court of Admiralty will continue to have jurisdiction over any claims for damage done by the ship. When the boat is detained, the onus, in a civil case, is on the owners to go to the High Court and have the boat released. Obviously the cost of this will relate to the damage caused. If there is a question of not having a certificate of insurance it is dealt with at a different level; it can be taken to the District Court. When a case is with the District Court the onus is on the Minister or his representative to defend the case there. When the case goes to the High Court it is dealt with by them whereas if a case is with the admiralty division of the court it means that if the damage occurred at the weekend, there is a question of the plaintiff having to swear an affidavit which would include certain specified information.
If the court is satisfied that the plaintiff has a case made out on affidavit and that the action is a proper one in respect of which an arrest can be effected, obviously the arrest cannot be effected until they arrive at that stage which could be many hours or indeed days after the pollution was caused. Under the legislation proposed by us the arrest can take place immediately. Indeed, if we had to wait a few days to get to the High Court and to get all the necessary information, the sworn affidavits and the specified information, it could give sufficient time for any ship to leave our jurisdiction. The legislation being proposed by us ensures that a ship can be detained immediately and the onus is on the owners to go to the High Court to ensure its release at the earliest possible date. I have no doubt that the High Court will deal with such cases as speedily as possible.
In relation to amendment No. 21 and the new section 47 which Deputy Doyle proposes, I contend that the Bill provides that any actions arising out of it should be taken to the High Court. This amendment was discussed with the Attorney General who has advised against the inclusion of amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 21. If we accepted amendment No. 21 we would limit our actions and we would tie the hands of the High Court. When the case goes to the High Court they will deal with it as expeditiously as possible. After serious consideration I regret that I am unwilling to accept the amendments.
I regret that the Minister is not disposed towards taking on board amendments Nos. 4 and 21 which we are now discussing. The Minister must know how strongly I opposed the original section 13 and of the various anomalies and defects I pointed out in that on Second Stage and on Committee Stage. To put it bluntly, the only people who will benefit from the confusion and contorted contrivance of section 13 as it now stands will be the legal profession. We should make some last ditch effort to resolve the difficulties and the confusion between the civil process and the criminal process, and the legal chaos generally that exists in this area. We are not doing that. I am prepared to withdraw amendment No. 4 but I will press amendment No. 21. The Minister has heard my arguments on two previous occasions and there is no point in my wasting time in reiterating them. We may as well get an answer one way or another as to whether the House feels it acceptable to add another section, the proposed section 47, along the terms of amendment No. 21 as I have indicated.
In relation to the civil and criminal legislation, the criminal legislation refers specifically to section 13 (3) of the Bill when a vessel which is detained tries to break out of detention. The fact that a vessel does not carry a certificate of insurance on board should be treated as a criminal offence and dealt with by the District Court. If it is available in one's head office, and a true copy can be provided fairly fast, I have no doubt that the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor will take that into consideration. It is adequately covered and I regret that I cannot accept amendment No. 21 although I appreciate the Deputy withdrawing amendment No. 4.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 12, to delete lines 45 to 51 and substitute the following:
"(b) if the ship is not registered in another Convention Country or the State, there is carried on board a certificate——
(i) issued by or under the authority of another Convention Country, or
(ii) which has been certified by the Minister that the ship satisfies such requirements as may be prescribed,
and showing that there is in force, in respect of the ship, a contract of insurance or other financial security which satisfies the law of that Convention Country concerned or the State, as the case may be, relating to the bulk carriage of oil".
This is an amendment to section 16 and it arises from a debate on Committee Stage. This amendment is to ensure that ships which are neither registered in another Convention country or this State carry on board a certificate showing that there is in force in respect of the ship a contract of insurance or other financial surety which satisfies the law of the Convention countries concerned or the State, whichever is appropriate, relating to the bulk carriage of oil. On Committee Stage Deputy Doyle expressed concern regarding the provisions in the Bill relating to the insurance required to be held by the ship's registered in non-Convention countries. The Deputy was particularly concerned that such ships might not hold insurance cover up to the same level as Irish registered ships or ships from other Convention countries. I agreed to look at this and I feel that this amendment will be acceptable. Indeed it is designed to overcome the problem and the difficulties expressed by Deputy Doyle.
I welcome this amendment as it indicates that the Minister was prepared to take on board the thrust of my amendment, No. 11, on Committee Stage. When I withdrew my amendment at that time, the Minister indicated that he would look into the matter. The thrust of my amendment was to close a loophole in the Bill as originally introduced whereby a non-Convention or flag of convenience ship would only have to comply with the law of its own country in relation to insurance.
Compared to my amendment there are two major defects in the amendment proposed by the Minister of State. I would have preferred if he had taken my amendment on board on Committee Stage. The Minister of State proposes to give statutory recognition to the certificates of all other Convention countries when carried on non-Convention countries ships whereas my amendment would only recognise the certificates of such countries as the Minister may prescribe by regulation. Obviously we must recognise the certificates of other Convention countries carried on ships flying the flags of those countries, even if we are unhappy about the insurance arrangements. However, I put it to the Minister of State that we do not need to extend this privilege to ships of non-Convention countries carrying those certificates. We can, as he rightly proposes in his amendment, restrict ships of non-Convention countries to the certificates of countries we are satisfied with and have given approval to by regulations to be made by the Minister.
My second point, which is an important point relating to administrative convenience, is that the Minister of State is proposing in this amendment that certificates not issued by another Convention country would have to be certified by him. Therefore, certificates issued by the United States of America, which according to the latest information available is not a Convention country, would have to be individually certified by the Minister. I ask him to consider that fact from an administrative point of view. On the other hand, my amendment which I pursued on Committee Stage envisages that such a non-Convention country could obtain approval from the Minister for its certificates in regulations to be prescribed by the Minister. I hope the Minister of State will be able to address those two defects, if I may call them that, in his amendment even though I welcome the thrust of the amendment which tries to accommodate the sentiments I expressed on Committee Stage.
From an administrative point of view I see no difficulties whatsoever. We want to cover all of the members of the fund including the USSR and perhaps there are a few which have ratified the Convention since September last. We accept that ships of Convention countries will carry the certificate. Irrespective of what countries have not ratified the Convention, be it the United States or otherwise, we want to be in the position whereby the Minister can inspect a ship. In fact, this is the practice which has been adopted by all of the Convention countries from Algeria to the USSR and by most of our partners in the Community, including the UK, Norway and Spain. I do not foresee any difficulties from an administrative point of view. If it does cost money to carry out these inspections to ensure that the proper certificates and insurance is being carried, it would be money well spent. I repeat that this is a practice which has been adopted by all of the other Convention countries.
There is a major logistical difficulty with the Minister of State's amendment and let me draw his attention to it. His amendment states that the certificate would have to be certified by the Minister. It would make a lot more sense to have it certified by the Minister or his agents. I have visions of a harbour master who would have to perform this function racing around the country trying to dig the Minister or the Minister of State out. Surely, it would be the Minister or his agents who would have to certify the certificate and not the Minister in person?
The Deputy can rest assured that if there is a problem in any part of the country that either the Minister or I will be available and I am sure the Deputy will not be too far behind. I can accept, however, the wording, "the Minister or his authorised officer".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 10, inclusive, have already been discussed.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 10, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 22, line 42, after "case" to insert "may".
This is a very minor amendment which is intended to correct the omission of the word "may" which occurred during the printing of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 12 to 20, inclusive, have already been discussed.
Amendments Nos. 12 to 20, inclusive, not moved.
Let me refer back to amendment No. 2 which is the only contentious amendment and which relates to pursuing a third party. I would like to make a point which may be acceptable to Deputy Doyle but if not we will take another look at it in the Seanad. That means we will have to come back to this House again. We want to have this legislation enacted as quickly as possible. Section 7 (2) covers the right of an owner who is responsible for pollution to proceed against a third party whose negligence gave rise to the pollution in the first place, for example, through colliding with a vessel which leaked oil. I feel the matter is adequately covered and I hope the Deputy will accept this explanation.
I accept it.
Acting Chairman
We will now deal with amendment No. 21.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 26, after line 27, to insert the following:
"47.—For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that pollution damage as defined by this Act is damage done by a ship and section 29 of the Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Act, 1867, section 8 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, and Order 64 of the rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, shall be construed accordingly."
Acting Chairman
Is the Deputy presenting the amendment?
I am.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Farrelly, John V.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jm.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies O'Brien and Flanagan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.
Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration" put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stage today.
Question, "That the Bill do now pass" put and agreed to.
This Bill is considered by virtue of Article 20.2.2º of the Constitution as a Bill initiated in the Dáil and is sent to the Seanad.